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 submission filed on 06/25/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 23, 45, and 67 are pending.
Claims 2-22, 24-44, 46-66, and 68-88 were previously canceled.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objections to Figures 1-10.
35 USC 112 Rejections to claims 1, 23, 45, and 67.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 4 bitfields vs 2 auto bitfields [Remarks pg. 9-10]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the cited art discloses the limitations as claimed, the claims remain rejected.
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, 23, 45, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CATT (“Enhancements on multi-beam operation”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #104-3, R1-2100343, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, CATT discloses a network node (gNB [pg. 7]) configured to communicate with a wireless device (UE [pg. 7]), WD, the WD having been activated and indicated with first and second transmission configuration indicator, TCI, states for at least one of downlink, DL, reception and uplink, UL, transmission, by the WD, each of the first and the second TCI states comprising either a DL TCI state and a UL TCI state, or a joint UL and DL TCI state (DL only, UL only, or joint DL/UL [pg. 7-8 prop. 9, fig. 2, tbl. below fig. 2]), the network node comprising:
processing circuitry (gNB (inherent) [pg. 7]) configured to:
determine an indication indicating to the WD to perform one of the single-TRP operation and the multi-TRP operation for one or more physical channels (Single and multi-TRP operations are dynamically switched (i.e., determine indication) [pg. 7-8 prop. 9, fig. 2, tbl. below fig. 2]), the determined indication including:
a first dedicated bit field in a downlink related downlink control information, DCI, scheduling a downlink physical channel [pg. 7-8 prop. 9, fig. 2, tbl. below fig. 2 col. 1 and/or col. 3];
a second dedicated bit field in an uplink related DCI scheduling an uplink physical channel [pg. 7-8 prop. 9, fig. 2, tbl. below fig. 2 col. 2, 4, and/or col. 1, 3]; and
a radio interface (gNB (inherent) [pg. 7]) in communication with the processing circuitry, the radio interface being configured to:
transmit the determined indication to the WD [pg. 7-8 prop. 9].
Regarding claim 23, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 45, it substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the WD, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where CATT further discloses a wireless device (UE [pg. 7]), WD, configured to communicate with a network node (gNB [pg. 7]), … the WD comprising: a radio interface (UE (inherent) [pg. 7]) … and processing circuitry (UE (inherent) [pg. 7]) in communication with the radio interface, the processing circuitry being configured to: perform one of a single-transmission-reception operation and a multi-transmission-reception operation based on the received indication (Single and multi-TRP operations are dynamically switched (i.e., based on received indication) [pg. 7-8 prop. 9, fig. 2, tbl. below fig. 2]).
Regarding claim 67, it is substantially similar to claim 45, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gao (US 20240187199 A1) discloses a network and terminal device using multiple TCI states transmitted in DCI for multi-TRP transmission [Abstract, par. 0162].
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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights