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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 30 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 17 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 14, 17 and 19 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of Claims 1-6 and 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Citations from Applicant’s specification are taken from United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0235782.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Applicant states the following:
“The specification describes the gap period as a configurable and determinable time interval, whose duration may be set based on UE capability or configured by the base station. The gap period is expressed in standard time-domain units such as symbol, slot, or time units (e.g., microseconds). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that, in NR systems, such time-domain parameters maybe set to zero to indicate that no additional processing time is required. Therefore, assigning the value "0" to the gap period does not create any uncertainty for the person of ordinary skill in the art.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not cited any portion of the specification as support for this argument. While a “gap duration” is described in terms of OFDM symbols (paragraph 0086) and slots (paragraph 0088), these are not described in relation to a “gap period”. A gap period is described as including a “time duration prior to, and a time duration subsequent to, the CORESET” (paragraphs 0092 and 0094). However, the units of the time duration are not further described. As such, there is no basis in the specification for Applicant’s statement that a gap period can be expressed in terms of microseconds. Assuming that the claimed value of 0 were to refer to symbols or slots, this is not claimed. As such, the scope of the claim, where a gap period is claimed as being a unitless value of 0, is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20, Applicant states “"a smaller portion" in Claim 1 corresponds to one of the "a portion" recited in Claims 7 and 8, representing the portion of the downlink data channel remaining after the portion overlapped with CORESET or the portion overlapped with CORESET combined with the gap period is skipped. The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s statement appears to indicate “a portion” and “a smaller portion” refer to the same feature (i.e., “the portion of the downlink data channel remaining after the portion overlapped with CORESET or the portion overlapped with CORESET combined with the gap period is skipped”). However, in terms of antecedent basis, this feature should be referenced using the same phrase, rather than two separate terms (i.e., “a portion” and “a smaller portion”). However, as written, these separate terms do not clearly refer to the same feature. As such, the scope of these claims is indefinite.
For the reasons detailed above, the rejection of Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Park reference, Applicant states “Park does not disclose the feature "receiving a downlink control information indicating that one or more downlink data channels are to be transmitted according to a second TCI state." The Office respectfully disagrees. As clearly shown in Park’s Figure 25 (replicated in Applicant’s remarks on page 14), the base station sends a message via DCI (downlink control information) that indicates a second TCI state. As described in the cited paragraph 0450, “the wireless device may apply (e.g., use, or determine) the (joint) TCI (at T3) for receiving one or more downlink data scheduled by DCIs.” As the UE receives downlink data utilizing this second TCI, Park clearly discloses the claim limitation “receiving a downlink control information indicating that one or more downlink data channels are to be transmitted according to a second TCI state.” Applicant further states that “the critical technical feature of the amended Claim 1 of the present application lies in the nature and usage of the second TCI state, which is precisely what Park neither discloses nor renders inferable.” The Office notes that “the second TCI state” is not further described in the claim language so as to require any further “nature and usage” aside from an “accordance” with “one or more downlink data channels.” Applicant further states “the amended Claim 1 of the present application explicitly recites that the second TCI state is "indicated by downlink control information (DCI)" and is "dedicated to one or more downlink data channels."” However, it is noted that the claim language does not require that the second TCI state is “dedicated” to one or more downlink data channels. Rather, the claim recites that “one or more downlink channels are to be transmitted according to a second TCI state.” Applicant further states that “(t)he present application clearly requires that the control side (CORESET) and the data side (PDSCH) simultaneously maintain two independent TCI states that do not override each other.” However, the claim language does not require this level of detail, either regard to simultaneously maintaining the two TCI states or an override. Similarly, Applicant’s assertion that the second TCI state “is used exclusively for data transmission on the downlink data channel” finds no basis in the claim language as currently drafted. Finally, with regards to Park, Applicant states the following:
“The core technical objective of the present application is that the control side may maintain a wider beam to enhance DCI/RNTI reliability, while the data side may employ a narrower or differently oriented beam to improve data throughput. Such functional separation between control and data beams, channel-specific application, coexistence, and non-overriding operation of multiple TCI states are entirely absent from Park, whether viewed from its textual description, the procedural flow of FIG. 25, the global operational nature of the joint TCI, or the disclosures of the first and second durations.
The joint TCI is not a TCI state dedicated to the PDSCH, and Park does not disclose or suggest applying different beam configurations to the control and data channels. The technical objectives and operational behaviors are fundamentally different.
Accordingly, Park merely discloses a single, global TCI configuration that may be overridden, and neither discloses nor suggests the second TCI state required by the amended Claim 1 of the present application, which is indicated by DCI and exclusively applicable to one or more downlink data channels, nor does it disclose the technical architecture in which two TCI states independently and concurrently exist for the control side and the data side, respectively. This distinction constitutes a substantial technical difference, which directly gives rise to the technical effect of the present application, namely, independent optimization of beam directions for the control side and the data side.”
However, the Office notes that the claim language does not recite any limitations directed to Applicant’s description of the “core technical objective” above, as there is no claim language directed to beam orientation, application, coexistence, or non-overriding of multiple TCI states.
Regarding the He reference, Applicant states the following:
“However, the technical feature claimed in the present application is not limited to such omission behavior.
Rather, the present application further requires that the UE dynamically determine whether the PDSCH and the control resource set (CORESET) overlap in the time domain, and incorporate a gap period as a decision parameter, thereby dynamically deciding to selectively receive only a portion of the PDSCH symbols.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the claim language at issue. Looking to Claim 1, the claim language recites “determining that the one or more downlink data channels overlap, in a time domain, with the CORESET combined with a gap period; and performing reception of a smaller portion of the one or more downlink data channels.” There is no requirement in the claim language for the reception of the smaller portion of the downlink data channels to be based on the outcome of the determination in the previous step. He discloses omitting or puncturing any PDSCH symbols (i.e., receiving fewer portions of the downlink data channels) that overlap with switching gaps prior to a CORESET, as cited in the rejection at paragraph 0120. Therefore, He reasonably reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim limitation as currently drafted. Per MPEP 2111.01: “"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” As the features argued by Applicant are not commensurate with the current claim language, these arguments are not considered persuasive.
For the reasons described above, the rejections of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
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.
Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Citations from Applicant’s specification are taken from United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0235782.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, these claims recite “wherein the gap period is 0”. While this phrase is repeated in paragraph 0093 of the specification, it is not clear what is meant by the “gap period” being “0” or what the unit for the gap period would be, such that a value/quantity could be set to 0.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20, these claims recite “skipping performing reception of a portion of the one or more downlink channels”. However, it is not clear whether “a portion” recited in these dependent claims refers to the same “smaller portion” recited in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0124782), hereinafter Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses a method of wireless communication of a base station (Figure 24, refer to base station), comprising:
sending, to a user equipment (UE), a control resource set (CORESET) configuration indicating a CORESET in which a control signal is to be transmitted according to a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state (Figure 25 and paragraph 0449, the base station indicates a first TCI-state for a CORESET to the wireless device (UE);
determining a set of resources that does not overlap, in a time domain, with the CORESET combined with a gap period (Figure 25 and paragraph 0450 – the base station configures a joint TCI for the cell that will be applied at a later (non-overlapping in time) moment); and
sending a downlink control information indicating that one or more downlink data channels are to be transmitted according to a second TCI state in the set of resources (Figure 25 and paragraphs 0450-0451, the base station transmits the DCI comprising the second TCI to the wireless device for use at the second moment).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses receiving an indication of the gap period from the UE (paragraphs 0457-0458, the base station sets a duration based on a reported UE capability).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses sending, to the UE, a configuration specifying the gap period (paragraph 0449 - the base station sends the gap period information to the UE).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the gap period is predetermined (paragraph 0449 - the base station sends the gap period information to the UE).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses the gap period includes a time duration prior to, and a time duration subsequent to, the CORESET (Figure 25, and paragraphs 0449-0451 – the DCI indicates a duration before (i.e., a duration prior to applying the CORESET) and a duration after the CORESET (the gap)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of He et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0361218), hereinafter He.
Regarding Claim 14, Park discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) (Figure 15 – wireless device 1502), comprising:
a memory (Figure 15 – memory 1524); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Figure 15 – processing system 1518 coupled to memory 1524) and configured to:
receive a control resource set (CORESET) configuration indicating a CORESET, in a slot, in which a control signal is to be transmitted according to a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state (Figure 25 and paragraph 0449, the base station indicates a first TCI-state for a CORESET to the wireless device (UE);
receive a downlink control information indicating that one or more downlink data channels are to be transmitted according to a second TCI state (Figure 25 and paragraphs 0450-0451, the base station transmits the DCI comprising the second TCI to the wireless device for use at the second moment).
However, Park does not disclose determin(ing) that the one or more downlink data channels overlap, in a time domain, with the CORESET combined with a gap period; and perform(ing) reception of a smaller portion of the one or more downlink data channels. In an analogous art, He discloses this. Specifically, He discloses omitting or puncturing any PDSCH (i.e., downlink data channel) symbols that overall with the CORESET and a switching gap (paragraph 0120). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park and He. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE adequate time to perform beam switching (paragraph 0119 of He).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps as performed by the UE of Claim 14. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses determining the gap period based on a capability of the UE (paragraphs 0457-0458, the base station sets a duration based on a reported UE capability).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses receiving a configuration specifying the gap period (paragraph 0449 - the base station sends the gap period information to the UE).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Park discloses the gap period is predetermined (paragraph 0449 - the base station sends the gap period information to the UE).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, the combination of Park and He discloses wherein the CORESET combined with the gap period spans the slot in the time domain, wherein the one or more downlink data channels are within the slot (Park at Figure 25, and paragraphs 0449-0451 – the DCI indicates a duration of the CORESET and gap), wherein the performing the reception includes skipping performing reception of the one or more downlink data channels (He - omitting or puncturing any PDSCH (i.e., downlink data channel) symbols that overall with the CORESET and a switching gap (paragraph 0120)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Park and He. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE adequate time to perform beam switching (paragraph 0119 of He).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, the combination of Park and He discloses wherein the gap period includes a time duration prior to, and a time duration subsequent to, the CORESET (Figure 25, and paragraphs 0449-0451 – the DCI indicates a duration before (i.e., a duration prior to applying the CORESET) and a duration after the CORESET (the gap)), wherein the performing the reception includes skipping performing reception of the one or more downlink data channels (He - omitting or puncturing any PDSCH (i.e., downlink data channel) symbols that overall with the CORESET and a switching gap (paragraph 0120)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Park and He. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE adequate time to perform beam switching (paragraph 0119 of He).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, the combination of Park and He discloses wherein the gap period includes a time duration prior to, and a time duration subsequent to, the CORESET (Figure 25, and paragraphs 0449-0451 – the DCI indicates a duration before (i.e., a duration prior to applying the CORESET) and a duration after the CORESET (the gap)), wherein the performing the reception includes skipping performing reception of a portion of the one or more downlink data channels that overlaps with the CORESET combined with the gap period (He - omitting or puncturing any PDSCH (i.e., downlink data channel) symbols that overall with the CORESET and a switching gap (paragraph 0120)).
Regarding Claim 15, Park discloses determin(ing) the gap period based on a capability of the UE (paragraphs 0457-0458, the base station sets a duration based on a reported UE capability, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation); or receive a configuration specifying the gap period (paragraph 0449 - the base station sends the gap period information to the UE, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472