DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 23 July 2026 and Information Disclosure Statement filed on 13 May 2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 May 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the foreign patent document citation No. 1 for EP 3827627 A1 is not accompanied by a complete and correct copy of the reference at issue. Apparently, a copy of EP 3827627 A1 was submitted, in an unordered fashion, as five 30-page foreign references and a 23-page foreign reference. In order to promote compact prosecution, EP 3827627 B1 has been considered, and it is cited below as pertinent but not relied upon and cited in an accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-35 were pending in the Non-Final of 30 April 2026.
Claims 21, 26, and 31 have been amended by Amendments filed on 23 July 2026.
Claims 21-35 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2024/0032061, previously cited, hereinafter Zhou) in view of Gao et al. (US 2024/0283616, hereinafter Gao).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhou discloses a method, comprising:
detecting, by a user equipment, a plurality of downlink control information (DCIs) (Figs. 3 and ¶ 130 disclose user equipment (a UE) receiving DCI from a base station (BS); Figs. 4-5 and ¶¶ 141 and 147 also disclose a BS transmitting DCI comprising a unified TCI state indication to the UE; Fig. 6 and ¶ disclose the BS sending two DCI to the UE; and Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 161-163 disclose the BS sending three DCIs to the UE);
determining, by the user equipment, two or more of the plurality of downlink control information (¶ 130 discloses the UE receiving first indication information of transmission control information (TCI) states and indication of a scheduled downlink (DL) channel transmission (e.g., PDSCH) and one or more uplink (UL) channels for the UE to use for transmission, and the UE receiving the PDSCH according to the DCI from the BS; ¶¶ 141, 147, 154, and 161-163 disclose receiving the DCI(s) and determining indicated unified TCI states therefrom), wherein acknowledgement information for the determined two or more of the plurality of downlink control information is transmitted in a same symbol, in a same slot or in a same uplink channel (¶ 131 discloses the UE transmitting an acknowledgment to explicitly acknowledge receipt of the DCI including the TCI states; ¶ 132 discloses the acknowledgment as transmitted in an Physical UL Control Channel (PUCCH), wherein the acknowledgment is disclosed as a single bit — thus, transmission of the entirety of the single bit of information indicating the acknowledgment is at least implied to be transmitted in a same symbol and slot; ¶¶ 143, 148, 155 and 164 disclose the UE transmitting acknowledgment information to the BS for at least one of the DCIs transmitted to the BS; and ¶ 105 discloses support for same-slot HARQ feedback);
determining, by the user equipment, a first transmission configuration indicator state indicated in a first downlink control information (Fig. 3 and ¶ 130 disclose the UE using the TCI states, such as an indication of a unified TCI state, for communication with the BS; and ¶ 138 discloses the UE applying the TCI states after transmitting the acknowledgment indicating successful receipt of the DCI and the TCI states; ¶¶ 144, 151, 158, and 165 disclose the UE applying at least one of the indicated TCI states that is different from an initial TCI state that the UE was operating in which receiving the DCIs); and
applying, by the user equipment, the first transmission configuration indicator state (¶ 138 discloses the UE applying one of the TCI states after transmitting the acknowledgment indicating successful receipt of the DCI and the TCI states; ¶¶ 144, 151, 158, and 165 disclose the UE applying at least one of the indicated TCI states that is different from an initial TCI state that the UE was operating in which receiving the DCIs, such as the Unified TCI indicated in the DCI indicating the unified TCI as illustrated in Fig. 6).
Zhou may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determined two or more of the plurality of downlink control information indicate at least two different transmission configuration indicator states; and
wherein the first downlink control information is latest in time among the determined two or more of the plurality of downlink control information.
However, in analogous art, Gao discloses:
wherein the determined two or more of the plurality of downlink control information indicate at least two different transmission configuration indicator states (Fig. 4 and ¶ 193 disclose a UE applying a TCI corresponding to a latest PDCCH; and Fig. 7 and ¶ 253 disclose the UE receiving a second PDCCH indicating a second TCI, wherein the second PDCCH appears to be the latest received PDCCH); and
wherein the first downlink control information is latest in time among the determined two or more of the plurality of downlink control information (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gao to modify Zhou in order to determine a latest-received DCI, such as via PDCCH, and apply a TCI state indicated in the latest-received DCI that is different from a TCI state indicated in an earlier-received DCI. One would have been motivated to do this, because applying a latest-received DCI's indicated TCI may help avoid ambiguity between two TCI states, thereby avoiding unnecessary beam switching (Gao ¶ 52).
Regarding Claim 22, Zhou-Gao disclose the method of claim 21.
Zhou discloses wherein the acknowledgement information comprises a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement or a hybrid automatic repeat request negative acknowledgement (Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 132, 143, 149, 156, and 164 disclose the acknowledgment as a HARQ acknowledgment).
Regarding Claim 23, Zhou-Gao disclose the method of claim 21.
Zhou discloses wherein acknowledgement information for the first downlink control information comprises either a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement or a hybrid automatic repeat request negative acknowledgement (Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 132, 143, 149, 156, and 164 disclose the acknowledgment as a HARQ acknowledgment).
Regarding Claim 24, Zhou-Gao disclose the method of claim 21.
Zhou discloses wherein acknowledgement information for the first downlink control information comprises a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 132, 143, 149, 156, and 164 disclose the acknowledgment as a HARQ acknowledgment).
Regarding Claim 25, Zhou-Gao disclose the method of claim 21.
Zhou discloses wherein the applying of the first transmission configuration indicator state comprises applying the first transmission configuration indicator state after a number of symbols or a number of slots after a last symbol of acknowledgment information for the first downlink control information (¶ 105 discloses wherein HARQ feedback may be provided in a specific slot in which data was received in a previous symbol or in a subsequent slot according to a time interval; ¶ 113 discloses further details of DCI indicating when a UE is to begin using a beam as indicated in a TCI state after the DCI is received, as defined in symbols; Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 138, 144, 151, 158, and 165 disclose the UE applying the TCI state of the last-received DCI after possibly receiving PDSCH following the latest DCI and after transmitting acknowledgment information corresponding to the latest received DCI following reception of the latest DCI and possible reception of the PDSCH).
Regarding Claims 26-30, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 26-30 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 21-25 and are rejected under the same reasoning. Further, Zhou, at Fig. 11 and ¶¶ 195, discloses a UE, as described therein, as comprising memory comprising code executed by a processor of the UE.
Regarding Claims 31-35, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 31-35 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 21-25 and are rejected under the same reasoning. Further, Zhou, at Fig. 11 and ¶¶ 195, discloses a UE, as described therein, as comprising memory comprising code executed by a processor of the UE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nogami et al. (EP 3827327 B1), corresponding EPO patent document to Nagomi et al. (WO 2020/022523, previously made of record).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights