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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 03/28/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 14’s “CRM”, it is being interpreted as memory per the specification [par. 0448, 456, 465, fig. 21 no. 104, 204].
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 2 and 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, the claims recitation of “… used for configuration a spatial relation …” is unclear whether the claim intends for the info to configure something (i.e., used for configuring) or is used for identifying a configuration (i.e., configuration) between the signals.
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 1-2, 4-6, 7-8, 10-12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yerramalli (US 20200413268 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Yerramalli discloses a method of transmitting an uplink signal by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system [par. 0053, 66, 83], the method comprising:
receiving information about a downlink reference signal related to the uplink signal (Receives packets, data, control info associated with various info channels (e.g., control, data, channel access procedures such as LBT) (i.e., info about DL RS related to UL signal) [par. 0153]);
determining a transmission beam and a sensing beam for the uplink signal based on the information (The comm manager identifies an energy detection threshold for a sensing beam and transmit power parameters for a transmit beam and adjusts both (i.e., determines trans and sensing beams for UL based on the info) [par. 0154, 0005]);
performing sensing on the sensing beam (The UE utilizes directional beam sensing (i.e., performs sensing) [par. 0157, 0005]); and
based on a channel, corresponding to the sensing beam, being idle, transmitting the uplink signal via the transmission beam (The UE performs an LBT procedure before transmitting (i.e., channel, corresponding to sensing beam, being idle) [par. 0153-154, 157, 005, Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Yerramalli further discloses a user equipment (UE) for transmitting an uplink signal in a wireless communication system [fig. 10 no. 1005], the UE comprising: at least one transceiver [fig. 10 no. 1020]; at least one processor [fig. 10 no. 1040]; and at least one computer memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions [fig. 10 no. 1035].
Regarding claim 13, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Yerramalli further discloses an apparatus for transmitting an uplink signal in a wireless communication system [fig. 10 no. 1005], the apparatus comprising: at least one processor [fig. 10 no. 1040]; and at least one computer memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions [fig. 10 no. 1035].
Regarding claim 14, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Yerramalli further discloses a computer-readable storage medium [fig. 10 no. 1030] including at least one computer program [fig. 10 no. 1035].
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Yerramalli discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Yerramalli further discloses:
wherein the information is used for configuration a spatial relation between the downlink reference signal and the uplink signal (Adjust Tx power parameters and/or energy detection threshold based on overlap between beams (i.e., configuring spatial relationship) [par. 0153]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Yerramalli discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Yerramalli further discloses wherein the determining of the sensing beam includes:
determining an uplink reference signal used for listen-before-talk (LBT) based on the information [par. 0153]; and
determining the sensing beam based on the uplink reference signal [par. 0154, 157].
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Yerramalli discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Yerramalli further discloses:
wherein the UE has no beam correspondence (UE determination made from Tx and sensing beams (i.e., no beam correspondence/reciprocity) [par. 0153-154, 157]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Yerramalli discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Yerramalli further discloses:
wherein the sensing beam covers the transmission beam (Degree of overlap [par. 0154, 157]).
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 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli as applied to claims 1 and 7 respectively, and further in view of Ganesan (WO 2021181282 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Yerramalli discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Yerramalli discloses wherein the information includes, as discussed above, Yerramalli does not explicitly disclose a unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) framework. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ganesan.
In the same field of endeavor, Ganesan discloses:
a unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) framework [par. 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yerramalli with Ganesan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of configuring the relationship between two signals [Ganesan par. 0099].
Conclusion
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