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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 05/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9 and 17 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference sign(s) not mentioned in the published disclosure description:
Fig.13: 1360,1370
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “. . a beam from a reference . . resource set” should read ““. . a beam from a set of reference . .resource”
In claim 1, line 5, “the beam” should read “the beam information”
In claim 3, line 3, “the beam in the RS resource e set” should read “the beam from the RS resource set”
In claim 9, line 3, “. . a beam from a reference . . resource set” should read ““. . a beam from a set of reference . .resource”
In claim 9, line 4, “the beam” should read “the beam information”
In claim 11, line 3, “the beam in the RS resource e set” should read “the beam from the RS resource set”
In claim 17, line 5, “. . a beam from a reference . . resource set” should read ““. . a beam from a set of reference . .resource”
In claim 19, line 3, “the beam” should read “the beam information”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 7 and 15, the phrase “same as that for receiving” are unclear as to what it refers to. For the examination purpose, the examiner interprets that it refers to same QCL assumption used by the UE to receive downlink messages on the same beam.
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 1-4,7,9-12,15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 2020/0244413 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Takeda”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2022/0271891 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gao”).
Regarding claims 1,9 and 17, Takeda discloses a user equipment (UE) (Takeda Fig.1A A UE), a base station (Takeda Fig.1A A TRP) comprising: a transceiver (Takeda Fig.12 Para[0165] A communication apparatus) and a processor (Takeda Fig.12 Para[0165] A processor) configured to transmit, in a first uplink (UL) channel, a request comprising information related to a beam from a reference signal (RS) resource set (Takeda Fig.2A,2B Para[0046-47] A measurement report is sent with beam ID (i.e. information) for CSI-RS resources associated with TX beams. A recovery signal is sent with beam information, see Para[0064-65]); and receive, based on the QCL assumption (Takeda Fig.2A,2B Para[0048-50,0083-84] QCL assumption used), the PDCCH in a search space set configured for beam failure recovery (BFR) (Takeda Fig.2A,2B Para[0048-50,0083-84] The BS sends response signal (i.e. PDCCH) using QCL assumption and UE search space), wherein the PDCCH provides a response to the request (Takeda Fig.2A,2B Para[0048-50,0083-84] The PDCCH is sent and received for recovery signal response).
Takeda does not explicitly disclose determine, based on the beam, a quasi-co-location (QCL) assumption for receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).
However, Gao from the same field of invention discloses determine, based on the beam, a quasi-co-location (QCL) assumption for receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Gao Para[0122,0126-127] A QCL assumption is used for sending and receiving beam indication. Fig.10 Para[0137] DCI (i.e. PDCCH) signal is used for DL. The applicant is advised that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “for receiving PDCCH” is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. Thus, limitation of “for receiving PDCCH” is considered intended use).
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 Takeda to have the feature of “determine, based on the beam, a quasi-co-location (QCL) assumption for receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)” as taught by Gao. The motivation would have been for efficient beam management (Gao Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 2,10 and 18, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda further discloses wherein: the first UL channel is one of: a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Takeda Para[0072,0113] The PUCCH or PDSCH is used for UL signals); and the request is transmitted via a scheduling request (SR) or via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (Takeda Para[0069] The SR is used as recovery signal).
Regarding claims 3,11 and 19, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda further discloses wherein the information includes at least one of: a first indication of presence of the beam (Takeda Para[0046-47,0064-65] A beam ID (i.e. presence) in the measurement report or recovery signal); a second indication of the beam in the RS resource set (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or an index or identity of a cell associated to the RS resource set, wherein the RS resource set comprises one or more channel state information RS (CSI-RS) resource configuration indexes, or synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block indexes (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Regarding claims 4,12 and 20, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. The claim recites wherein the second indication includes at least one of: an index of the beam in the RS resource set, wherein a bitwidth of the index is log2L, and L is a number of RS resource indexes in the RS resource set; or a bitmap with each bit position of the bitmap associated with a RS resource index in the RS resource set, wherein a RS resource index associated with a bit position set to ‘1’ corresponds to the beam (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim it depends on).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda further discloses receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; the first UL channel is earlier in time than the second UL channel; and the first UL channel is associated with the RS resource set (Takeda Para[0048-49] The QCL association is used for uplink and downlink beams and resources).
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Gao and further in view of KAASALAINEN et al. (US 2019/0350028 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kaasalainen”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; the first UL channel is earlier in time than the second UL channel; and the first UL channel is associated with the RS resource set.
However, Kaasalainen from a similar field of invention discloses receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; the first UL channel is earlier in time than the second UL channel; and the first UL channel is associated with the RS resource set (Kaasalainen Para[0080] The UL resources are dedicated for scheduling request which is sent regularly or frequently. The resources are scheduled in the same beam direction).
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 Takeda and Gao to have the feature of “receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; the first UL channel is earlier in time than the second UL channel; and the first UL channel is associated with the RS resource set” as taught by Kaasalainen. The motivation would have been for reducing errors and improve data speed (Kaasalainen Para[0005]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; and transmit, in the second UL channel, the request.
However, Kaasalainen from a similar field of invention discloses receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; and transmit, in the second UL channel, the request (Kaasalainen Para[0080] A persistent data resource allocation for SRs).
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 Takeda and Gao to have the feature of “receive a configuration for a second UL channel to transmit the request; and transmit, in the second UL channel, the request” as taught by Kaasalainen. The motivation would have been for reducing errors and improve data speed (Kaasalainen Para[0005]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Gao and further in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 2016/0302174 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chatterjee”).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Takeda in view of Gao discloses the method, the UE and the base station as explained above for Claim 1. Takeda in view of Gao does not explicitly disclose wherein the response is via at least one of: a downlink control information (DCI) format with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a UE-specific radio network temporary identifier (RNTI); a one-bit indicator field in a DCI format; presence or absence of an indicator field in a DCI format; or a DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) with a same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number as for transmitting the first UL channel.
However, Chatterjee from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the response is via at least one of: a downlink control information (DCI) format with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a UE-specific radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (Chatterjee Para[0064] A DCI message (i.e. response) is sent using C-RNTI and carried by UE-Specific SS); a one-bit indicator field in a DCI format (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); presence or absence of an indicator field in a DCI format (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or a DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) with a same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number as for transmitting the first UL channel (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 Takeda and Gao to have the feature of “wherein the response is via at least one of: a downlink control information (DCI) format with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a UE-specific radio network temporary identifier (RNTI); a one-bit indicator field in a DCI format; presence or absence of an indicator field in a DCI format; or a DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) with a same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number as for transmitting the first UL channel” as taught by Chatterjee. The motivation would have been for enhancing coverage (Chatterjee Para[0004]).
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).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0048837 to Park
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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