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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered. Claim 22 has been amended. Claims 7 and 29 have been canceled in this amendment. New Claims 31-32 have been added in this amendment. Claims 1-6,8-28 and 30-32 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 24-26 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to objections for the disclosure have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/06/2026 on pages 15-16 of applicant's remark regarding Claims 1 and 26, the applicant argues that Hakola does not teach monitor “for implicit beam switch” during a window. The applicant further argues that Hakola does not teach specific steps of the claims 24 and 25.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Hakola discloses gNB sending beam switch command applicable to the COT (i.e. time window) and the UE switching the beam according to the command and applying QCL assumption implicitly or explicitly (Hakola Fig.8A-B Para[0350-363]). The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on the meaning of implicit indication. Hakola further teaches TCI states sent by the gNB to the UE in the beam switch command (Hakola Para[0356-357]. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the implicit indication and a time window in the claimed invention. Hakola discloses teaching about sending CSI report by the UE and the gNB sending beam switch command for a beam associated with a TCI state (Hakola Para[0356-357]. The examiner used Gonuguntla to address specific steps of the limitations which are not part of the claims 1 and 26. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-6,8-23 and 31-32 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 27-28 and 30 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 26.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5 and 9,13 of copending Application No. 18/568721 (hereinafter “Fang”) respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/580497
Co-Pending Application 18/568721
Claim 1, A method of wireless communication comprising: transmitting, by a wireless communication device, a channel state information (CSI) report using a first beam; monitoring, by the wireless communication device, for an implicit beam switch indication during a time window, the implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) information indicated by the CSI report; and switching, by the wireless communication device, to a second beam from the first beam based on the implicit beam switch indication, the second beam different from the first beam.
Claims 1,5 An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: transmit, to a base station, a channel state information (CSI) report associated with a beam switch; 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.
Claim 26, An apparatus configured for wireless communication, comprising: at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a channel state information (CSI) report using a first beam; communicate an implicit beam switch indication during a
time window, the implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of Transmission configuration
Indicator (TCI) information indicated by the CSI report; and switch to a second beam from the first beam based on the implicit beam switch indication, the second beam different from the first beam.
Claims 9,13 An apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive, from a UE, a channel state information (CSI) report associated with a beam switch; 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.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,5 and 9,13 of co-pending application by Fang contains every element of claims 1 and 26 respectively of the instant application
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4,8,10,12-14,16,18-21 and 24-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “. . monitor . .” should read “. . monitor first beam . .”
In claim 1, line 11, “. . beam switch indication . .” should read “. . beam switch indication received via first beam . .”
In claim 2, lines 3-4, specify which beam is used to transmit and receive
In claim 3, lines 7-8, specify which beam is used to transmit and receive
In claim 4, lines 7-8, specify which beam is used to transmit and monitor
In claim 8, line 3, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 10, lines 4,7, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 12, line 3, specify which beam is used to monitor
In claim 13, line 3, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 12, the claim recites “implicitly indicated beam and second beam” which is unclear to provide a relationship between first, second and temporary beam
In claim 14, line 4, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 16, line 3, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 18, line 3, specify which beam is used to monitor
In claim 19, line 3, specify which beam is used to monitor
In claim 20, line 6, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 21, line 3, specify which beam is used to receive
In claim 24, line 8, specify which beam is used to monitor
In claim 25, line 10, specify which beam is used to monitor
In claim 26, line 11, “. . switch indication, . .” should read “. . switch indication communicated, . .”
In claim 27, line 5, specify which beam is used to transmit
In claim 28, line 3, specify which beam is used to transmit
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1,8,10,23,26-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Hakola et al. (US 2022/0232546 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Hakola”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 26, Hakola discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communication, comp1ising: at least one processor (Hakola Fig.11 A processor): and a memory (Hakola Fig.11 A memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a channel state information (CSI) report using a first beam (Hakola Fig.8B A measurement report (i.e. CSI) sent); monitor for an implicit beam switch indication during a time window (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0350-357] A COT(i.e. time window)), the implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) information indicated by the CSI report (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0350-357] A beam switch command); and switch to a second beam from the first beam based on the implicit beam switch indication, the second beam different from the first beam (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0350-357] The switch to another beam).
Regarding claim 8, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses receive a RRC message indicating a TCI list configuration, the TCI list configuration indicating a list of configured TCI states for the apparatus to use (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0253-254] The TCIs provided via RRC).
Regarding claim 10, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses wherein the implicit beam switch indication is: a TCI indication DCI which indicates an implicit TCI as implied by the CSI report (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); receiving a TCI indication DCI, Which indicates an implicit TCI as implied by the CSI report or not receiving DCI indicating a TCI (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0256] The DCI is used for implicit indication); not receiving a DCI indicating a TCI (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or receiving a MAC-CE confim1ing an implicit TCI indication in the CST report (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Regarding claim 23, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses transmit or receive data using the second beam responsive to switching to the second beam (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0392] A data transmitted or received).
Regarding claim 27, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses determine the second beam based on a TCI state in the CSI report: and determine whether to accept an implicit beam switch to the second beam, wherein the implicit beam switch indication is transmit1ed responsive to determining to
accept the implicit beam switch (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0350-357] The beam switch command after CSI report).
Regarding claim 30, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses wherein the CSI report is received from a user equipment (UE), transmit or receive data to the UE or from the UE using the second beam responsive to switching to the second beam (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0392] The UE sends CSI report. A data transmitted or received).
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.
Claims 2-4,9,24-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of GONUGUNTLA et al. (US 2022/0263557 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gonuguntla”).
Regarding claim 2, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose prior to switching to the second beam: transmit a second CSI report: receive a MAC CE indicating a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; and generate the CSI report to indicate the particular active TCI, wherein the second beam is indicated by the particular active TCI, and wherein switching to the second beam is responsive to the implicit beam switch indication.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses prior to switching to the second beam: transmit a second CSI report: receive a MAC CE indicating a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; and generate the CSI report to indicate the particular active TCI, wherein the second beam is indicated by the particular active TCI, and wherein switching to the second beam is responsive to the implicit beam switch indication (Gonuguntla Fig.7 Para[0104] A multiple CSI reports sent, MAC-CE received, TCI state indicated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “prior to switching to the second beam: transmit a second CSI report: receive a MAC CE indicating a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; and generate the CSI report to indicate the particular active TCI, wherein the second beam is indicated by the particular active TCI, and wherein switching to the second beam is responsive to the implicit beam switch indication” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further disclose receive a DCI indicating the particular active TCI, wherein switching to the second beam is further based on the DCI (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0256] The DCI is used for implicit indication). Hakola does not explicitly disclose prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate; activate the group of configured TCI ls based on the implicit beam switch indication; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate; activate the group of configured TCI ls based on the implicit beam switch indication; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI (Gonuguntla Fig.7 Para[0104] A multiple CSI reports sent and TCI state indicated, a beam switching command is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate; activate the group of configured TCI ls based on the implicit beam switch indication; select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs; transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola further discloses second time window (Hakola Fig.7,8B,9 Para[0350-357] A COT(i.e. time window)). Hakola does not explicitly disclose prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs based on the implicit beam switch indication: and select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs: transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI: and monitor for a second implicit beam switch indication during a second time window, the second implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of TCI activation information indicated by the second CSI report, wherein switching to the second beam is further based on the second implicit beam switch indication responsive to the second implicit beam switch indication.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs based on the implicit beam switch indication: and select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs: transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI: and monitor for a second implicit beam switch indication during a second time window, the second implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of TCI activation information indicated by the second CSI report, wherein switching to the second beam is further based on the second implicit beam switch indication responsive to the second implicit beam switch indication (Gonuguntla Fig.7 Para[0104] A multiple CSI reports sent and TCI state indicated, a beam switching command is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “prior to switching to the second beam: generate the CSI report to indicate a group of configured TCIs to activate: activate the group of configured TCIs based on the implicit beam switch indication: and select a particular active TCI of the configured TCIs: transmit a second CSI report indicating the particular active TCI: and monitor for a second implicit beam switch indication during a second time window, the second implicit beam switch indication corresponding to acceptance of TCI activation information indicated by the second CSI report, wherein switching to the second beam is further based on the second implicit beam switch indication responsive to the second implicit beam switch indication” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the time window is an activation time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from after transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CST report transmission.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses wherein the time window is an activation time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from after transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CST report transmission (Gonuguntla Fig.12 Para[0141] A time between CSI report and estimated TCI switch delay).