DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 10, 12, 26, 28, 30, and 32, the applicant alleges that with respect to claim 10 that there is no prima facie case of obviousness because there is no teaching or suggestion, in either of the references, of the TCI state switch delay time by the UE is to transmit an uplink signal after switching TCI states. The office respectfully disagrees with this assertion. For example, the office rejected the above claims over Cui et al. (US 2024/0204970 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2022/0159772 A1). The disclosure of Raghavan was relied upon to teach transmission of an uplink signal after performing TCI state switch, see par.[0197], which teaches performing a switch to a new TCI state and transmitting an uplink transmission, such as a PUCCH and/or PUSCH. As discussed in Raghavan, the TCI state switch takes some time (e.g. processing time) to be performed, and this processing time can be explained by the disclosure of Cui. Thus, in contrast to the applicants assertion that there is no prima facie case of obviousness, the combination of references substantially disclose the claimed features.
The applicant also alleges that claim 13 is not taught by either of Cui and/or Raghavan because neither teaches, “a value related to a slot plus the first time”. The applicants, without any further explanation as to why the references do not teach the above contested “a value related to a slot plus the first time”, is not discussed in the prior art reference. This is unpersuasive, and the office contends that the disclosures do in fact teach the above feature. Additionally, the applicant alleges that there are some inconsistencies with regard to variables TfirstRS which is discussed in Cui with the Tfirst_target-PL-RS which is used in 3GPP. The applicant alleges that because the variables are different they must represent different values. This is categorically false. It is well-established that a variable, even if different may represent a same value. Additionally, it is known that different applicants and papers may use different language to describe the same thing. This is the case with the two variables above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 12, the variable TfirstRS can be a first reference signal such as a path loss reference signal. Thus, it is shown that the variable while named differently can represent the same value. Thus, the applicants allegation that they are different and thus do not represent the same value are false.
The office is believed to address the substantive arguments presented by the applicant, and there do not appear to be any additional arguments of substance as it pertains to deficiencies in the prior art rejections of the claims. Thus, the rejection of the claims are sustained in view of the arguments above.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 26, 28, 30, and 32, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2024/0204970 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2022/0159772 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 26, and 30, Matsumura discloses:
a device for use in a user equipment (UE) (fig.9 element 900), wherein the device comprises:
one or more processors (fig.9 depicts a one or more processors); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (fig.9 memory circuitry) comprising instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, are to cause the UE to perform a method for medium access control-element (par.[0054] describes utilizing a MAC-CE for TCI state switching) based transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state switching (par.[0054] the aforecited TCI State Switching) with a pathloss reference signal (par.[0013] describes the Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), which is a downlink pathloss reference signal), the apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (fig.8 which depicts the UE with a processor, element 810) coupled to the storage (fig.8 the storage element 820 which is communicatively coupled with element 810) which is a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions (fig.8 element 820 and par.[0069]), the processing circuitry configured to:
generate a first time between a downlink data transmission received from a network device and a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (fig.3 and par.[0030] which recites, in part, “When the activation command is a MAC CE command, the UE 101 is allocated a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) timing period 204 (also referred to as T.sub.HARQ 204) for the UE 101 to receive the activation command or downlink (DL) data which may include the activation command from the BS 111, and for the UE 101 to transmit an acknowledgment.”. That is, the UE receives the command along with PDCCH or PDSCH, and THARQ is the period between the reception of a downlink transmission and an acknowledgement of that data, fig.4);
generate, based on the first time, a TCI state switch delay time (fig(s).3 depicts the delay time, or rather the time period it takes from reception of the MAC-CE indicating TCI State switching until the TCI state is switched. For example, with the MAC-CE HARQ-ACK feedback is needed, thus the delay includes the first time THARQ, as a time period for switching from a first TCI state to a second TCI state, wherein after the processing the TCI state is switched, par.[0035] which recites, in part, “For example, TRS proc 214 and T.sub.SSB proc 224 could each be 2 ms. When the UE 101 performs T/F tracking according to the TCI resource, and the first RS 210 is received before the first SSB 218, TCI switching to the target TCI state is complete after TRS proc 214.”).
While the disclosure of Cui discloses the TCI switching delay, it does not disclose explicitly:
by which the UE is to transmit an uplink signal to the network device after switching TCI states; and
encode the uplink signal to transmit to the network device by the TCI state switch delay time.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Raghavan discloses:
The UE is to transmit an uplink signal to the network device after switching TCI states (par.[0197] describes uplink transmission after TCI state switching); and
Encoding the uplink signal to transmit to the network device by the TCI state switch delay time (par.[0166] describes indicating by the network to the UE a TCI state switching by MAC-CE, which requires a delay, and par.[0196 – 0197] describes the transmission of an indication on an uplink channel of TCI state switching complete).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Cui for calculation of the delay for TCI switching, with the uplink signaling after the TCI state switching as discussed in Raghavan. The motivation/suggestion would have been to signal the completion of the TCI state switching to the network.
Regarding claims 12, 28, and 32, the disclosure of Cui teaches:
Generate a second time to a first pathloss reference signal transmission after reception of a downlink signal (fig.2 and par.[0034] which depicts a TfirstRS which may be a SSB or another type of pathloss reference signal); and
Identify a periodicity of the pathloss reference signal (fig.2 depicts the element 212 which defines the periodicity of the pathloss reference signal, par.[0034] note either element 218 and 222 or 210 and 216, wherein if the SSB is received first it can be the pathloss reference signal, and if the UE receives RS 210 it is the first reference signal)
Wherein to generate the TCI state switch delay time is further based on the second time and the periodicity (fig.2 depicts the switch delay after the different periods discussed in fig.2).
Claim(s) 11, 27, and 31, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2024/0204970 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2022/0159772 A1), and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2024/0178982 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 27, and 31, the disclosure of Cui and Raghavan TCI state switching delay and wherein a downlink reference signal is identified by the UE device (fig.3 and par.[0035] which recites, the SSB which is a downlink reference signal or another type of DL-RS), but may not disclose: teaches:
wherein the TCI state switch delay time is a sum of a value related to a slot , the first time, and three times a second time associated with a subframe and the slot.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Matsumura teaches:
wherein a downlink reference signal is identified by the UE device, wherein the TCI state switch delay time is a sum of a value related to a slot , the first time, and three times a second time associated with a subframe and the slot (fig.6 and par.[0193] which recites, in part, “In the example shown in FIG. 6, in the CC with a known TCI state, the TCI state switching/activation is performed afterT.sub.HARQ+3N.sup.subframe,μ.sub.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Cui and Rahavan, with the disclosure of Matsumura. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the UE needs a sufficient amount of time to process and perform TCI switching when the UE doesn’t know the TCI state.
Claim(s) 13, 29, and 33, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2024/0204970 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2022/0159772 A1), and further in view of 3GPP “Email Discussion summary for feMIMO RRM”, May 2021, R4-2120226.
Regarding claims 13, 29, and 33, the combination of the Cui and Rahavan teach the delay TCI state switch but does not disclose:
Wherein the TCI state switch delay time based on a value related to a slot plus the first time, plus a sum of (a) the second time, (b) four times the periodicity, and (c) two milliseconds.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of 3GPP teaches:
wherein the TCI state switch delay time based on a value related to a slot plus the first time, plus a sum of (a) the second time, (b) four times the periodicity, and (c) two milliseconds (pg.2 Topic #1: Unified TCI, T-DOC R4-2117438 Apple, proposal 5 Define MAC CE based Joint TCI State Switch for known TCI State as: THARQ + 3ms + max{TOk*(Tfirst-SSB + TSSB-proc) , NM*( Tfirst_target-PL-RS + 4*Ttarget_PL-RS + 2ms)}, because the MAC-CE is used to indicate the TCI switch slotn is added to the THARQ from slot reception to feedback, see Cui. Also as defined above the second time is a time for the PL-RS, along with addition of 4*Ttarget_PL-RS + 2ms, which are (b) and (c) respectively.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Cui and Rahavan, in view of 3GPP. The motivation/suggestion would have been to give the UE an opportunity to respectfully transition to a new TCI state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matsumura et al. (US 2024/0178982 A1) “Terminal, Radio Communication Method, and Base Station”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights