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 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)(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.
(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, 3-4, 11, 13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2021/0068123).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a beam determination method (fig. 33), comprising: receiving a beam configuration parameter (step 3302; para. 205; para. 178; note: TCI for beam determination); and determining a first type of beam according to the beam configuration parameter (steps 3308-3320; paras. 218-223; para. 179; note: determining a candidate beam type based on the TCI; figs. 31-32; paras. 214-215).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the beam configuration parameter comprises at least one of:
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first type of beam comprises at least one of: a wide beam (fig. 32, Types III and IV; para. 215; note: beamwidth),
Regarding claim 11, these limitations are rejected on the same ground claim 1 from the perspective of a base station transmitting the beam configuration parameter. In addition, the base station determines the beam configuration parameter (para. 111).
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 3-4.
Regarding claims 21-22, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1. In addition, Zhu discloses a communication node (fig. 3; paras. 101-102), comprising a processor, wherein the processor, when executing a computer program, implements the method of claim 1, and a non-transitory readable and writeable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the beam determination method according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0066279).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a beam determination method (fig. 9), comprising: receiving a beam configuration parameter (step 901; note: battery threshold for using a wire or narrow beam); and determining a first type of beam according to the beam configuration parameter (step 923; para. 77).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a gain difference between the first type of beam and a second type of beam (step 905; note: gain of a wide beam versus a narrow beam; para. 77); wherein the gain difference is used for determining transmit power of the second type of beam (paras. 79-80).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 9, respectively.
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu fails to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the beam configuration parameter is determined through a first artificial intelligence network. However, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses this feature (figs. 3 and 5; paras. 70, 73, 78 (especially the second sentence) and para. 83; note: AI determination of TCI states for beams). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the beam configuration parameter determined through a first artificial intelligence network in the invention of Zhu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide a model relating beans and operational characterizes as is known in the art (para. 72, especially the last sentence; paras. 70, 73, 78 and 83; figs. 3 and 5; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 2.
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pezeshki et al. (US 2022/0369141). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, Zhu discloses determining a beam from a candidate beam type (fig. 33, step 3310, 3314, 3318 or 3320; para. 219-220 and 222) but fails to disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the first type of beam is used for acquiring a value of a parameter of a second artificial intelligence network. However, Pezeshki discloses using AI to select a beam from candidate beams (para. 67, last two sentences; para. 79; note: candidate beams as an input parameter to an AI beam selector). 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 type of beam used for acquiring a value of a parameter of a second artificial intelligence network in the invention of Zhu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, using AI to perform a network determination as is known in the art (Pezeshki, paras. 67 and 73; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu in view of Pezeshki teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 5, further comprising: determining a second type of beam according to the first type of beam and the parameter of the second artificial intelligence network; wherein the second type of beam is used for transmitting signaling or data (Zhu, paras. 219-220 and 222; note: a selected receive beam has the same beam type as the first beam type, i.e., a same beam width; para. 107, last sentence; para. 77, last sentence; note: a UE also forming uplink transmit beams).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu in view of Pezeshki teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 6, wherein a mapping relationship exists between the first type of beam and the second type of beam (Zhu, paras. 219-220 and 222; note: a beam in the candidate beam set has the same beam type (width)).
Regarding claims 15-16, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 5-6, respectively.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pezeshki as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2024/0306137).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Pezeshki teaches and makes obvious using a candidate beam set where each beam in the set has a second beam type (width) of the beam set type (figs. 31-32; paras. 219-220 and 222) but fails to teach and make obvious the method according to claim 7, further comprising at least one of:
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 7-8.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kato et al. (US 2018/0115385).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, the method further comprises: storing a terminal beam capability (para. 94); wherein the terminal beam capability comprises at least one of: a capability of supporting the first type of beam, a capability of supporting a beam type of the first type of beam, or a capability of processing the first type of beam (fig. 9 and paras. 48 and 77). However, Lee fails to disclose wherein before receiving the beam configuration parameter, the method further comprises: sending a terminal beam capability. Kato discloses sending capability before a configuration (para. 79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein before receiving the beam configuration parameter, the method further comprises: sending a terminal beam capability in the invention of Lee. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, performing configurations based on predetermined capability as is known in the art (Kato, para. 79; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 10.
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