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the time window is an activation time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from after transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CST report transmission” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 24, Hakola discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communication, comp1ising: at least one processor (Hakola Fig.11 A processor): and a memory (Hakola Fig.11 A memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a channel state information (CSI) report using a first beam (Hakola Fig.8B A measurement report (i.e. CSI) sent). Hakola does not explicitly disclose the CSI report indicating a set of Transmission Configuration indicator (TCI) states to activate from a list of configured TCI states; monitor for an indication to activated the set of TCI states: and activate the set of TCI states based on the indication.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses the CSI report indicating a set of Transmission Configuration indicator (TCI) states to activate from a list of configured TCI states; monitor for an indication to activated the set of TCI states: and activate the set of TCT states based on the indication (Gonuguntla Fig.7 Para[0104] A multiple CSI reports sent and TCI state indicated, a beam switching command is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “the CSI report indicating a set of Transmission Configuration indicator (TCI) states to activate from a list of configured TCI states; monitor for an indication to activated the set of TCI states: and activate the set of TCT states based on the indication” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 25, Hakola discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communication, comp1ising: at least one processor (Hakola Fig.11 A processor): and a memory (Hakola Fig.11 A memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a channel state information (CSI) report using a first beam (Hakola Fig.8B A measurement report (i.e. CSI) sent). Hakola does not explicitly disclose the CSI report indicating a particular Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state of a set of active TCI states to use, wherein the particular TCI state indicates a second beam: monitor for an indication to use the second beam which is implicitly indicated by the CSI report during a time window, the second beam different from the first beam: and switch to the second beam from the first beam based on the indication.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses the CSI report indicating a particular Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state of a set of active TCI states to use, wherein the particular TCI state indicates a second beam: monitor for an indication to use the second beam which is implicitly indicated by the CSI report during a time window, the second beam different from the first beam: and switch to the second beam from the first beam based on the indication (Gonuguntla Fig.7 Para[0104] A multiple CSI reports sent, MAC-CE received, TCI state indicated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “the CSI report indicating a particular Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state of a set of active TCI states to use, wherein the particular TCI state indicates a second beam: monitor for an indication to use the second beam which is implicitly indicated by the CSI report during a time window, the second beam different from the first beam: and switch to the second beam from the first beam based on the indication” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Regarding claim 28, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein communicating the implicit beam switch indication includes to: transmit a transmission during the time window; or refrain from transmitting a transmission during the time window.
However, Gonuguntla from the same field of invention discloses wherein communicating the implicit beam switch indication includes to: transmit a transmission during the time window (Gonuguntla Fig.7,12 Para[0104] A PDSCH PDCCH sent); or refrain from transmitting a transmission during the time window (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein communicating the implicit beam switch indication includes to: transmit a transmission during the time window; or refrain from transmitting a transmission during the time window” as taught by Gonuguntla. The motivation would have been to improve performance during TCI state switch (Gonuguntla Para[0014]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0149305 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 5, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the CSI report is an implicit activation CSI report and wherein the apparatus activates a group of TCIs without receiving a TCI activation.
However, Zhou from the same field of invention discloses wherein the CSI report is an implicit activation CSI report and wherein the apparatus activates a group of TCIs without receiving a TCI activation (Zhou Para[0335,0341] A BWP switching at inactivity timer (i.e. no response) and a cell group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the CSI report is an implicit activation CSI report and wherein the apparatus activates a group of TCIs without receiving a TCI activation” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to improve bandwidth part management (Zhou Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the CSI report is an implicit indication CSI report, and wherein the apparatus switches to the second beam without receiving a TCI indication.
However, Zhou from the same field of invention discloses wherein the CSI report is an implicit indication CSI report, and wherein the apparatus switches to the second beam without receiving a TCI indication (Zhou Para[0335,0341] A BWP switching at inactivity timer (i.e. no response)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the CSI report is an implicit indication CSI report, and wherein the apparatus switches to the second beam without receiving a TCI indication” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to improve bandwidth part management (Zhou Abstract).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of DU et al. (US 2024/0171997 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Du”).
Regarding claim 11, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the time window is a confirmation time window, wherein the confirmation time window starts from a first time offset from after transmiss10n of the CSI report and wherein the confirmation time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CSI report.
However, Du from the same field of invention discloses wherein the time window is a confirmation time window, wherein the confirmation time window starts from a first time offset from after transmiss10n of the CSI report and wherein the confirmation time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CSI report (Du Para[0053] A time between valid report and TCI activation received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the time window is a confirmation time window, wherein the confirmation time window starts from a first time offset from after transmiss10n of the CSI report and wherein the confirmation time window ends from a second time offset from after transmission of the CSI report” as taught by Du. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Du Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 15, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the time window is a rejection time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from transmission of the CSI report wherein the rejection time window comprises a time window for rejecting an implicit beam switch, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the rejection time window.
However, Du from the same field of invention discloses wherein the time window is a rejection time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from transmission of the CSI report wherein the rejection time window comprises a time window for rejecting an implicit beam switch, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the rejection time window (Du Para[0053] A time between valid report and TCI activation command received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the time window is a rejection time window, wherein the time window starts from a first time offset from transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from transmission of the CSI report wherein the rejection time window comprises a time window for rejecting an implicit beam switch, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the rejection time window” as taught by Du. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Du Para[0002]).
Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Du and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0353510 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 12, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the confirmation time window corresponds to a window where an implicitly indicated beam is used temporarily and the apparatus monitors for confirmation of continued use of the implicitly indicated beam, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the confirmation time window.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the confirmation time window corresponds to a window where an implicitly indicated beam is used temporarily and the apparatus monitors for confirmation of continued use of the implicitly indicated beam, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the confirmation time window (Zhang Para[0035] A beam switching timer used while waiting for a response and start initial beam alignment procedure if timer expires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein the confirmation time window corresponds to a window where an implicitly indicated beam is used temporarily and the apparatus monitors for confirmation of continued use of the implicitly indicated beam, and wherein switching to the second beam occurs at or after the start of the confirmation time window” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Zhang Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose receive a message during the confirmation time window; and determine to keep using the second beam based on the message.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses receive a message during the confirmation time window; and determine to keep using the second beam based on the message (Zhang Para[0035] A beam switching timer used while waiting for a response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “receive a message during the confirmation time window; and determine to keep using the second beam based on the message” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Zhang Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein no message is received during the confirmation time window, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the confirmation time window.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses wherein no message is received during the confirmation time window, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the confirmation time window (Zhang Para[0035] A beam switching timer used while waiting for a response and start initial beam alignment procedure if timer expires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein no message is received during the confirmation time window, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the confirmation time window” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Zhang Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose receive a message during the rejection time window: and determine to switch to a third beam based on the message.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses receive a message during the rejection time window: and determine to switch to a third beam based on the message (Zhang Para[0035] A beam switching timer used while waiting for a response and switch when response is received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “receive a message during the rejection time window: and determine to switch to a third beam based on the message” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Zhang Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein no message is received during the rejection time window, and determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the rejection time window.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses wherein no message is received during the rejection time window, and determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the rejection time window (Zhang Para[0035] A beam switching timer used while waiting for a response and start initial beam alignment procedure if timer expires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein no message is received during the rejection time window, and determine to keep using the second beam based on not receiving a message during the rejection time window” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Zhang Para[0005]).
Claims 18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Fan et al. (US 2023/0268973 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fan”).
Regarding claim 18, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose monitor a second time window for a second indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the second indication.
However, Fan from the same field of invention discloses monitor a second time window for a second indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the second indication (Fan Fig.4,5b A multiple windows are used for beam switching process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “monitor a second time window for a second indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the second indication” as taught by Fan. The motivation would have been to improve performance during beam switch (Fan Para[0003]).
Regarding claim 32, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to switch to the second beam from the first beam based on the implicit beam switch indication includes to: switch to the second beam from the first beam responsive to reception of the implicit beam switch indication, wherein the first beam is used to receive the implicit beam switch indication; or temporarily switch to the second beam from the first beam responsive to the transmission of the CSI report using the first beam and including TCI information indicating the second beam; and confirm the temporary switch to the second beam responsive to reception of the implicit beam switch indication, wherein the second beam is used to receive the implicit beam switch indication.
However, Fan from the same field of invention discloses switch to the second beam from the first beam based on the implicit beam switch indication includes to: switch to the second beam from the first beam responsive to reception of the implicit beam switch indication, wherein the first beam is used to receive the implicit beam switch indication (Fan Fig.4,5b Para[0123-127] The second indication information is received on the first beam and the terminal switches to the second beam); or temporarily switch to the second beam from the first beam responsive to the transmission of the CSI report using the first beam and including TCI information indicating the second beam; and confirm the temporary switch to the second beam responsive to reception of the implicit beam switch indication, wherein the second beam is used to receive the implicit beam switch indication (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “switch to the second beam from the first beam responsive to reception of the implicit beam switch indication, wherein the first beam is used to receive the implicit beam switch indication” as taught by Fan. The motivation would have been to improve performance during beam switch (Fan Para[0003]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Fan and further in view of Du.
Regarding claim 19, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose monitor a third time window for a third indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the third indication, wherein the third time window comprises an activation time window, a confirmation time window, a rejection time window, or a pre-cancellation time window.
However, Fan from the same field of invention discloses monitor a third time window for a third indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the third indication (Fan Fig.4,5b A multiple windows are used for beam switching process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “monitor a third time window for a third indication, wherein switching to the second beam is based further on the third indication” as taught by Fan. The motivation would have been to improve performance during beam switch (Fan Para[0003]).
Hakola in view of Fan does not explicitly disclose wherein the third time window comprises an activation time window, a confirmation time window, a rejection time window, or a pre-cancellation time window.
However, Du from the same field of invention discloses wherein the third time window comprises an activation time window, a confirmation time window, a rejection time window, or a pre-cancellation time window (Du Para[0053] A time between valid report and TCI activation command received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Fan to have the feature of “wherein the third time window comprises an activation time window, a confirmation time window, a rejection time window, or a pre-cancellation time window” as taught by Du. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Du Para[0002]).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Du and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2023/0189284 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 20, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the time window is a pre-cancellation time window, wherein the pre-cancellation time window starts from a first time offset from before transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from before or after transmission of the CSI report, wherein the pre-cancellation time window comprises a window where the apparatus may receive a message which indicates to cease implicit beam switch operations and to not switch beams to an implicitly indicated beam, and wherein the beam switch occurs at or after the end of the pre-cancellation time window.
However, Du from the same field of invention discloses wherein the time window is a pre-cancellation time window, wherein the pre-cancellation time window starts from a first time offset from before transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from before or after transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the beam switch occurs at or after the end of the pre-cancellation time window (Du Para[0053] A time between valid report and TCI activation command received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “wherein the time window is a pre-cancellation time window, wherein the pre-cancellation time window starts from a first time offset from before transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the time window ends from a second time offset from before or after transmission of the CSI report, and wherein the beam switch occurs at or after the end of the pre-cancellation time window” as taught by Du. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Du Para[0002]).
Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-cancellation time window comprises a window where the apparatus may receive a message which indicates to cease implicit beam switch operations and to not switch beams to an implicitly indicated beam.
However, Cheng from the same field of invention discloses wherein the pre-cancellation time window comprises a window where the apparatus may receive a message which indicates to cease implicit beam switch operations and to not switch beams to an implicitly indicated beam (Cheng Para[0084] A deactivation (i.e. pre-cancellation) of common beam switching feature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein the pre-cancellation time window comprises a window where the apparatus may receive a message which indicates to cease implicit beam switch operations and to not switch beams to an implicitly indicated beam” as taught by Cheng. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Cheng Para[0002])
Regarding claim 21, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose receive a cancellation indication in a second pre-cancellation time window; and determine to not to perform a second implicit beam switch based on the cancellation indication.
However, Cheng from the same field of invention discloses receive a cancellation indication in a second pre-cancellation time window; and determine to not to perform a second implicit beam switch based on the cancellation indication (Cheng Para[0083-84] A deactivation (i.e. pre-cancellation) of common beam switching feature and beam switching not occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein the pre-cancellation time window comprises a window where the apparatus may receive a message which indicates to cease implicit beam switch operations and to not switch beams to an implicitly indicated beam” as taught by Cheng. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Cheng Para[0002])
Regarding claim 22, Hakola in view of Du discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola in view of Du does not explicitly disclose wherein the cancellation indication comprises a TCI indication in a DC! or a MAC-CE or a dedicated DCI.
However, Cheng from the same field of invention discloses wherein the cancellation indication comprises a TCI indication in a DC! or a MAC-CE or a dedicated DCI (Cheng Para[0083-84] A deactivation via MAC-CE of common beam switching feature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola and Du to have the feature of “wherein the cancellation indication comprises a TCI indication in a DC! or a MAC-CE” as taught by Cheng. The motivation would have been to increase data rate per user (Cheng Para[0002])
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of WANG et al. (US 2024/0324047 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 31, Hakola discloses the apparatuses as explained above for Claim 1. Hakola does not explicitly disclose wherein the CSI report includes the TCI information, and wherein the TCI information indicates an implicit beam switch for the second the beam.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the CSI report includes the TCI information, and wherein the TCI information indicates an implicit beam switch for the second the beam (Wang Para[0084] A target TCI state is indicated in the CSI report and used for channel acquisition (i.e. switch)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hakola to have the feature of “” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to improve intermittent disconnection handling (Wang Para[0005]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights