DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 11/14/2023.
Claims 1-30 are pending in this application, with claims 1,13,24 and 30 being independent.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Following limitations of Claim 24:
- means for requesting wireless communication system information to be sent from the target wireless device to the source wireless device;
- means for receiving PDCCH;
- means for receiving PDSCH.
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “receiving, using” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 24 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
Following limitations of Claim 25:
- means for selecting
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “selecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 25 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
Following limitations of Claim 26:
- means for selecting
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “selecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 26 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
Following limitations of Claim 27:
- means for switching
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “switching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 27 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
Following limitations of Claim 28:
- means for enabling
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “enabling” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 28 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
Following limitations of Claim 29:
- means for entering
Is being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “entering” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 29 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0094], Figure 9.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claims so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,6,10,13-14,17,21,24-25,27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by JIAO et al. (US 2025/0323709 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Jiao”).
Regarding Claims 1,13,24 and 30, Jiao discloses an apparatus, a UE (Jiao Fig.12 Para[0139] A terminal) and a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory (Jiao Fig.12 Para[0139] A memory); and at least one processor (Jiao Fig.12 Para[0139] A processor) coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission (Jiao Fig.5 Para[0098] A PDCCH sent for PDSCH and received by the node (i.e. a UE)) using a first receive beam (Jiao Fig.5 Para[0095-98] A PDCCH received using a beam (i.e. first beam) before switching), the PDCCH transmission scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission (Jiao Fig.5 Para[0098] A PDCCH sent for PDSCH); and receive the PDSCH transmission using a second receive beam (Jiao Fig.2 Para[0098] A PDSCH is received on a beam (i.e. second beam)indicated in the PDSCH).
Regarding claim 2, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao further discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to: receive the PDCCH transmission using the first receive beam, the PDCCH transmission scheduling the PDSCH transmission; and receive the PDSCH transmission using the second receive beam (Jiao Fig.12 Para[0139] A transceiver).
Regarding claims 3,14 and 25, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao further discloses select the second receive beam for the PDSCH transmission separately from the first receive beam for the PDCCH transmission (Jiao Fig.2 Para[0098] Two different beams are used).
Regarding claims 6,17 and 27, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao further discloses switch from the first receive beam to the second receive beam after reception of the PDCCH transmission to receive the PDSCH transmission (Jiao Fig.2 Para[0098] The beam switching happens after receiving PDCCH).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao further discloses wherein the first receive beam and the second receive beam are different based on a lack of an overlap in time between the PDCCH transmission and the PDSCH transmission (Jiao Fig.2 Para[0098] There is sufficient time reserved (i.e. no overlap)for beam switching so the beams are different).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4,15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Zeng et al. (US 2022/0302986 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”).
Regarding claims 4,15 and 26, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose select the first receive beam based on a first criterion; and select the second receive beam based on a second criterion that is different than the first criterion.
However, Zeng from the same field of invention discloses select the first receive beam based on a first criterion; and select the second receive beam based on a second criterion that is different than the first criterion (Zeng Fig.5-6 Para[0075-76] A beam sweeping (i.e. first criterion) is used for Beam 1 and a candidate beam (i.e. second beam) is selected using reference signal power (i.e. second criterion)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “select the first receive beam based on a first criterion; and select the second receive beam based on a second criterion that is different than the first criterion” as taught by Zeng. The motivation would have been to improve robustness and accuracy of transmitted signals (Zeng Para[0003]).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Zeng and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0413359 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Jiao in view of Zeng discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Zeng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first criterion for the first receive beam for receiving the PDCCH transmission comprises a maximum number of antenna elements that achieve a highest signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a first minimum number of antenna elements that achieve a threshold throughput, and wherein the second criterion for the second receive beam for receiving the PDSCH transmission comprises a second minimum number of antenna elements that meet an SNR threshold, wherein the SNR threshold is based on at least one of an aggregation level or a channel correlation.
However, Zhou from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first criterion for the first receive beam for receiving the PDCCH transmission comprises a maximum number of antenna elements that achieve a highest signal to noise ratio (SNR) (Zhou Para[0249,0310-312,0334] A lower SNR value is used for the selection of PDCCH beam) or a first minimum number of antenna elements that achieve a threshold throughput (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), and wherein the second criterion for the second receive beam for receiving the PDSCH transmission comprises a second minimum number of antenna elements that meet an SNR threshold, wherein the SNR threshold is based on at least one of an aggregation level or a channel correlation (Zhou Para[0249,0310-312,0334] A beam is elected using SINR value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao and Zeng to have the feature of “wherein the first criterion for the first receive beam for receiving the PDCCH transmission comprises a maximum number of antenna elements that achieve a highest signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a first minimum number of antenna elements that achieve a threshold throughput, and wherein the second criterion for the second receive beam for receiving the PDSCH transmission comprises a second minimum number of antenna elements that meet an SNR threshold, wherein the SNR threshold is based on at least one of an aggregation level or a channel correlation” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to improve beam failure recovery without signaling overhead (Zhou Para[0002]).
