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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 02/11/2026.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended.
Objection to the Specification is withdrawn.
Rejection to claims under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 5, and 6, filed on 02/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related to solely to alternative limitations that have not been examined in the previous Office Action (OA) dated 11/13/2025 and addressed in the instant OA with newly identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “… based on a specific control resource set corresponding to a control resource pool index of a specific downlink control channel …” However, there is no antecedent basis in Parent Claim 1 for the term “a control resource pool index.” Parent Claim 1 only introduces and establishes the terminology “control resource set pool indices.” It is unclear whether “a control resource pool index” in Claim 3 is intended to refer back to the singular form of “control resource set pool indices” of Claim 1 (with the noun “set” inadvertently omitted), or if it introduces a completely new, unrecited type of index that is distinct from the control resource set pool index. To overcome this ground of rejection, Applicant is advised to amend Claim 3 to align its terminology with parent Claim 1 (e.g., changing “a control resource pool index” to “a control resource set pool index”).
Furthermore, Claim 3 specifies that the determination is based on a specific control resource set corresponding to an index of “a specific downlink control channel out of the plurality of downlink control channels.” The phrase “a specific downlink control channel” is vague and ambiguous because the claim fails to provide any functional limitation or objective criteria to determine which particular control channel among the plurality of received channels qualifies as the “specific” one. It is unclear whether the terminal is free to arbitrarily choose any channel, or if a specific technical rule (e.g., the channel with the lowest index, or the channel received in a most recent slot) must be applied to identify the specific channel.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240187199, hereinafter “Gao`199”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gao`199 unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, Gao`199 teaches A terminal (Fig. 10: a device 1000) comprising:
a receiving section (Fig. 10: a suitable transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX) 1040) that receives a plurality of downlink control channels supporting application of different control resource set pool indices (para [0185] of Gao: the terminal device 130 may be configured with a first subset of CORESETs and a second subset of CORESETs (interpreted as “control resource set pool indices”, see para [0166]:‘each TRP in the M TRPs may be represented by or associated with at least one of the following: a control resource set (CORESET) pool index; a CORESET subset identifier (ID);’), and the first subset of CORESETs is configured/indicated/activated with a first TCI state, and the second subset of CORESETs is configured/indicated/activated with a second TCI state. The terminal device may be configured with a first PDCCH in a first search space set in a first CORESET in the first subset associated/linked with a second PDCCH in a second search space set in a second CORESET in the second subset. … The terminal device 130 may receive the first PDCCH and the second PDCCH.); and
a control section (Fig. 10: a processor 1010) that, when a scheduling offset between at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels and a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels is smaller than a given value, controls reception of the physical shared channel, based on a default TCI state configured for each of control resource set pool indices (para [0185] of Gao: the terminal device 130 may be configured with a first subset of CORESETs and a second subset of CORESETs, and the first subset of CORESETs is configured/indicated/activated with a first TCI state, and the second subset of CORESETs is configured/indicated/activated with a second TCI state. The terminal device may be configured with a first PDCCH in a first search space set in a first CORESET in the first subset associated/linked with a second PDCCH in a second search space set in a second CORESET in the second subset. … the terminal device may assume the DMRS ports(s) of the PDSCH transmission(s) is associated with the first TCI state and the second TCI state if the time offset between the reception of the DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is less than a threshold. For example, the threshold may be the first threshold. For another example, the terminal device supports two default TCI states.) (para [0186]: As shown in FIG. 7E, the terminal device 130 may be configured a TCI state T1_1 for T1, and a TCI state T2_2 for T2. And the terminal device 130 may receive PDCCH 751 (which is associated with T1) with T1_1, and receive PDCCH 752 (which is associated with T2) with T2_2 (interpreted as “a default TCI state configured for each of control resource set pool indices”) and the PDCCH 751 and PDCCH 752 may schedule PDSCH (interpreted as “a physical shared channel scheduled by the plurality of downlink control channels”) , and the PDCCH 751 and PDCCH 752 may indicate a TCI state T2_1, which is associated with T2. In some embodiments, if the first symbol of the PDSCH is earlier than threshold A (for example, PDSCH 753) (interpreted as “a scheduling offset … is smaller than a given value”), the DMRS of PDSCH 753 is associated with TCI state T1_1(interpreted as “controls reception of the physical shared channel, based on a default TCI state”). In some embodiments, if the first symbol of the PDSCH is not earlier than threshold A (for example, PDSCH 754), the DMRS of PDSCH 754 is associated with TCI state T2_2.)
Regarding claim 5, it is a radio communication method claim corresponding to the terminal claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, it is a base station claim corresponding to the terminal claim 1, except limitations “a base station” (Figs. 1, 2, ‘network device 110’ and para [0032]: the network device 110 may be configured with two TRPs/panels 120-1 and 120-2), “a transmitting section” (Fig. 10: a suitable transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX) 1040)”, and “a control section” (Fig. 10: a processor 1010), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 2, Gao`199 teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set out of control resource sets having been monitored in a most recent slot in which the control resource sets are monitored (para [0070]: The UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest controlResourceSetld in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs within the active BWP of the serving cell are monitored by the UE. In this case, if the qcl-Type is set to ‘typeD’ of the PDSCH DM-RS is different from that of the PDCCH DM-RS with which they overlap in at least one symbol, the UE is expected to prioritize the reception of PDCCH associated with that CORESET. This also applies to the intra-band CA case (when PDSCH and the CORESET are in different component carriers).).
Regarding claim 3, Gao`199 teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set corresponding to a control resource pool index of a specific downlink control channel out of the plurality of downlink control channels (para [0071]: If a UE is configured with enableDefaultTCIStatePerCoresetPoolIndex and the UE is configured by higher layer parameter PDCCH-Config that contains two different values of coresetPoolIndex in different ControlResourceSets.) (para [0072]: The UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH (interpreted as “judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel”) associated with a value of coresetPoolIndex of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest controlResourceSetId among CORESETs (the lowest is interpreted as “a control resource pool index of a specific downlink control channel out of the plurality of downlink control channels”) , which are configured with the same value of coresetPoolIndex as the PDCCH scheduling that PDSCH, in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs associated with the same value of coresetPoolIndex as the PDCCH scheduling that PDSCH within the active BWP of the serving cell are monitored by the UE. In this case, if the ‘QCL-TypeD’ of the PDSCH DM-RS is different from that of the PDCCH DM-RS with which they overlap in at least one symbol and they are associated with same coresetPoolIndex, the UE is expected to prioritize the reception of PDCCH associated with that CORESET. This also applies to the intra-band CA case (when PDSCH and the CORESET are in different component carriers).)
Regarding claim 4, Gao`199 teaches The terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control section judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel, based on a specific control resource set out of control resource sets corresponding to at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels (para [0072]: The UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH (interpreted as “judges quasi co-location of the physical shared channel”) associated with a value of coresetPoolIndex of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RS(s) with respect to the QCL parameter(s) used for PDCCH quasi co-location indication of the CORESET associated with a monitored search space with the lowest controlResourceSetId among CORESETs (the lowest is interpreted as “a specific control resource set out of control resource sets corresponding to at least one of the plurality of downlink control channels”) , which are configured with the same value of coresetPoolIndex as the PDCCH scheduling that PDSCH, in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs associated with the same value of coresetPoolIndex as the PDCCH scheduling that PDSCH within the active BWP of the serving cell are monitored by the UE. In this case, if the ‘QCL-TypeD’ of the PDSCH DM-RS is different from that of the PDCCH DM-RS with which they overlap in at least one symbol and they are associated with same coresetPoolIndex, the UE is expected to prioritize the reception of PDCCH associated with that CORESET. This also applies to the intra-band CA case (when PDSCH and the CORESET are in different component carriers).).
Conclusion
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 WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 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 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights