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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zewail (US 2021/0112540) [R1].
For claim 1, R1 discloses a control unit (paragraphs 40-45) configured to assume a beam switching gap between a plurality of signals or channels for transmission and reception to be a sufficient time corresponding to a larger subcarrier spacing (paragraphs 48-55, 26, 84).
For claim 2, R1 discloses the control unit (paragraphs 40-45) assumes the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels to be a predefined period (paragraphs 48-55, 26, 84).
For claim 5, R1 discloses a control unit (paragraphs 40-45) configured to assume a beam switching gap between a plurality of signals or channels for transmission and reception to be a sufficient time corresponding to a larger subcarrier spacing (paragraphs 48-55, 26, 84).
For claim 6, R1 discloses assuming a beam switching gap between a plurality of signals or channels for transmission and reception to be a sufficient time corresponding to a larger subcarrier spacing (paragraphs 48-55, 26, 84).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Beam-management enhancements for NR from 52.6 GHz to 71GHz (cited on IDS) [R2].
For claim 3, R1 does not explicitly state the control unit applies a same beam to the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient. R2 discloses the control unit applies a same beam to the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient (Section 2.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use the control unit applies a same beam to the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a more suitable beam (R2 Section 2.4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Enhancements on Multi-TRP for PDCCH, PUCCH, and PUSCH (cited on IDS) [R3].
For claim 4, R1 does not explicitly state the control unit cancels one of the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient. R3 discloses the control unit cancels one of the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient (Section 4.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use the control unit cancels one of the plurality of signals or channels in a case where the beam switching gap between the plurality of signals or channels is not sufficient taught by R3. The rationale to combine would be to increase switch timing efficiency (R3 Section 4.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Khoshnevisan et al (US 20210021330) discloses beam switching gap determinations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463