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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “wherein configuration information in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling defines an association between the information related to the one of the multiple TCI states and the preamble, and wherein the preamble is determined based on the DCI signaling and according to the association” (emphasis added).
The Examiner cannot find any support for a RRC message defines an association between a TCI state and a preamble, nor the preamble is determined based on the association.
Claim 25, 35 and 41 are rejected for the same reason as stated above. Claims depend on claim 1, 25, 35 and 41 do not cure the deficiency.
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, 25-27, 31, 35-36, 39 and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar (US 20200100201) in view of Xu (US 20240414674), and further in view of Yi (US 20230337313).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/25/35/41, Farmanbar teaches A method for wireless communication, comprising:
...
receiving ([0060], “a UE receives a TAG configuration including TAG IDs mapped to TCI states.”), by the terminal device (UE), a message comprising identifiers of multiple timing advance groups (TAGs) and identifiers of the TCI states ([0058 and Fig.5], “TAG configuration 510 comprising TAG IDs mapped to TCI states.”), wherein each of the multiple TCI states is associated with a timing advance group ([0058], “each TAG ID in a TAG configuration is mapped to a corresponding transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state.”);
receiving ([0061], “the UE may receive a PDCCH.”), by the terminal device, a second message ([0061], an indication included in the “PDCCH,” and [0062], such indication may be a “downlink control information (DCI) (e.g., DCI format 0-1) carried in” the “PDCCH.”) indicating information related to the one of the multiple TCI states ([0062], “The DCI may include a 3-bit field indicating a TCI state.” And [0061], the UE may “decode the PDCCH” by using the “assigned” TCI state.); and
applying, by the terminal device, a timing advance command associated with one of the multiple TAGs ([0061], “the UE may select a TAG ID mapped to the TCI state, and apply a timing advance associated with the TAG ID to the uplink transmission.”) to a transmission ([0061], “uplink transmission”) associated with one of the multiple TCI states ([0061], “the UE may select a TAG ID mapped to the TCI state. And [0062], “The DCI may include a 3-bit field” to indicate the “TCI state.”).
However, Farmanbar does not teach determining, by a terminal device, a preamble associated with information related to one of multiple transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states based on a Downlink Control Information (DCI) signaling from a serving cell, wherein configuration information in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling defines an association between the information related to the one of the multiple TCI states and the preamble, and wherein the preamble is determined based on the DCI signaling and according to the association;
transmitting, by the terminal device, the preamble to the serving cell;
In an analogous art, Xu teaches determining, by a terminal device, a preamble ([0249], “The PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may further indicate a preamble index,”) associated with information related a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states ([0249], “a unified TCI state”) based on a Downlink Control Information (DCI) signaling from a serving cell ([0249], “the PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may comprise a bit field indicating a unified TCI state (e.g., used for the transmission of the second preamble). The PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may further indicate a preamble index.”) ... wherein the preamble is determined based on the DCI signaling ([0249], “the wireless device may transmit (e.g., at time T6) the second preamble based on the unified TCI state.”) ...
transmitting, by the terminal device, the preamble to the serving cell ([0249], “the wireless device may transmit (e.g., at time T6) the second preamble based on the unified TCI state.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify a TCI state as taught by Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit a preamble according to the TCI state.
However, the combination of Framanbar and Xu does not teach wherein configuration information in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling defines an association between the information related to the one of the multiple TCI states and the preamble, and wherein the preamble is determined based on ... according to the association.
In an analogous art, Yi teaches wherein configuration information in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling ([0493], “The base station may transmit one or more RRC messages comprising configuration parameters.”) defines an association between the information related to the one ([0493], “The configuration parameters may indicate/comprise a first TCI state (or a first reference signal) of the contention-free PRACH resource, where the first TCI state (or the first reference signal) may indicate a downlink reference signal to identify a preamble resource.”) of the multiple TCI states ([0493], first TCI state and second TCI state.) and the preamble ([0493], “where the first TCI state (or the first reference signal) may indicate a downlink reference signal to identify a preamble resource.”), and wherein the preamble is determined based on ... according to the association ([0493], “where the first TCI state (or the first reference signal) may indicate a downlink reference signal to identify a preamble resource.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify a RRC message as taught by Yi. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine preamble resource based on a TCI state.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 4/26/36/42, Farmanbar teaches wherein the transmission ([0061], “the UE may select a TAG ID mapped to the TCI state, and apply a timing advance associated with the TAG ID to the uplink transmission.”)comprises at least one of: a Physical Uplink Control Channel transmission, a Physical Uplink Shared Channel transmission ([0053], “an uplink transmission (e.g., an uplink transmission on either a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)).”), a Sounding Reference Signal transmission, or a Physical Random Access Channel transmission.
Regarding claim(s) 31/39, Farmanbar teaches information related to the one ([0062], “downlink control information (DCI) (e.g., DCI format 0-1) carried in a PDCCH. The DCI may include a 3-bit field indicating a TCI state.”) of the multiple TCI states ([0058 and Fig.5], “TAG configuration 510 comprising TAG IDs mapped to TCI states.”).
However, Farmanbar does not teach wherein the DCI signaling comprises a field indicating the preamble.
In an analogous art, Xu teaches DCI signaling comprises a field indicating the preamble ([0249], “the PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may comprise a bit field indicating a unified TCI state (e.g., used for the transmission of the second preamble). The PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may further indicate a preamble index.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify a TCI state as taught by Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit a preamble according to the TCI state.
Regarding claim(s) 27/43, Xu teaches wherein the DCI signaling comprises a field indicating a preamble ([0249], “the PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may comprise a bit field indicating a unified TCI state (e.g., used for the transmission of the second preamble). The PDCCH order (or the downlink control information) may further indicate a preamble index.”) associated with a TCI state ([0249], “a unified TCI state”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify a TCI state as taught by Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit a preamble according to the TCI state.
Claim(s) 12, 33-34, 37 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar in view of Xu and Yi, and further in view of Cirik (US 20210051710).
Regarding claim(s) 12/33/34/37/44/45, Cirik teaches wherein the second message ([0387], “The wireless device may receive, via a control resource set (CORESET), a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order initiating a random-access procedure.”) is associated with a random access preamble ([0387], “wherein a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of the CORESET may indicate an uplink reference signal. The wireless device may, based on the TCI state indicating the uplink reference signal, determine a ... transmission of a random-access preamble.”) corresponding to the information related to one of the multiple TCI states ([0387], “wherein a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state of the CORESET.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify TCI state as taught by Cirik. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for random access procedure.
Claim(s) 32, 40 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar in view of Xu and Yi, and further in view of Cirik (US 20230209538) provisional document 63/294,708.
Regarding claim(s) 32/40/46, Cirik teaches wherein the information ([0209], “DCI”) related to the one of the multiple TCI states ([0209], “at least two common/unified TCI states.”) comprises a physical cell index or coreset pool index ([0209], “The DCI may comprise a field (e.g., TRP index or a CORESET pool index, or a common/unified TCI state index, and the like). The field may comprise/indicate a value.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Farmanbar to specify CORESET pool index as taught by Cirik. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to transmit a reference signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 03/06/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection in instant Office action does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights