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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 29 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, based on the following guidance.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The structure described in the specification at least in figs. 30-32 and related passages is generally recognized in the electric art (such as a computer, processor, specialized hardware, specialized software, etc., to realize the invention). Therefore, Examiner finds the claims are reasonably supported by the structure described in the specification pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, whether or not 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 30, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987)(suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 USC § 101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 7, 10-12, 14 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US 2025/0279869).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (figs. 1A-2C, 6A-6B, 10A-17, 20A-20D and 23A-25; figs. 30-31 and para. 93), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive, from a base station, at least one transmission configuration indicator (TCI), the at least one TCI indicating a single uplink (UL) TCI or two UL TCIs (para. 677; figs. 6A-6B and 11-17; note: UL TCI configured by RRC); receive, from the base station, a first sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set and a second SRS resource set (paras. 680, 683 and 685) for UL multiple input multiple output (MIMO) (para. 218; note: MIMO as a spatial layer; paras. 56 and 630; TCI for a PUSCH/PUCCH spatial relation), the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set being associated with the at least one TCI (paras. 677, 680-681 and 683-689; note: UL TCI states mapped to SRS resource sets); receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling one or more uplink transmissions associated with at least one of a first transmission reception point (TRP) or a second TRP (paras. 262 and 287); and transmit the one or more uplink transmissions to the base station based on the DCI, the at least one TCI, the first SRS resource set, and the second SRS resource set (paras. 287 and 431; paras. 73 and 471-472).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one TCI indicates the single UL TCI, and wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: apply the single UL TCI to the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set (paras. 684 and 691).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one TCI indicates the single UL TCI, wherein the at least one TCI is a joint TCI or two separate TCIs (fig. 16 and para. 351; fig. 17 and paras. 401-402; fig. 20B and para. 467; fig. 20D and para. 469; paras. 218 and 248; note: interchangeable use of DL TCI and UL TCI, and PDSCH and PUSCH), and wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: apply the single UL TCI to an associated SRS resource set of the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set based on an association (paras. 476-477, 677, 684 and 691).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the association is based on a radio resource control (RRC) or medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE) from the base station (paras. 673 and 685).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: suspend a non-associated SRS resource set of the second SRS resource set or the first SRS resource set based on the association (paras. 476-477, 677, 684 and 691; note: suspend in the broadest reasonable interpretation is the SRS resource set not selected to use with the TCI; figs. 20B and 20D, and paras. 467 and 469).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one TCI indicates the two UL TCIs (fig. 16 and para. 351; fig. 17 and paras. 401-402; fig. 20B and para. 467; fig. 20D and para. 469; paras. 218 and 248; note: interchangeable use of DL TCI and UL TCI, and PDSCH and PUSCH), wherein the at least one TCI is a joint TCI or two separate TCIs, and wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: apply the two UL TCIs to associated SRS resource sets of the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set based on an association (paras. 455, 468-469, 471-477. 683 and 686).
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 10.
Regarding claim 27, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (figs. 30-31).
Regarding claims 28-30, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. Further regarding claim 30, the memory (medium) stores code to execute by the processor (paras. 909-910 and 945).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3, 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Nilsson et al. (US 2024/0259950).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura fails to disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: apply a set of power control (PC) parameters associated with the single UL TCI to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) based on the DCI being associated with the single UL TCI a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) based on the DCI being associated with the single UL TCI
Regarding claims 8-9 and 13, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 3.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Davydov et al. (US 2020/0412505). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the UE supports a DCI format 0_1 and a DCI format 0_2 (paras. 69, 95 and 258) with dynamic switching selecting the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set for a single transmission reception point (S-TRP) physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (paras. 453 and fig. 19A; para. 686 and fig. 24D; note: switching between TCI states for a single TRP for a PUSCH transmission, where a TCI state is associated with an SRS resource set).
However, Matsumura fails to disclose wherein the first SRS resource set is associated with a first precoder and the second SRS resource set is associated with a second precoder. Davydov discloses this feature (para. 27; note: different SRS sets have different precoders). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first SRS resource set is associated with a first precoder and the second SRS resource set is associated with a second precoder in the invention of Matsumura. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing proper coding and power for a transmission as is known in the art (Davydov; para. 27; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 5, Davydov discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the UE supports a DCI format 0_1 and a DCI format 0_2 (paras. 69, 95 and 258) with dynamic switching selecting the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set for a multiple transmission reception point (M-TRP) (paras. 453 and fig. 19A; para. 686 and fig. 24D; note: switching (swapping) between TCI states for two TRPs, where a TCI state is associated with an SRS resource set).
However, Matsumura fails to disclose precoder cycling associated with the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set (note: in the broadest reasonable interpretation, precoder cycling is using a respective precoder for an SRS resource set where the used SRS resources sets change). Davydov discloses using different precoders for each SRS resource set (para. 27; note: different SRS sets have different precoders). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have precoder cycling associated with the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set in the invention of Matsumura. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing proper coding and power for transmissions using different SRS resource sets as is known in the art (Davydov; para. 27; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumura in view of Davydov teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the dynamic switching indicates an order of the first SRS resource set or the second SRS resource set and an order of the two UL TCIs (Matsumura, figs. 10B and 12; note: codepoints 000 and 100 for TCI state order swapping; figs. 17 and 19A, and paras. 255, 402 and 453, 455; note: codepoints 10 and 11 for TCI state order swapping; paras. 218 and 248; note: interchangeable use of DL TCI and UL TCI, and PDSCH and PUSCH).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0330167 as supported by the corresponding passages of PCT/CN2020/073819).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura fails to disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein to apply the single UL TCI, the at least one processor is configured to apply at least one default SRS resource set of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set. However, Chen discloses using a default (preset) SRS resource set for a TCI (paras. 159, 161 and 163). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have wherein to apply the single UL TCI, the at least one processor is configured to apply at least one default SRS resource set of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set. in the invention of Matsumura. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, assigning a default or preset correspondence between a TCI state and an SRS resource set for communication as is known in the art (Chen, paras. 159, 161 and 163; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0219246). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumura discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one TCI indicates the two UL TCIs, wherein the at least one TCI is a joint TCI or two separate TCIs (fig. 16 and para. 351; fig. 17 and paras. 401-402; fig. 20B and para. 467; fig. 20D and para. 469; paras. 218 and 248; note: interchangeable use of DL TCI and UL TCI, and PDSCH and PUSCH), but fails to disclose wherein the DCI is configured with two transmit power control (TPC) fields associated with the two UL TCIs.
However, Xu discloses this feature (fig. 26, steps at T1 and T2; para. 254). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DCI configured with two transmit power control (TPC) fields associated with the two UL TCIs in the invention of Matsumura. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting data with an appropriate power level as is known in the art (Xu, fig. 26 and para. 254; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the two UL TCIs are associated with a same closed loop index (Xu, para. 254; paras. 230 (last two sentences) and 234; note: same transmit power for a TO; para. 232, last two sentences; note: same closed loop index), and wherein the UE is configured to apply one TPC field of the two TPC fields after one of the two UL TCIs takes effect (Xu, fig. 26, steps at T3 and T4; note: the data has an applied TPC when transmitted).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the UL MIMO is one of a codebook based MIMO or a non-codebook based MIMO (Xu, para. 228-229; para. 157, 213-215; note: MIMO antenna transmission with codebook or non-codebook multi-antenna precoding of data), and wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: respectively apply the two UL TCIs to the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set (Matsumura, paras. 455, 468-469, 471-477. 683 and 686).
Regarding claim 20, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: switch between single transmission reception point (S-TRP) and multiple transmission reception point (M-TRP) based on a dynamic switching indicated in the DCI (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453).
Regarding claim 21, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the dynamic switching indicated in the DCI indicates the S-TRP for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and one SRS resource set of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453).
Regarding claim 22, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the dynamic switching indicated in the DCI indicates the M-TRP for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and an order associated with the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453).
Regarding claim 23, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the dynamic switching indicated in the DCI indicates the M-TRP for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and wherein a lowest identifier (ID) TCI of the two UL TCIs is used (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453).
Regarding claim 24, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: switch between single transmission reception point (S-TRP) and multiple transmission reception point (M-TRP) based on a number of TCIs indicated in the DCI (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453).
Regarding claim 25, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: switch between single transmission reception point (S-TRP) and multiple transmission reception point (M-TRP) for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453; paras. 56, 180 and 375; note: interchangeability of PUSCH and PUCCH).
Regarding claim 26, Matsumura in view of Xu teaches and makes obvious the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the at least one processor coupled to the memory is further configured to: switch between single transmission reception point (S-TRP) and multiple transmission reception point (M-TRP) for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) based on a number of TCIs indicated in the DCI Matsumura, figs. 17 and 19A; paras. 26, 28, 400-402, 427 and 453; paras. 56, 180 and 375; note: interchangeability of PUSCH and PUCCH).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights