DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 12/19/2025.
2. Claims 1 – 17, 19 – 41, 43 – 59 and 61 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1, 13, 19, 25, 37, 43, 49 and 61 have been amended.
4. Claims 18, 42 and 60 have been cancelled.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant ‘s representative on 12/19/2025 were reviewed thoroughly. The following observation had been made:
The independent claims (Claims 1, 25 and 49) have been amended to recite the following limitations (taken from cancel claims 18,42 and 60):
“…applying a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI) to at least one physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition or to at least one PUSCH according to first one of a plurality of SRS resource sets in an event that the plurality of SRS resource sets are configured, wherein the SRI is given by a first DCI field including one SRS resource indicator in the DCI.”
The examiner in the last office action rejected the amended portion of the independent claims as set forth above (original claims 18 and 42) using the primary reference of Jiang (US 2025/0175840 A1) particularly the table on page 18. The applicant response on page 26 of the arguments submitted (12/19/2025) is recited below:
“…Jiang merely mentions that the DCI field includes SRI. However, the applicant respectfully submits that Jiang does not disclose how to apply SRI to one or more PUSCHs, nor does Jiang disclose how to map SRS resource sets to PUSCH or PUSCH repetition in an event that multiple SRS resource sets are configured. That is, Jiang merely provides the types of fields in the DCI, but does not introduce how to use these fields.”
The Examiner disagrees for at least the reason set forth below:
The amended portion of the independent claims set forth above possesses alternate language and can be interpreted as:
“…applying a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI)
Without making reference to Jiang, the term SRI is expanded to mean sounding reference signal resource indicator. This indicator tells the UE which specific SRS resource (or set of resources) to use as a reference for applying a spatial filter or precoder to its PUSCH transmission, effectively directing the uplink signal in a specific beam. This is well known in the art/technology as to how the SRI works; however, the DCI can be used to transmit the SRI but not always. In other words, most of the amended limitation (except that SRI is not always transmitted over the DCI) is accounted in the operation of the SRI well established in the current technology. Referring to page 18 of Jiang, the table is directed to a DCI format (0_X), and within the table is an SRS resource indicator field. The SRI indicator operates as explained above and in view of the table on page 18 of Jiang, the amended portion of the independent claims is accounted for.
In addition, at the end of claim 1 rejection of the last office action (page 5), the reference R1-220XXXX was provided as an additional reference that reads on the independent claim’s limitations. Looking at page 51 of R1-220XXXX, spread spectrum communications provided the content of DCI format 0_X (proposal 18: The fields in DCI format 0_X) and under the “type-3” fields (at the bottom of page 51) of the DCI 0_X are fields: “SRS resource set indicator” and “second SRS resource indicator” which reads on the amended portion of the independent claims which states: “…one of a plurality of SRS resource sets in an event that the plurality of SRS resource sets are configured…” (since a set of resources must be configured in order to have “SRS resource set indicator” and “second SRS resource indicator”) . In conclusion, the amendments does not change the scope of the independent claims and is rejected by the references provided in the last office action. See claim rejection that follows. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8, 16 – 17, 25 – 28, 30 - 32, 40 – 41, 49 – 52, 54 -56, 58 – 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses: A method for handling a multi-cell scheduling used by a user equipment (UE), [¶ 0007: “… where the DCI format can schedule PUSCHs of multiple cells (or uplink carriers) …”] the method comprising:
receiving a downlink control information (DCI) from a first serving cell; [¶0084, the DCI is received by the UE over a serving cell, see figure 9, the right diagram, the DCI format 0_X is received via the PDSCH on the Pcell]
determining a first number of a plurality of scheduled cells according to the DCI, wherein the DCI is configured to schedule at least one communication on the plurality of scheduled cells; and [¶ 0326, ¶ 0084, the DCI will schedule PUSCH on one or more than one cell and /or uplink carrier, see the right diagram of figures 9 and 10 (¶ 0130)]
performing the at least one communication on at least one of the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells according to the DCI, wherein [the right diagram of figures 9 and 10 (¶ 0130 and ¶ 0132) that is the transmission over the PUSCH is over two Scells]
the DCI comprises at least one single DCI field, at least one separate DCI field and at least one configurable DCI field; and [see the table at the bottom of page 17 which deals with fields inside DCI format 0_X. One such field in the DCI seen in ¶ 0362 is a single field (type 1 field). Another field in the DCI as seen in ¶ 0363 is a separate field (type 2 field) and in ¶ 0364 is a field that deals with explicit configuration=configurable DCI field this is interpreted in view of ¶ 0063 of the specification of this application)].
applying a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI) to at least one physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition or to at least one PUSCH according to first one of a plurality of SRS resource sets in an event that the plurality of SRS resource sets are configured, wherein the SRI is given by a first DCI field including one SRS resource indicator in the DCI. [Without making reference to Jiang, the term SRI is expanded to mean sounding reference signal resource indicator. This indicator tells the UE which specific SRS resource (or set of resources) to use as a reference for applying a spatial filter or precoder to its PUSCH transmission, effectively directing the uplink signal in a specific beam. This is what is well known in the art/technology, the only difference is the SRI being sent via the DCI. on page 18 of Jiang, the table is directed to a DCI format (0_X), and within the table is an SRS resource indicator field].
The term resource set in view of the amended portion of claim 1 is not explicitly disclosed by Jiang, such difference is seen in the reference of R1-220XXXX, Looking at page 51 of R1-220XXX, spread spectrum communications provided the content of DCI format 0_X (proposal 18: The fields in DCI format 0_X) and under the “type-3” fields (at the bottom of page 51) of the DCI 0_X are: “SRS resource set indicator” and “second SRS resource indicator” which reads on the amended portion of the independent claims which states: “…one of a plurality of SRS resource sets in an event that the plurality of SRS resource sets are configured…” (since a set of resources must be configured in order to have “SRS resource set indicator” and “second SRS resource indicator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXXX. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to provide Multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI [see the first paragraph under the introduction section on the first page of R1-220XXXX].
Claims 25 and 49 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1. Such elements as the transceiver, processor and memory are seen in the reference Jiang see figure 32 labelled: 3220, 3210 and 3230.
NOTE to applicant:
In this application specification submitted on 09/19/2023, ¶ 0063 refer Type-1 field to be the single field, Type-2 field to be the separate field and type-3 field to be the configurable field of DCI format 0_X/1_X.
Additional reference to consider is: R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022), discloses the independent claims regarding the three fields described above: see page 50, “Spreadtrum Communications”
Claim 2, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the single DCI field corresponds to the at least one of the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells. [¶ 0362: “co-scheduled cells”]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXX, page 50, proposal 17, type -1 field: “co-scheduled cells”].
Claims 26 and 50 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim 3, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 2, wherein the single DCI field comprises at least one of: an identifier for DCI format; a co-scheduled cells indicator; a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator for the plurality of scheduled cells that support dynamic BWP switching; a downlink assignment index; a transmission power control (TPC) command for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); a PUCCH resource indicator; a physical downlink shared channel-to-hybrid automatic repeat request (PDSCH-to-HARQ) timing indicator; a one-shot HARQ-ACK request; a beta offset indicator; a channel state information (CSI) request; and a time domain resource allocation (TDRA). [¶ 0362: co-scheduled cells by a joint indicator, see also the table on page 17 for other parameters of the DCI field]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXX, page 50, proposal 17, type -1 field].
Claims 27 and 51 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 4, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the separate DCI field corresponds to a second number of information blocks, and each of the information blocks indicates control information for one of the plurality of scheduled cells. [based on the interpretation of the term “information block” of this application an example is given in figure 8, that is, in “the separate field” of figure 8 there are four cells hence four information block, the reference of Jiang discloses this feature in the separate field see ¶ 0363]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXX, page 56, Intel, proposal 5 and proposal 1 on page 57 under interdigital].
Claims 28 and 52 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 6, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 4, wherein the control information corresponds to one of following: a new data indicator (NDI); a redundancy version (RV); a modulation coding scheme (MCS); and a frequency domain resource assignment (FDRA). [¶ 0349]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXX, page 50 - 51, proposal 17, type - 3 field].
Claims 30 and 54 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim 7, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining one of the at least one configurable DCI field corresponding to the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells in an event that the configurable DCI field is a first type; and [see table 1 on the 17th page, type 1 indicates the co schedule channels]
determining one of the at least one configurable DCI field comprising a plurality of information blocks in which each of the information blocks corresponds to a sub-group or one of the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells in an event that the configurable DCI field is a second type. [¶ 0363: type 2 field indicates the subgroups that includes one or more co scheduled channels]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXX, page 59, “proposal update”, “type-3”].
Claims 31 and 55 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 7.
Claim 8, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 7, wherein the configurable DCI field comprises at least one of:
a rate matching indicator; a zero power (ZP) channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) trigger; precoding information and number of layers; a phase-tracking reference signal-demodulation reference signal (PTRS-DMRS) association; an antenna port; a transmission configuration indicator (TCI); a sounding reference signal (SRS) request; a DMRS sequence initialization; an SRS resource indicator (SRI); and a physical reference block (PRB) bundling size indicator. [see the last few lines of the table on page 18]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXXX, page 50, proposal 17, type -3 field].
Claims 32 and 56 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 8.
Claim 16, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the DCI is configured in a UE-specific search space (USS) and a length of the DCI is determined according to at least one higher layer configuration. [¶ 0200]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXXX, proposal 14 on page 32].
Claims 40 and 58 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 16.
Claim 17, Jiang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein the DCI is scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identity (C-RNTI) and a length of the DCI is not equal to a length of first DCI with a different format scrambled by the C-RNTI. [¶0107: “… According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the base station may configure search space set 1 and search space set 2 for the UE, may configure DCI format A scrambled with an X-RNTI in search space set 1 so as to be monitored in the common search space, and may configure DCI format B scrambled with a Y-RNTI in search space set 2 so as to be monitored in the UE-specific search space…”]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXXX, page 38, “CATT”].
Claims 41 and 59 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 17.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 29, 35, 53, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and Bang et al. (US 2023/0217458 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 4 [see rejected claim 4].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: wherein the second number of information blocks are placed according to an ascending order of a serving cell index, and a first information block corresponds to a smallest serving cell index; and wherein the second number equals to the first number.
In the same field of endeavor Bang discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0197: “…In the bitmap, a first bit may be mapped to a lowest (or highest) cell index in the cell group, and a next bit may be mapped in an ascending order (or descending order) of a cell index. Alternatively, the first bit may be mapped from a first cell index in the cell group configured through higher layer signaling. The base station may configure a cell group indicator and the bitmap indicating the cells to be scheduled in the group as separate fields and may include the fields in the DCI…”. [see additional reference of R1-220XXXX, page 75, “mediaTek”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXXX and Bang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for the base station to schedule a plurality of cells through one DCI and a method by which the UE determines and interprets the DCI [¶ 0194 of Bang].
Claims 29 and 53 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 11, Bang further discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a length of information blocks in the separate DCI field or in the configurable DCI field to be the same, or determining a length of information block in the separate DCI field or in the configurable DCI field according to at least one higher layer signaling. [¶ 0197: “…The base station may configure a cell group indicator and the bitmap indicating the cells to be scheduled in the group as separate fields and may include the fields in the DCI, or may configure the same as one field and may indicate the field to the UE. When the cell group indicator and the bitmap indicating the cells to be scheduled in the group are configured as one field, the UE may determine that MSB (or LSB) values indicate the cell group indicator and the remaining bits constitute the bitmap indicating the cells to be scheduled in the group. Sizes of the cell group indicator and the bitmap fields may be determined based on configured higher layer signaling…”]. [see additional reference of R1-220XXXX, page 74, “CAICT”].
Claims 35 and 57 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 11.
Claim(s) 19, 24, 43, 48, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and Zhou et al. (US 2022/0007208 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 1 [see rejected claim 18].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: wherein an SRS resource set indicator is absent in the DCI.
In the same field of endeavor Zhou discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0421,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXXX and Zhou. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for determining the spatial relation information [¶ 0421].
Claims 43 and 61 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 24, Zhou further discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in an event that a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI) is absent in the DCI, determining a spatial relation for at least one PUSCH according to one of following:
a spatial relation of a reference cell or a co-scheduled serving cell;
a pathloss reference signal (PL-RS) configured for an SRS resource set; a predetermined SRI associated with the SRS resource set;
a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state with an identification (ID) of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH);
an ID of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH);
a quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption; and an ID of control resource set (CORESET). [¶ 0421].
Claim 48 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 24.
Claim(s) 12 – 13 and 36 - 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and MolavianJazi et al. (US 2022/0053522 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang in view of in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 1 [see rejected claim 1].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: not performing one of the at least one communication on one of the plurality of scheduled cells in an event that control information for one of the plurality of scheduled cells is absent from the DCI.
In the same field of endeavor MolavianJazi discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0335: “…so the gNB may eventually realize that the UE has lost the indications for a switching(s) of the active scheduling cell. In such a case, based on the configured inactivity timer value, both gNB and the UE may eventually fall back to a same active scheduling cell, namely, the default scheduling cell.”, that is, the indication is sent via the DCI and when missing/absent it switches to a default cell hence, ceasing communication over the current cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXXX and MolavianJazi. The motivation for making the above modification would have been “…provide a long-term protection for missing PDCCHs/DCI formats used for indicating a switching of the active scheduling cell …”[¶ 0335 of MolavianJazi ].
Claim 36 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 12.
Claim 13, MolavianJazi further discloses: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: applying a default value for control information of the DCI one of the plurality of scheduled cells in an event that the DCI does not carry valid [[the]] control information is absent from the DCI corresponding to the plurality of scheduled cells. [¶ 0335: “…so the gNB may eventually realize that the UE has lost the indications for a switching(s) of the active scheduling cell. In such a case, based on the configured inactivity timer value, both gNB and the UE may eventually fall back to a same active scheduling cell, namely, the default scheduling cell.”, that is, the indication is sent via the DCI and when missing/absent it switches to a default cell hence (implies a default value is being used), ceasing communication over the current cell].
For motivation see claim 12.
Claim 37 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 13.
Claim(s) 14 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and Matsumura et al. (US 2023/0327742 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 1 [see rejected claim 1].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: applying a quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in the plurality of communications based on a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state with a lowest identification (ID) applicable for the PDSCH in an event that TCI state is absent from the DCI.
In the same field of endeavor Matsumura discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0068. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXX and Matsumura. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to account for a missing TCI state that is absent [¶ 0068 of Matsumura].
Claim 38 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 37.
Claim(s) 15 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and Takeda et al. (US 2024/0049244 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 1 [see rejected claim 1].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: wherein the step of determining the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells according to the DCI further comprises: determining the first number of the plurality of scheduled cells from a third number of the plurality of scheduled cells, wherein the first number is less than or equals to the third number, and a maximum number of the third number of serving cell is 4 and/or a minimum number of the first number of serving cell is 1.
In the same field of endeavor Takeda discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0126. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXXX and Takeda. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to apply the property of DCI format 0_X [¶ 0126 of Takeda].
Claim 39 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 15.
Claim(s) 20 – 23 and 44 – 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2025/0175840 A1) in view of R1-220XXXX (Feature lead summary #1 on multi-cell PUSCH/PDSCH scheduling with a single DCI, Toulouse, France, August 22nd – 26th, 2022, provided in the last office action) and Muruganathan et al. (US 2023/0076139)
Regarding claim 20, Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX discloses: The method according to claim 1 [see rejected claim 1].
Jiang in view of R1-220XXXX does not disclose: determining a first relation between at least one of a plurality of SRS resource sets and at least one physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition or a second relation between the at least one of the plurality of SRS resource sets and at least one PUSCH according to an SRS resource set indicator in the DCI in an event that the plurality of SRS resource sets are configured; and transmitting the at least one PUSCH repetition according to the first relation between the at least one of plurality of SRS resource sets and the at least one PUSCH repetition or transmitting the at least one PUSCH according to the second relation between the at least one of the plurality of SRS resource sets and the at least one PUSCH.
In the same field of endeavor Muruganathan discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0164 - ¶ 0166 and ¶ 0168. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s system in view of R1-220XXX and Muruganathan. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to enables PUSCH transmission towards multiple TRPs. [¶ 163 of Muruganathan ].
Claim 44 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 20.
Claim 21, Muruganathan further discloses: The method according to claim 20, wherein the step of determining the second relation between the at least one of the plurality of SRS resource sets and the at least one PUSCH [¶ 0166] further comprises:
in an event that a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI) is absent in the DCI, determining a spatial relation for the at least one PUSCH according to one of following:
a predetermined SRI associated to one of the plurality of SRS resource sets; [¶ 0166, “…in some embodiments, when this condition is met, then SRI does not need to be indicated to the UE and ‘SRS resource indicator’ field can be absent from DCI…”]
a pathloss reference signal (PL-RS) configured for one of the plurality of SRS resource sets;
a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state with an identification (ID) of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH);
an ID of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); and a quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumption or a value of control resource set (CORESET).
For motivation see claim 20.
Claim 45 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 21.
Claim 22, Muruganathan further discloses: The method according to claim 20, wherein the step of determining the second relation between the at least one of the plurality of SRS resource sets and the at least one PUSCH further comprises: determining a spatial relation for the at least one PUSCH according to at least one SRI field in the DCI. [¶ 0166].
Claim 46 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 22.
Claim 23, Muruganathan further discloses: The method according to claim 20, further comprising: determining a spatial relation for the at least one PUSCH according to at least one demodulation reference signal (DMRS) port indicated by an antenna port field in the DCI. [¶ 0166].
Claim 47 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 9 – 10 and 33 - 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming all rejection(s)/objection(s) set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463