CTFR 18/508,758 CTFR 90498 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,4-5,13,15-16,24,26 and 30 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-30 are pending in this application, with claims 1,13,24 and 30 being independent. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1,13,24 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 11, “. . the second receive beam is based . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam is selected based . .” In claim 1, line 12, “. . the first receive beam . .” should read ““. . the first receive beam selection . .” In claim 1, line 12, “. . the second receive beam . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam selection . .” In claim 13, line 7, “. . the second receive beam is based . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam is selected based . .” In claim 13, line 8, “. . the first receive beam . .” should read ““. . the first receive beam selection . .” In claim 13, line 8, “. . the second receive beam . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam selection . .” In claim 24, line 7, “. . the second receive beam is based . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam is selected based . .” In claim 24, line 8, “. . the first receive beam . .” should read ““. . the first receive beam selection . .” In claim 24, line 8, “. . the second receive beam . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam selection . .” In claim 30, line 8, “. . the second receive beam is based . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam is selected based . .” In claim 30, line 9, “. . the first receive beam . .” should read ““. . the first receive beam selection . .” In claim 30, line 9, “. . the second receive beam . .” should read ““. . the second receive beam selection . .” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention. In claims 1,13,24 and 30, the phrases “aggregation level” and “channel correlation” are unclear as to what it refers to such what is being aggregated, which channels, how they are applied to determine SNR threshold, etc. Claims 2-12 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 1. Claims 14-23 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 13. Claims 25-29 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 24. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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: 07-34-21 - 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3,6,10,13-14,17,21,24-25,27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIAO et al. (US 2025/0323709 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Jiao”) in view of Alam et al. (US 2023/0198591 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Alam”) and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0413359 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”) . 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, 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) . Jiao does not explicitly disclose wherein the second receive beam is based on a second criterion that is different than a first criterion for the first receive beam, 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 a signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold. However, Alam from the same field of invention discloses wherein the second receive beam is based on a second criterion that is different than a first criterion for the first receive beam (Alam Para[0065] A number of antenna array elements is used for beam refinement. The applicant is not clear about a first criterion and the first beam selection using it) , 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 a signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold (Alam Para[0065] A minimum number of antenna array elements is used for beam refinement to switch beam for meeting quality of service (i.e. SNR)) . 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 based on a second criterion that is different than a first criterion for the first receive beam, 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 a signal to noise ratio (SNR) threshold” as taught by Alam . The motivation would have been to improve beam selection for better user experience ( Alam Para[0002]). Jiao in view of Alam does not explicitly disclose discloses 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 SNR threshold is based on at least one of an aggregation level or a channel correlation (Zhou Para[0249,0310-312,0334] A beam pair link quality (i.e. SNR) is QCLed (i.e. correlated) for RS resources). 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 Alam to have the feature of “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]). Regarding claim 2, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 in view of Alam and Zhou 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 in view of Alam and Zhou 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 in view of Alam and Zhou 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5,15-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Alam, Zhou and Zeng et al. (US 2022/0302986 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”) . Regarding claims 4,15 and 26, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Alam further discloses select the second receive beam based on the second criterion (Alam Para[0065] A minimum number of antenna array elements (i.e. second criterion) is used for beam refinement). 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 Zhou to have the feature of “select the second receive beam based on the second criterion” as taught by Alam . The motivation would have been to improve beam selection for better user experience ( Alam Para[0002]). Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou does not explicitly disclose select the first receive beam based on the first criterion. However, Zeng from the same field of invention discloses select the first receive beam based on the first criterion (Zeng Fig.5-6 Para[0075-76] A beam sweeping (i.e. first criterion) is used for Beam 1) . 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 , Alam and Zhou to have the feature of “select the first receive beam based on the first criterion” as taught by Zeng . The motivation would have been to improve robustness and accuracy of transmitted signals ( Zeng Para[0003]). Regarding claims 5 and 16, Jiao in view of Alam, Zhou and Zeng discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Zhou further 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 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). 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 , Alam 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)” as taught by Zhou . The motivation would have been to improve beam failure recovery without signaling overhead ( Zhou Para[0002]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8,18-19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Alam, Zhou and further in view of LEE et al. (US 2022/0295530 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) . Regarding claims 7,18 and 28, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 , Alam and Zhou 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 in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 , Alam and Zhou 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]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9,20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Alam, Zhou and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2023/0389125 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Islam”) . Regarding claims 9,20 and 29, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 , Alam and Zhou 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]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0338224 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lee-8224”) . Regarding claims 11 and 22, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 , Alam and Zhou 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]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao in view of Alam, Zhou and further in view of Bi et al. (US 2024/0283513 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Bi”) . Regarding claims 12 and 23, Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou discloses the apparatus, the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jiao in view of Alam and Zhou 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 , Alam and Zhou 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). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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). 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 2 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 3 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 4 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 5 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 6 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 7 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 8 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 9 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 10 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 11 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 12 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 13 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 14 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 15 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 16 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 17 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 18 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 19 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 20 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 21 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 22 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 23 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 24 Art Unit: 2415 Application/Control Number: 18/508,758 Page 25 Art Unit: 2415
Prosecution Insights