DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/22/2026. Claims 7-10 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-9 in line 2 and Claim 10 in line 3 state “UE”. Suggest expanding “UE” to maintain clarity.
Claims 7-9 in lines 9-10 and Claim 10 in lines 10-11 state “greater than time duration threshold”. Suggest adding “the” before “time duration” to maintain antecedent basis clarity in the future.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0050015) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0208598)
Referring to Claim 7, Kang et al. disclose a terminal comprising: a transmitter (par 43, transmitter); a receiver that receives a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to which a single frequency network (SFN) scheme is applied (pars 301 and 302 and claims 28 and 29, PDCCH, SFN); and a processor that determines, based on an offset between downlink control information (DCI) transmitted using the PDCCH and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the DCI, a quasi-co-location (QCL) or a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for the PDSCH (pars 296, 301, 306 and 307 and claims 1 and 27-29, offset, PDSCH, PDCCH, TCI, QCL), wherein when the PDSCH is configured with an SFN scheme (pars 301 and 302 and claims 28 and 29, SFN scheme), the offset is greater than time duration threshold (par 307 and claims 1, 28, and 29, offset greater than threshold), and the DCI does not include a TCI state field (par 306 and claims 28, and 29, not including TCI field), the processor applies, to the PDSCH, a TCI state or a QCL applied to a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to the PDCCH (pars 296 and 301 and claims 27-29, CORESET, QCL, TCI states).
However, Kang et al. do not explicitly disclose transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. disclose transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability (par 68, threshold as UE capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability, as taught by Khoshnevisan et al., in the terminal of Kang et al., for the purpose of quasi-colocation assumptions (Khoshnevisan et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 8, Kang et al. disclose a radio communication method for a terminal, comprising: receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to which a single frequency network (SFN) scheme is applied (pars 301 and 302 and claims 1, 28 and 29, PDCCH, SFN); and determining, based on an offset between downlink control information (DCI) transmitted using the PDCCH and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the DCI, a quasi-co-location (QCL) or a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for the PDSCH (pars 296, 301, 306 and 307 and claims 1 and 27-29, offset, PDSCH, PDCCH, TCI, QCL), wherein when the PDSCH is configured with an SFN scheme (pars 301 and 302 and claims 28 and 29, SFN scheme), the offset is greater than time duration threshold (par 307 and claims 28, and 29, offset greater than threshold), and the DCI does not include a TCI state field (par 306 and claims 28, and 29, not including TCI field), a TCI state or a QCL applied to a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to the PDCCH is applied to the PDSCH (pars 296 and 301 and claims 27-29, CORESET, QCL, TCI states).
However, Kang et al. do not explicitly disclose receiver that receives a time duration threshold as a UE capability.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. disclose receiver that receives a time duration threshold as a UE capability (par 68, threshold as UE capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate receiver that receives a time duration threshold as a UE capability, as taught by Khoshnevisan et al., in the method of Kang et al., for the purpose of quasi-colocation assumptions (Khoshnevisan et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 9, Kang et al. disclose a base station comprising: a receiver (par 43, receiver); a transmitter that transmits a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to which a single frequency network (SFN) scheme is applied (pars 301 and 302 and claims 1, 28 and 29, PDCCH, SFN); and a processor that controls, based on an offset between downlink control information (DCI) transmitted using the PDCCH and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the DCI, a quasi-co-location (QCL) or a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for the PDSCH (pars 296, 301, 306 and 307 and claims 27-29, offset, PDSCH, PDCCH, TCI, QCL), wherein when the PDSCH is configured with an SFN scheme (pars 301 and 302 and claims 28 and 29, SFN scheme), the offset is greater than time duration threshold (par 307 and claims 28 and 29, offset greater than threshold), and the DCI does not include a TCI state field (par 306 and claims 28 and 29, not including TCI field), the processor applies, to the PDSCH, a TCI state or a QCL applied to a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to the PDCCH (pars 296 and 301 and claims 27-29, CORESET, QCL, TCI states).
However, Kang et al. do not explicitly disclose reporting a time duration threshold as a UE capability.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. disclose reporting a time duration threshold as a UE capability (par 68, threshold as UE capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reporting a time duration threshold as a UE capability, as taught by Khoshnevisan et al., in the base station of Kang et al., for the purpose of quasi-colocation assumptions (Khoshnevisan et al., Abstract).
Referring to Claim 10, Kang et al. disclose a system comprising: a terminal comprising: a transmitter (par 43, transmitter); a receiver that receives a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to which a single frequency network (SFN) scheme is applied (pars 301 and 302 and claims 1, 28 and 29, PDCCH, SFN); and a processor that determines, based on an offset between downlink control information (DCI) transmitted using the PDCCH and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the DCI, a quasi-co-location (QCL) or a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for the PDSCH (pars 296, 301, 306 and 307 and claims 1 and 27-29, offset, PDSCH, PDCCH, TCI, QCL), wherein when the PDSCH is configured with an SFN scheme (pars 301 and 302 and claims 28 and 29, SFN scheme), the offset is greater than time duration threshold (par 307 and claims 28, and 29, offset greater than threshold), and the DCI does not include a TCI state field (par 306 and claims 28, and 29, not including TCI field), the processor applies, to the PDSCH, a TCI state or a QCL applied to a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to the PDCCH; and the base station according to claim 9 (pars 296 and 301 and claims 27-29, CORESET, QCL, TCI states).
However, Kang et al. do not explicitly disclose transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability.
In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. disclose transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability (par 68, threshold as UE capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transmitter reports a time duration threshold as a UE capability, as taught by Khoshnevisan et al., in the system of Kang et al., for the purpose of quasi-colocation assumptions (Khoshnevisan et al., Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. See the above rejection for the relevant citations found in the cited prior art disclosing the amended limitations.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 SUHAIL KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7187. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8:30am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 5712727915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Suhail Khan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights