DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 7-10, received 11 March 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 7-10 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 February 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) rejection presented in the previous office action has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s response (Remarks pg 5)
Examiner Note
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 recite “a state in which no connection is established at an RRC layer” which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation in view of applicant’s specification, indicates a state where a connection is established (configured) or a state where a connection is once established but is inactive except for some configurations (applicant’s specification [0096]) or an RRC non-connected state before RRC connection which may include an RRC idle state or RRC inactive state (applicant’s specification [0115, 0124, 0129, 0145]). In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner understands the claimed feature “a state in which no connection is established at an RRC layer” to indicate a RRC non-connected state before RRC connection including RRC idle and inactive states as supported by applicant’s specification.
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 (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 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 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.
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.
Claims 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20240187187 A1, hereafter referred to as Jung) in view of Davydov et al (WO 2020086572 A1, hereafter referred to as Davydov).
Regarding claim 7, Davydov teaches a terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives system information including quasi-colocation information (Jung [0091] teaches a UE receives TRS/CSI-RS resource set configurations and mapping information of between a TRS/CSI-RS resource set identity and QCL, wherein the TRS/CSI-RS includes explicitly indicated QCL information [0092]), which is information indicating a correspondence relationship between a TRS of a periodic downlink reference signal and a synchronization signal block (Jung [0092] teaches the configuration includes explicitly indicated QCL information including a SSB index which is mapped in a one-to-one mapping with the TRS/CSI-RS identity), and information indicating a resource of the TRS (Jung [0091-0092] teaches the configuration includes information of at least one TRS/CSI-RS resource); and
a processor that determines quasi-colocation of the TRS based on the received quasi-colocation information (Jung [0092] teaches determining QCL information of a TRS/CSI resource based on the explicitly indicated QCL information in the configuration).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach a processor that determines quasi-colocation of the TRS based on the received quasi-colocation information when multicast Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) is scheduled a state in which no connection is established at an RRC layer.
Davydov, in an analogous art, teaches
a processor that determines quasi-colocation of the TRS based on the received quasi-colocation information when multicast Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) is scheduled a state in which no connection is established at an RRC layer (Davydov [0035] teaches determining the QCL for a broadcast ([0064]) PDSCH scheduled by a PDCCH based on one or more RSs configured by information in received control signaling, DMRSs of the PDCCH [0035], CSI-RSs of a received SSB [0055], DMRSs of the PDSCH and a SSB [0057] such that the PDSCH is QCL with the SSB before RRC connection [0075]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jung in view of Davydov in order to configure the processor that determines QCL of the TRS based on the received QCL information, as taught by Jung, based on PDSCH being scheduled in a state in which no connection is established at RRC, as taught by Davydov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to efficiently use resources by determining a QCL for a PDSCH before RRC parameters or TCI state information is obtained (Davydov [0049] teaches determining, receiving and decoding [0052] the PDSCH based on the determined QCL prior to receiving TCI state indication [0074] and before RRC connection [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 7.
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Jung-Davydov teach a base station comprising:
a transmitter that transmits system information including quasi-colocation information (Jung [0091] teaches a UE receives, from the network unit [0042], TRS/CSI-RS resource set configurations and mapping information of between a TRS/CSI-RS resource set identity and QCL, wherein the TRS/CSI-RS includes explicitly indicated QCL information [0092]); and a processor that assumes a terminal to determine quasi-colocation of the TRS based on the received quasi-colocation information (Jung [0042] teaches the network unit transmits a plurality of reference signals of a RS resource set based on QCL information).
It would have been obvious to modify Jung in view of Davydov according to the reasons set forth regarding claim 10. The additional limitations of claim 10 do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 7.
Therefore, the additional limitations of claim 10 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 7 and 10.
Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 7 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh et al (US 20230284180 A1);
Ma et al (US 20220385429 A1);
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights