CTNF 18/575,537 CTNF 85309 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 2. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 3. 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA 4. Claim s 1, 2 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muruganathan et al. (US 2023/0269612 A1, hereinafter “Muruganathan”) . Regarding claims 1, 21 and 22 , Muruganathan teaches an information transmission method, the method being applied to a first communication node ( figs. 4-17, 19, ¶ [0224], The network node 1700 may be, for example, a radio access node, such as a base station 1002 or 1006 or a network node that implements all or part of the functionality of the base station 1002 or gNB. ¶ [0228] ) and comprising: determining a downlink control information (DCI)-related processing parameter in a multiple transmission and reception points (multi-TRP) scenario ( figs. 4-16, ¶ [0039]-¶ [0043], ¶ [0047] In Long Term Evolution (LTE), the concept of a CSI process was introduced in Rel-11 for the purpose of supporting Coordinated Multi-Point (CoMP), i.e., feedback of several different CSI reports corresponding to multiple transmission points. ¶ [0048], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0062] When A-CSI reports are triggered by PDCCH, not only does the UE need to have available computational resources to calculate the report, as was described in the previous section, it also needs enough time to perform the computation. Since NR features both a more diverse set of CSI content with different computational complexities, as well as flexible scheduling offset of the UL transmissions to carry the CSI report, a separate CSI timeline requirement is needed to ensure that the PUSCH carrying the CSI is not scheduled too aggressively. ¶ [0098], ¶ [0104], ¶ [0106], ¶ [0109], ¶ [0112], ¶ [0161], a solution is proposed that involves defining a new latency class where the (Z 1 ,Z′ 1 ) values associated with the new latency class may be fixed in specifications, configurable via higher layers, or be determined based on UE capability reports. ¶ [0172], ¶ [0173], a CSI report can be identified to be requiring ultra-low latency CSI if the triggering offset K 2 between the last symbol of the PDCCH triggering the CSI report and the first symbol of the PUSCH carrying the CSI report is below a threshold. In some embodiments, the threshold value may be higher layer configured to the UE. ¶ [0178], ¶ [0180]. ¶ [0196]-¶ [0203] ), and sending the DCI-related processing parameter to a second communication node to enable the second communication node to process a DCI-related parameter based on the DCI-related processing parameter ( figs. 4-16, ¶ [0112], a method is performed by a network node for configuring CSI reporting by a UE. ¶ [0161], a solution is proposed that involves defining a new latency class where the (Z 1 ,Z′ 1 ) values associated with the new latency class may be fixed in specifications, configurable via higher layers, or be determined based on UE capability reports. ¶ [0173], In some embodiments, the threshold value may be higher layer configured to the UE. ). Regarding claims 20 and 23 , Muruganathan teaches an information transmission method, the method being applied to a second communication node ( figs. 4-16, 20, 21, ¶ [0230], wireless communication device, ¶ [0233] ) and comprising: receiving a downlink control information (DCI)-related processing parameter sent by a first communication node in a multiple transmission and reception points (multi-TRP) scenario; and processing a DCI-related parameter based on the DCI-related processing parameter ( figs. 4-16, ¶ [0039]-¶ [0043], ¶ [0047] In Long Term Evolution (LTE), the concept of a CSI process was introduced in Rel-11 for the purpose of supporting Coordinated Multi-Point (CoMP), i.e., feedback of several different CSI reports corresponding to multiple transmission points. ¶ [0048], ¶ [0050], ¶ [0062] When A-CSI reports are triggered by PDCCH, not only does the UE need to have available computational resources to calculate the report, as was described in the previous section, it also needs enough time to perform the computation. Since NR features both a more diverse set of CSI content with different computational complexities, as well as flexible scheduling offset of the UL transmissions to carry the CSI report, a separate CSI timeline requirement is needed to ensure that the PUSCH carrying the CSI is not scheduled too aggressively. ¶ [0098], ¶ [0104], ¶ [0106], ¶ [0109], ¶ [0112], ¶ [0161], a solution is proposed that involves defining a new latency class where the (Z 1 ,Z′ 1 ) values associated with the new latency class may be fixed in specifications, configurable via higher layers, or be determined based on UE capability reports. ¶ [0172], ¶ [0173], a CSI report can be identified to be requiring ultra-low latency CSI if the triggering offset K 2 between the last symbol of the PDCCH triggering the CSI report and the first symbol of the PUSCH carrying the CSI report is below a threshold. In some embodiments, the threshold value may be higher layer configured to the UE. ¶ [0178], ¶ [0180]. ¶ [0196]-¶ [0203]. ¶ [0235] ). Regarding claim 2 , Muruganathan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DCI-related processing parameter is configured for processing one piece of DCI and reporting one piece of channel state information (CSI); and the DCI-related processing parameter comprises a first CSI processing time length and a second CSI processing time length, wherein the first CSI processing time length indicates a total number of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols between decoding the DCI by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node, and the second CSI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between measuring a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node ( ¶ [0068], Two timing requirements for A-CSI reporting are defined in NR. The first requirement is defined as the minimum number of OFDM symbols Z between the last symbol of the PDCCH triggering the A-CSI report and the first symbol of the PUSCH which carries the CSI report. During this time, the UE needs to be able to decode the PDCCH, perform possible CSI-RS/IM measurements, perform possible channel estimation, calculate the CSI report and perform UL Control Information (UCI) multiplexing with UL Shared Channel (UL-SCH). ¶ [0069], the second requirement is defined as the minimum number of OFDM symbols Z′ between the last symbol of the aperiodic CSI-RS/IM used to calculate the report and the first symbol of the PUSCH which carries the CSI report. This is illustrated in FIG. 4, where NZP denotes the location of the NZP CSI-RS/CSI-IM used for computing the CSI report. ¶ [0070]. ¶ [0071]. ¶ [0161] ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 7. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0208490 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) Regarding claim 3 , Muruganathan teaches the method of claim 2. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length; and determining the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length, wherein the third CSI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between decoding the DCI by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in a single transmission and reception point (sTRP) scenario, and the fourth CSI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between measuring the CSI-RS by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length; and determining the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length, wherein the third CSI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between decoding the DCI by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in a single transmission and reception point (sTRP) scenario, and the fourth CSI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between measuring the CSI-RS by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z2) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards.¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between decoding the DCI by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in a single transmission and reception point (sTRP) scenario, and to determine the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between measuring the CSI-RS by the second communication node and reporting the CSI by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario, in the system of Muruganathan to provide CSI computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP CSI feedback ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ). Regarding claim 4 , Muruganathan in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 3. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach the first CSI processing time length is the same as the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length is the same as the fourth CSI processing time length; or the first CSI processing time length is different from the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length is different from the fourth CSI processing time length. Kim teaches the first CSI processing time length is the same as the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length is the same as the fourth CSI processing time length ( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 . As an example of a fixed rule, all values of X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 may be defined as 0 ); or the first CSI processing time length is different from the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length is different from the fourth CSI processing time length (( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the first CSI processing time length same as the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length the same as the fourth CSI processing time length; or to utilize the first CSI processing time length different from the third CSI processing time length, and the second CSI processing time length different from the fourth CSI processing time length in the system of Muruganathan in view of Kim. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice. Regarding claim 6 , Muruganathan teaches the method of claim 2. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length and a first number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length and a second number of OFDM symbols. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length and a first number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length and a second number of OFDM symbols ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z 2 ) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards. ¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ¶ [0787]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the first CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third CSI processing time length and a first number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second CSI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth CSI processing time length and a second number of OFDM symbols in the system of Muruganathan to provide CSI computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP CSI feedback ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ). Regarding claim 7 , Muruganathan in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 6. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein the first number of OFDM symbols and the second number of OFDM symbols are each related to one of the following parameters: a number of channel measurement resource (CMR) pairs in the multi-TRP scenario, a total number of CMRs in the multi-TRP scenario; a CSI reporting mode in the multi-TRP scenario; a CMR sharing relationship in the multi-TRP scenario; or a total number of pieces of CSI in an sTRP scenario. Kim teaches wherein the first number of OFDM symbols and the second number of OFDM symbols are each related to one of the following parameters: a number of CMR pairs in the multi-TRP scenario, a total number of CMRs in the multi-TRP scenario; a CSI reporting mode in the multi-TRP scenario; a CMR sharing relationship in the multi-TRP scenario; or a total number of pieces of CSI in an sTRP scenario ( ¶ [0737]-¶ [0745], ¶ [0800], ¶ [0801] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the first number of OFDM symbols and the second number of OFDM symbols each related to one of the following parameters: a number of CMR pairs in the multi-TRP scenario, a total number of CMRs in the multi-TRP scenario; a CSI reporting mode in the multi-TRP scenario; a CMR sharing relationship in the multi-TRP scenario; or a total number of pieces of CSI in an sTRP scenario in the system of Muruganathan in view of Kim to utilize conventional techniques in the art . 07-21-aia AIA 9. Claim s 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan in view of Ren et al. (US 2022/0394746 A1, hereinafter “Ren”) . Regarding claim 8 , Muruganathan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DCI-related processing parameter is configured for processing two pieces of DCI, wherein the DCI is configured for scheduling physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) bearer data ( ¶ [0040], the DCI (with either format 0_1 or 0_2) only schedules a regular PUSCH transmission containing UL data. ¶ [0070], the only difference between the Z and Z′ timing requirements is that the Z requirement should additionally encompass DCI decoding time, which is why the Z requirement is typically a few symbols larger than the corresponding Z′ value. ¶ [0072], ¶ [0105], the one or more conditions comprise the CSI report being aperiodically triggered to be transmitted on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) that also carries Uplink Shared Channel (UL-SCH) data, a Hybrid Automated Repeat Request-Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) or both the UL-SCH data and the HARQ-ACK. ¶ [0162]. ¶ [0178] On the other hand, if the A-CSI triggered by DCI is to be multiplexed onto the PUSCH with presence of payload data (i.e., with a TB on the same PUSCH), then the A-CSI computation should satisfy low latency requirement. The parameter settings for the lower latency CSI computation and reporting can be configured by higher layer, together with the DCI signaling (e.g., K 2 signaled by DCI) ). Muruganathan does not explicitly teach the DCI-related processing parameter comprises a first DCI processing time length and a second DCI processing time length, wherein the first DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the second DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling a PUSCH by the second communication node. Ren teaches a well-known method where the DCI is configured for processing two pieces of DCI, wherein the DCI is configured for scheduling physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) bearer data ( fig. 6, ¶ [0062], during the PDCCH 612, the UE may receive downlink control information scheduling an uplink channel later in the slot. ¶ [0063], In order to transmit or receive on the scheduled channel, the UE processes the PDCCH 612 to retrieve the information related to the scheduling of the scheduled channel. The time to process the PDCCH 612 may be referred to as a processing time parameter, and may be represented as a number of symbols required to provide the processing time. ¶ [0064], Where the PDCCH 612 provides scheduling DCI scheduling the UE to transmit a PUSCH, the processing time parameter may include a second number of symbols N 2 . Where the PDCCH 612 provides scheduling DCI scheduling the UE to transmit a PUSCH for aperiodic CSI reporting, the processing time parameter may include a third number of symbols Z ). A first DCI processing time length and a second DCI processing time length, wherein the first DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the second DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling a PUSCH by the second communication node ( fig. 6, ¶ [0063], ¶ [0064], ¶ 0065], When scheduling the PDCCH 612 and a scheduled channel, the base station utilizes the processing time parameter and schedules the scheduled channel with a timeline 632 greater than the processing time parameter, to provide the UE with time to process the PDCCH 612 prior to the first symbol 622 of the scheduled channel. ¶ [0083 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize a first DCI processing time length and a second DCI processing time length as the DCI-related processing parameter, where the first DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the second DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling a PUSCH by the second communication node in the system of Muruganathan to provide the UE with time to process the PDCCH prior to transmitting/receiving on the first symbol of the scheduled channel ( ¶ [0065] and ¶ [0071] of Ren ). Regarding claim 14 , Muruganathan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DCI-related processing parameter is configured for processing two pieces of DCI, wherein the DCI is configured for scheduling a physical downlink shared channel hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (PDSCH HARQ-ACK) ( ¶ [0040], the DCI (with either format 0_1 or 0_2) only schedules a regular PUSCH transmission containing UL data. ¶ [0070], the only difference between the Z and Z′ timing requirements is that the Z requirement should additionally encompass DCI decoding time, which is why the Z requirement is typically a few symbols larger than the corresponding Z′ value. ¶ [0072], ¶ [0105], the one or more conditions comprise the CSI report being aperiodically triggered to be transmitted on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) that also carries Uplink Shared Channel (UL-SCH) data, a Hybrid Automated Repeat Request-Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) or both the UL-SCH data and the HARQ-ACK. ¶ [0162]. ¶ [0178] On the other hand, if the A-CSI triggered by DCI is to be multiplexed onto the PUSCH with presence of payload data (i.e., with a TB on the same PUSCH), then the A-CSI computation should satisfy low latency requirement. The parameter settings for the lower latency CSI computation and reporting can be configured by higher layer, together with the DCI signaling (e.g., K 2 signaled by DCI). ). Muruganathan does not explicitly teach the DCI-related processing parameter comprises a fifth DCI processing time length and a sixth DCI processing time length, wherein the fifth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating PDSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the sixth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PDSCH HARQ-ACK by the second communication node. Ren teaches a well-known method where the DCI is configured for processing two pieces of DCI, wherein the DCI is configured for scheduling PDSCH HARQ -ACK ( fig. 6, ¶ [0062], during the PDCCH 612, the UE may receive downlink control information scheduling an uplink channel later in the slot. ¶ [0063], In order to transmit or receive on the scheduled channel, the UE processes the PDCCH 612 to retrieve the information related to the scheduling of the scheduled channel. The time to process the PDCCH 612 may be referred to as a processing time parameter, and may be represented as a number of symbols required to provide the processing time. ¶ [0064], where the PDCCH 612 provides semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release and the UE is scheduled to provide a corresponding ACK/NACK, the processing time parameter may include a first number of symbols N. ). A fifth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating PDSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the sixth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PDSCH HARQ-ACK by the second communication node ( fig. 6, ¶ [0063], ¶ [0064], ¶ 0065], When scheduling the PDCCH 612 and a scheduled channel, the base station utilizes the processing time parameter and schedules the scheduled channel with a timeline 632 greater than the processing time parameter, to provide the UE with time to process the PDCCH 612 prior to the first symbol 622 of the scheduled channel. ¶ [0083 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize a fifth DCI processing time length and a sixth DCI processing time length as the DCI-related processing parameter, where the fifth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating PDSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node; and the sixth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PDSCH HARQ-ACK by the second communication node in the system of Muruganathan to provide the UE with time to process the PDCCH/PDSCH prior to transmitting/receiving on the first symbol of the scheduled channel ( ¶ [0065] and ¶ [0071] of Ren ) . 07-22-aia AIA 10. Claim s 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan in view of Ren as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim . Regarding claim 9 , Muruganathan in view of Ren teaches the method of claim 8. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third DCI processing time length; and determining the second DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth DCI processing time length, wherein the third DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and the fourth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PUSCH by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third processing time length; and determining the second processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth processing time length, wherein the third processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols required by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and the fourth processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols required by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z2) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards.¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the first DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third DCI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and to determine the second DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth DCI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PUSCH by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren to provide processing/computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP system ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ). Regarding claim 10 , Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim teaches the method of claim 9. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach the first DCI processing time length is the same as the third DCI processing time length, and the second DCI processing time length is the same as the fourth DCI processing time length; or the first DCI processing time length is different from the third DCI processing time length, and the second DCI processing time length is different from the fourth DCI processing time length. Kim teaches the first processing time length is the same as the third processing time length, and the second processing time length is the same as the fourth processing time length ( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 . As an example of a fixed rule, all values of X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 may be defined as 0 ); or the first processing time length is different from the third processing time length, and the second processing time length is different from the fourth processing time length ( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the first DCI processing time length the same as the third DCI processing time length, and the second DCI processing time length the same as the fourth DCI processing time length; or utilize the first DCI processing time length different from the third DCI processing time length, and the second DCI processing time length different from the fourth DCI processing time length in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice. Regarding claim 12 , Muruganathan in view of Ren teaches the method of claim 8. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third DCI processing time length and a third number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth DCI processing time length and a fourth number of OFDM symbols. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the first processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third processing time length and a third number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth processing time length and a fourth number of OFDM symbols ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z 2 ) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards. ¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ¶ [0787]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the first DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a third DCI processing time length and a third number of OFDM symbols; and determining the second DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a fourth DCI processing time length and a fourth number of OFDM symbols in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren to provide processing/computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP system ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ). Regarding claim 15 , Muruganathan in view of Ren teaches the method of claim 14. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the fifth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh DCI processing time length; and determining the sixth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth DCI processing time length, wherein the seventh DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PDSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and the eighth DCI processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PDSCH HARQ-ACK by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the fifth processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh processing time length; and determining the sixth processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth processing time length, wherein the seventh processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols required by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and the eighth processing time length indicates a total number of OFDM symbols required by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z2) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards.¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the fifth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh DCI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and demodulating the PUSCH bearer data in the DCI by the second communication node in an sTRP scenario, and to determine the sixth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth DCI processing time length, indicating a total number of OFDM symbols between receiving the DCI by the second communication node and scheduling the PUSCH by the second communication node in the sTRP scenario in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren to provide processing/computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP system ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ). Regarding claim 16 , Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim teaches the method of claim 15. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein the fifth DCI processing time length is the same as the seventh DCI processing time length, and the sixth DCI processing time length is the same as the eighth DCI processing time length; or the fifth DCI processing time length is different from the seventh DCI processing time length, and the sixth DCI processing time length is different from the eighth DCI processing time length. Kim teaches the fifth processing time length is the same as the seventh processing time length, and the sixth processing time length is the same as the eighth processing time length ( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 . As an example of a fixed rule, all values of X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 may be defined as 0 ); or the fifth processing time length is different from the seventh processing time length, and the sixth processing time length is different from the eighth processing time length ( ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the fifth DCI processing time length the same as the seventh DCI processing time length, and the sixth DCI processing time length the same as the eighth DCI processing time length; or to utilize the fifth DCI processing time length different from the seventh DCI processing time length, and the sixth DCI processing time length different from the eighth DCI processing time length in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice. Regarding claim 18 , Muruganathan in view of Ren teaches the method of claim 14. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the fifth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh DCI processing time length and a fifth number of OFDM symbols; and determining the sixth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth DCI processing time length and a sixth number of OFDM symbols. Kim teaches wherein determining the DCI-related processing parameter in the multi-TRP scenario comprises: determining the fifth processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh processing time length and a fifth number of OFDM symbols; and determining the sixth processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth processing time length and a sixth number of OFDM symbols ( ¶ [0781], table 32. ¶ [0782], ¶ [0783], For CSI reporting for a mTRP CSI feedback, a CSI computation time may be defined as follows by considering additional time required by a terminal based on a value of a specific parameter (e.g., Z 2 ) (table 32 for a single TRP) related to CSI computation time defined in current standards. ¶ [0785], table 33. ¶ [0784], ¶ [0785], ¶ [0786], In Table 33, X 1 , X 2, X 3, X 4 and X′ 1 , X′ 2, X′ 3, X′ 4 are an integer equal to or greater than 0 ¶ [0787]-¶ [0789] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the fifth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on a seventh DCI processing time length and a fifth number of OFDM symbols; and determine the sixth DCI processing time length in the multi-TRP scenario based on an eighth DCI processing time length and a sixth number of OFDM symbols in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren to provide processing/computation time in consideration of additional time required by the terminal for mTRP system ( ¶ [0782] and ¶ [0783] of Kim ) . 07-22-aia AIA 11. Claim s 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2024/0267918 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”) . Regarding claim 13 , Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim teaches the method of claim 12. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein the third number of OFDM symbols and the fourth number of OFDM symbols are each related to one of the following parameters: a number of candidate physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) in a search space or a number of blind detections. Zhang teaches wherein additional processing time (i.e., third number of OFDM symbols and/or the fourth number of OFDM symbols) is related to one of the following parameters: a number of candidate PDCCHs in a search space or a number of blind detections ( ¶ [0133] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the third number of OFDM symbols and the fourth number of OFDM symbols based on one of the following parameters: a number of candidate physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) in a search space or a number of blind detections in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim to utilize conventional techniques in the art. Regarding claim 19 , Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim teaches the method of claim 18. Muruganathan does not explicitly teach wherein the fifth number of OFDM symbols and the sixth number of OFDM symbols are each related to one of the following parameters: a number of candidate PDCCHs in a search space or a number of blind detections. Zhang teaches wherein additional processing time (i.e., third number of OFDM symbols and/or the fourth number of OFDM symbols) is related to one of the following parameters: a number of candidate PDCCHs in a search space or a number of blind detections ( ¶ [0133] ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the fifth number of OFDM symbols and the sixth number of OFDM symbols based on one of the following parameters: a number of candidate physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) in a search space or a number of blind detections in the system of Muruganathan in view of Ren and Kim to utilize conventional techniques in the art. Conclusion 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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. /MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 2 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 3 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 4 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 5 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 6 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 7 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 8 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 9 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 10 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 11 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 12 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 13 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 14 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 15 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 16 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 17 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 18 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 19 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 20 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 21 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 22 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 23 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 24 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 25 Art Unit: 2477 Application/Control Number: 18/575,537 Page 26 Art Unit: 2477
Prosecution Insights