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 Arguments Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been considered for examination. With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification other than what is set forth below have been withdrawn. With regard to the 112(b) rejections , Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities: The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the phrase, “ In some aspects ” (line 1) , which can be implied. See MPEP § 608.01(b): It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5 , 7 -14, 17, 20-21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (US Publication No. 2019/0014568 A1) in view of Lee et al (US Publication No. 2018/0288645 A1) and further in view of Manolakos et al (US Publication No . 2019/0380054). Regarding claim 1, Nilsson discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054, UE 420 for wireless communication] , comprising: a memory [FIG. 12; its related descriptions; ¶0073, data storage system 1208; note that every UE has at least one memory ] ; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to [FIG. 12; its related descriptions; ¶0073, data processing apparatus (DPA) 1202 or one or more processor 1255; note that every UE has at least one processor coupled to the memory ] : receive an indication that beam switching without an explicit beam indication or activation is allowed [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054-0056, the UE receives an indication that beam switching without an explicit beam indication is allowed; note that in ¶0054-0056 of Nilsson, it is described that the UE performs to select a new UE RX beam (step 706) and change/switch to the new best UE RX beam (step 714) in response to triggering (step 702) of the UE RX beam training procedure, even when the network does not explicitly indicate in the triggering which RX beam the UE should switch to (in fact, no explicit RX beam is indicated in the triggering). In other words, the network simply triggers the RX beam training procedure without providing an explicit RX beam indication, and the UE can determine the optimal RX beam based on the training. Thus, from the UE’s perspective, the triggering (step 702) for UE RX beam training procedure can be interpreted as an indication that the beam switching without an explicit RX beam indication is allowed ] ; transmit a channel state information (CSI) report . . . [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054 and 0057, the UE reports back CSI including information about PMI, CQI and RI (step 710)] ; and selectively switch to the selected beam in accordance with the indication , w herein, to selectively switch to the selected beam, the one or more processors are configured to activate a beam defined by the selected beam [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0056, the UE switches to the stored best UE RX beam for PDSCH reception (step 714) based on the triggering (step 702) ; note that the best UE RX beam to which the UE switches is required to be activated for being used as UE RX beam ] . Although Nilsson discloses, “ transmit a channel state information (CSI) report ” as set forth above, Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), transmit a channel state information (CSI) report identifying a selected beam . However, Lee discloses, transmit a channel state information (CSI) report identifying a selected beam [¶0005 and 0038, the UE 230 reports beam information of N selected beams to the BS 120; further see ¶0005, “the UE 130 chooses one or more beams whose measurement results are more desirable to be selected beams, and reports beam identifiers (ID) and the measurement results of the selected beams to the BS 110”] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Nilsson with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Lee to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Lee into the system of Nilsson would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure the base station to identify the UE’s preferred beam for beamforming and scheduling decision to improves link quality and coverage , such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct . 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Further, although Nilsson in view of Lee discloses, ““ receive an indication that beam switching without an explicit beam indication or activation is allowed ” as set forth above, Nilsson in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Manolakos discloses, receive, in a field included in a channel state information (CSI) report configuration , an indication information on beam [¶0105, a flag in the configured CSI report setting may be used to explicitly indicate whether the beam management measurement or the at least one positioning measurement has priority ] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Nilsson in view of Lee with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Manolakos to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Manolakos into the system of Nilsson in view of Lee would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling selecting optimal beams and reducing signaling overhead to maintain robust link quality , such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct . 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Regarding claim 2, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson further discloses, switch to the selected beam without receiving the explicit beam indication or activation [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054-0056, the UE switches to the stored best UE RX beam without receiving the explicit beam indication in the triggering triggering (step 702) of the UE RX beam training procedure] . Regarding claim 5, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson further discloses, select the selected beam [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054, A UE RX beam training procedure is performed where UE 420 selects a new UE RX beam] . Regarding claim 7, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to report only a single beam [¶0051, the UE 230 may report the beam information of only one selected beam to the BS 210] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the CSI report is configured to report a plurality of beams [¶0042-0043, configured to report e.g., three selected beams] , and wherein the selected beam is indicated in the CSI report based at least in part on the selected beam being associated with a best reported metric [¶0044-45, the selected beam (e.g., beam 2) is determined and prioritized as the selected beam is associated with a best channel parameter (e.g., CSI, RSRP, RSRQ)] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the CSI report is configured to report a plurality of beams [¶0042-0043, configured to report e.g., three selected beams] , and wherein the selected beam is indicated in the CSI report based at least in part on an identifier of a reference signal associated with the selected beam [¶0071, the beam indexes (BI) of the selected beams are reported based on a resource indicator of CRI-RS (CRI) associated with the selected beams] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson further discloses, wherein the selected beam can be for any downlink channel usable by the UE [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0056, the UE switches to the stored best UE RX beam for PDSCH reception (step 714)] . Regarding claim 11, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson further discloses , wherein the selected beam is for a configured set of at least one of: one or more downlink channels [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0056, the UE switches to the stored best UE RX beam for PDSCH reception (step 714)] . Regarding claim 12, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the selected beam is for a channel or reference signal that is quasi- colocated with a reference signal associated with the selected beam [¶0111, the selected beams (e.g., beams 8-9) are for a channel that is quasi- colocated with a reference signal associated with the selected beams; see e.g., since the beams 8 and 9 in the second beam configuration 52 may be respectively overlapped with the beams b and c of the first beam configuration 51, the channel properties of the beams 8 and 9 may be similar to the channel properties of the beams b and c. Specifically, the beam 8 may be quasi co-located with the beam b, and the beam 9 may be quasi co-located with the beam c] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Regarding claim 13, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses , transmit the CSI report identifying the selected beam based at least in part on a reported metric of the selected beam satisfying a threshold [¶0043, RSRP values of beams 2, 5, 6, and 1 exceed the threshold T.sub.1. Therefore, the UE 230 may select the beams 2, 5, 6, and 1 as the selected beams; note that the selected beams 2, 5, 6 and 1 are based on the beams exceed a RSRP threshold ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Regarding claim 14, Nilsson discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station [FIGS. 7-8; their related descriptions; ¶0054, TRP 422 for wireless communication] , comprising: one or more memor ies [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0074, data storage system 1308; note that every TRP (network device) has at least one memory ] ; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memor ies [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0074, one or more more processors 1355; note that every TRP (network device) has at least one memory ] . Since claim 14 merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 13. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2. Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5. Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7. Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8. Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9. Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites similar features to claim 14 without further additional features. Thus, claim 27 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 14. Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is merely different from claim 2 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 2 without further additional features. Thus, claim 28 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2. Claims 3-4, 15, 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (US Publication No. 2019/0014568 A1) in view of Lee et al (US Publication No. 2018/0288645 A1) and further in view of Manolakos et al (US Publication No . 2019/0380054) and further in view of Nagaraja et al (US Publication No. 2018/0084440 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 and particularly, “transmit a CSI report” and “selectively switch to the selected beam in accordance with the indication” as set forth above. Nilsson in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nagaraja discloses, receive, after the transmission of . . . report, a cancellation indication [FIGS. 11A-11B; their related descriptions; ¶0109, the UE 1103 receives, after transmitting ACK 1111, a new beam switching message (BSM) 1113] ; and cancel the selective switch to the selected beam in accordance with the cancellation indication [FIGS. 11A-11B; their related descriptions; ¶0109, the UE disregards the beam switch 1117; see, “the UE 1103 receives BSM 1113, and because the default behavior of UE 1103 is to cancel execution of any instruction in previous BSMs if the UE receives a new BSM, planned beam switch 1107 becomes disregarded beam switch 1117”; note that the new BSM 113 is interpreted as a cancellation indication for the previous BSM which is BSM 1105 ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nagaraja in the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos in order to cause the system to be able to reduce signaling overhead significantly and reduce the number of instances in which signal failure can occur [e.g., ¶0094 of Nagaraja ] . Regarding claim 4, Nilsson in view of Lee , Manolakos and Nagaraja discloses, the apparatus of claim 3 . Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nagaraja discloses, wherein the cancell ation of the selective switch is based at least in part on the reception of the cancellation indication within a time offset of the transmission the . . . report [FIGS. 11A-11B; their related descriptions; ¶0109, note that the disregarding of the BSM 1117 is based on receiving the BSM 1113 within an offset of transmitting the ACK 1111; further see “insufficient time exists between expected ACK time 1109 and planned beam switch 1107” ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nagaraja in the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos for similar rationales set forth above in claim 3. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is merely different from claim 3 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 3 without further additional features. Thus, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3. Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3. Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15. Claims 6, 16 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (US Publication No. 2019/0014568 A1) in view of Lee et al (US Publication No. 2018/0288645 A1) and further in view of Manolakos et al (US Publication No . 2019/0380054) and further in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2020/0037385) . Regarding claim 6, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 5 as set forth above. Nilsson does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lee discloses, wherein the selection of the selected beam is based at least in part on a filtering configuration [¶0043, RSRP values of beams 2, 5, 6, and 1 exceed the threshold T.sub.1. Therefore, the UE 230 may select the beams 2, 5, 6, and 1 as the selected beams; note that the selected beams 2, 5, 6 and 1 are based on the beams exceed a RSRP threshold (i.e., filtering configuration)] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lee in the system of Nilsson for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1. Further, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Park discloses, wherein the selection of the selected beam is based at least in part on a time-domain filtering configuration [¶0281, the eNB may transmit an MRS in a periodically repeated time interval and the UE may calculate an MRS based measurement value in every time interval and then apply time-axis filtering to the measurement values in order to acquire a DL measurement value (for the purpose of selecting a TRP/beam) (in a specific cell). In this case, the UE may apply a median filter as time-axis filtering (or previous filtering before applying time-axis filtering)] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Park to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Park into the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring selection of a beam even in case of user equipment being rapidly changed due to rotation and high-speed movement , such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct . 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is merely different from claim 6 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 6 without further additional features. Thus, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6. Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 16. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al (US Publication No. 2019/0014568 A1) in view of Lee et al (US Publication No. 2018/0288645 A1) and further in view of Manolakos et al (US Publication No . 2019/0380054) and further in view of He et al (US Publication No. 2023/0318783 A1) . Regarding claim 18, Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos discloses, the apparatus of claim 17 as set forth above. Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but He discloses , wherein the threshold is relative to another beam of the UE [¶0035, a configured threshold against which radio link quality of q0 (one reference signal/beam) is assessed is different/relative to a configured threshold against L1-RSRP of q1 (another reference signal/beam) is measured] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by He to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by He into the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure efficient beam switching and robust link adaption under varying channel conditions , such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct . 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Regarding claim 19, Nilsson in view of Lee , Manolakos and He discloses, the apparatus of claim 18 as set forth above. Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but He discloses , wherein the other beam is one of: a beam associated with an activated transmission configuration indicator state with a lowest codepoint identifier [¶0035 and ¶0043, the N beam states may comprise beam states with N lowest identifiers (IDs)] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by He in the system of Nilsson in view of Lee and Manolakos for similar rationales set forth above in claim 18. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3216 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T) . 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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ian Moore can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3085 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /SUN JONG KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469