Claims 7-8,18-19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of LEE et al. (US 2022/0295530 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding claims 7,18 and 28, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose enable the second receive beam to receive the PDSCH transmission in response to a grant for the PDSCH within downlink control information (DCI) in the PDCCH transmission.
However, Lee from the same field of invention discloses enable the second receive beam to receive the PDSCH transmission in response to a grant for the PDSCH within downlink control information (DCI) in the PDCCH transmission (Lee Fig.12-13 Para[0243] A DCI to receive PDSCH via a different beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “enable the second receive beam to receive the PDSCH transmission in response to a grant for the PDSCH within downlink control information (DCI) in the PDCCH transmission” as taught by Lee. The motivation would have been to consider a beam change time for improved beam management (Lee Para[0018]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose wherein the second receive beam is enabled within a first slot, wherein the grant within the DCI is within the first slot, or the second receive beam is enabled in a different slot than the first slot comprising the grant.
However, Lee from the same field of invention discloses wherein the second receive beam is enabled within a first slot, wherein the grant within the DCI is within the first slot, or the second receive beam is enabled in a different slot than the first slot comprising the grant (Lee Fig.12-13 Para[0243] A PDSCH within the same slot as DCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “wherein the second receive beam is enabled within a first slot, wherein the grant within the DCI is within the first slot, or the second receive beam is enabled in a different slot than the first slot comprising the grant” as taught by Lee. The motivation would have been to consider a beam change time for improved beam management (Lee Para[0018]).
Claims 9,20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Islam et al. (US 2023/0389125 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”).
Regarding claims 9,20 and 29, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose enter a micro-sleep operation in response to an additional DCI that does not grant resources for an additional PDSCH transmission.
However, Islam from the same field of invention discloses enter a micro-sleep operation in response to an additional DCI that does not grant resources for an additional PDSCH transmission (Islam Fig.20 Para[0276-285] The UE remains inactive after receiving DCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “enter a micro-sleep operation in response to an additional DCI that does not grant resources for an additional PDSCH transmission” as taught by Islam. The motivation would have been to reduce system overhead (Islam Para[0004]).
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0338224 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee-8224”).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose wherein the PDCCH transmission is a first PDCCH transmission and the PDSCH transmission is a first PDSCH transmission, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a second PDCCH transmission that overlaps in time with a second PDSCH transmission; and receive the second PDSCH transmission using a same receive beam as the second PDCCH transmission based on an overlap in time
However, Lee-8224 from the same field of invention discloses wherein the PDCCH transmission is a first PDCCH transmission and the PDSCH transmission is a first PDSCH transmission, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a second PDCCH transmission that overlaps in time with a second PDSCH transmission; and receive the second PDSCH transmission using a same receive beam as the second PDCCH transmission based on an overlap in time (Lee-8224 Para[0220-224] The default beam is used for receiving PDCCH and PDSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “wherein the PDCCH transmission is a first PDCCH transmission and the PDSCH transmission is a first PDSCH transmission, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a second PDCCH transmission that overlaps in time with a second PDSCH transmission; and receive the second PDSCH transmission using a same receive beam as the second PDCCH transmission based on an overlap in time” as taught by Lee-8224. The motivation would have been to reduce overhead for beam configuration (Lee-8224 Para[0010]).
Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Bi et al. (US 2024/0283513 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Bi”).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Jiao discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao does not explicitly disclose wherein a lookup table comprises the first receive beam and the second receive beam from a plurality of beams to support a beam switch between the first receive beam and the second receive beam.
However, Bi from the same field of invention discloses wherein a lookup table comprises the first receive beam and the second receive beam from a plurality of beams to support a beam switch between the first receive beam and the second receive beam (Bi Fig.4B Para[0114] A receive beam is selected using a look-up table).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao to have the feature of “wherein a lookup table comprises the first receive beam and the second receive beam from a plurality of beams to support a beam switch between the first receive beam and the second receive beam” as taught by Bi. The motivation would have been to reduce overhead and latency in the channel acquisition (Bi Para[0006]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0362968 to Xi
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415