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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 8/13/26.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-28 are pending.
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) 1-3, 9-12, 17-20, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al., US 2022/0232636, (“Shin”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches “An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 16, UE; Fig. 19, UE 100), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 19); and
at least one processor (Fig. 19) coupled to the memory and configured to:
transmit, to a base station, a channel state information (CSI) report associated with a beam switch (paragraph no. 0352, “In this case, the UE may generate a beam/CSI report based on SSB/CSI-RS and transmit the generated beam/CSI report to the base station through PUSCH/PUCCH (S718). The beam/CSI report may include a beam measurement result, information about a preferred beam, and the like”); and
perform the beam switch based on the CSI report and an absence, for a period of time after transmission of the CSI report, of a downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication, wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication” (paragraph no. 0352, “The base station and the UE may switch beams based on the beam/CSI report (S720 a, S720 b)”; see Fig. 16, step S720b which shows that a DCI including a TCI indication (and the particular “TCI indication” as now claimed) is not received by the UE during the time interval between transmitting the CSI report and beam switching in step S720b; since Shin does not disclose receiving the DCI, Shin still meets/teaches the negative limitation “an absence, for a period of time after transmission of the CSI report, of a downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication, wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication” even though applicant has further limited what the TCI indication entails; in other words, since the newly claimed “wherein the TCI indication …” is still part of the overall negative limitation “an absence … of a downlink control information” (emphasis added), the newly amended claim limitation is still met/taught by the Shin disclosure as shown in Fig. 16, steps S718 and S720b; note that “a period of time” can be, in accordance with BRI, any time period between step S718 and step S720b including up to and including step S720b).
Regarding independent claim 17, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Regarding independent claim 9, Shin teaches “An apparatus for wireless communication at a base station (Fig. 16, BS; Fig. 19, BS 200), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 19); and
at least one processor (Fig. 19) coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive, from a UE, a channel state information (CSI) report associated with a beam switch (paragraph no. 0352, “In this case, the UE may generate a beam/CSI report based on SSB/CSI-RS and transmit the generated beam/CSI report to the base station through PUSCH/PUCCH (S718). The beam/CSI report may include a beam measurement result, information about a preferred beam, and the like”); and
perform the beam switch based on the CSI report without transmitting, for a period of time after transmission of the CSI report, a downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication, wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication” (paragraph no. 0352, “The base station and the UE may switch beams based on the beam/CSI report (S720 a, S720 b)”; see Fig. 16, step S720b which shows that a DCI including a TCI indication (and the particular “TCI indication” as now claimed) is not received by the UE during the time interval between transmitting the CSI report and beam switching in step S720b; since Shin does not disclose receiving the DCI, Shin still meets/teaches the negative limitation “without transmitting, for a period of time after transmission of the CSI report, a downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication, wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication” even though applicant has further limited what the TCI indication entails; in other words, since the newly claimed “wherein the TCI indication …” is still part of the overall negative limitation “without transmitting … a downlink control information” (emphasis added), the newly amended claim limitation is still met/taught by the Shin disclosure as shown in Fig. 16, steps S718 and S720b; note that “a period of time” can be, in accordance with BRI, any time period between step S718 and step S720b including up to and including step S720b).
Regarding independent claim 21, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 9 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 9 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, and 22, Shin teaches “wherein the CSI report indicates a reference signal (RS) associated with the beam switch, and wherein the UE performs the beam switch based on the absence of the DCI including the TCI indication for a set of channels or a set of reference signals (RSs) comprising the RS” (paragraph no. 0352; see Fig. 16, step S720b which shows the “the absence of the DCI including the TCI indication for a set of channels or a set of reference signals (RSs) comprising the RS” since Shin is silent regarding the reception by the UE of such a DCI).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, and 23, Shin teaches “wherein the CSI report indicates a reference signal (RS) associated with the beam switch, and wherein the UE performs the beam switch based on the absence of the DCI including the TCI indication for a set of channels or a set of reference signals (RSs) applicable to a TCI state associated with the RS associated with the CSI report” (paragraph no. 0352; see Fig. 16, step S720b which shows the “the absence of the DCI including the TCI indication for a set of channels or a set of reference signals (RSs) applicable to a TCI state associated with the RS associated with the CSI report” since Shin is silent regarding the reception by the UE of such a DCI).
Regarding claims 12, 20, and 24, Shin teaches “wherein the UE performs the beam switch based on the absence of the DCI that indicates a rejection of the beam switch” (paragraph no. 0352; see Fig. 16, step S720b which shows the “the absence of the DCI that indicates a rejection of the beam switch” since Shin is silent regarding the reception by the UE of such a DCI).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Nilsson et al., US 2019/0014568, (“Nilsson”).
Regarding claims 25-28, Shin does not teach but Nilsson teaches “wherein the period of time comprises a threshold number of slots or milliseconds starting from an end of the CSI report” (Nilsson: see paragraph nos. 0030, 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Shin by incorporating the teachings of Nilsson to also account for potential processing time of the CSI report at the base station, as suggested by Nilsson in paragraph no. 0030.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein the UE monitors for the DCI during the period of time and performs the beam switch based on the absence of the DCI that indicates a rejection of the beam switch during the period of time.”
Shin is the closest prior art of record. As shown in Fig. 16 of Shin, Shin teaches that a DCI is not received after transmission of the CSI report at step S718 and before the beam switch at step S720b (the “time period”). Shin does not teach or fairly suggest monitoring for a DCI and in particular, the specific DCI claimed in claim 1, during this time period such that its absence, while monitoring, indicates to the UE that a beam switch should occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, re each independent claim and taking claim 1 as an example, that Shin does not teach the newly amended claim limitation “wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication.”
This argument is not persuasive. Shin teaches in Fig. 16, step S720b that a DCI including a TCI indication (and the particular “TCI indication” as now claimed) is not received by the UE during the time interval between transmitting the CSI report at step S718 and beam switching in step S720b. Since Shin does not disclose receiving the DCI, Shin still meets/teaches the negative limitation “an absence, for a period of time after transmission of the CSI report, of a downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication, wherein the TCI indication is associated with a unified TCI framework employing joint downlink/uplink TCI states for beam indication” even though applicant has further limited what the TCI indication entails. In other words, since the newly claimed “wherein the TCI indication …” is still part of the overall negative limitation “an absence … of a downlink control information” (emphasis added), the newly amended claim limitation is still met/taught by the Shin disclosure as shown in Fig. 16, steps S718 and S720b. Note that “a period of time” can be, in accordance with BRI, any time period between step S718 and step S720b including up to and including step S720b.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Park et al., US 2024/0064813, paragraph no. 0312 which discloses a unified joint downlink/uplink TCI state for beam indication.
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 TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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 TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Esq., Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights