DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 2024/0340053) in view of Shokri Razaghi (US 2023/0403592)
Regarding Claim 10, 13, 14 and 15, Yuan teaches communication device comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a downlink signal or an uplink signal (figure 2, see specifically MIMO processor and MIMO detector); and
a processor configured to determine a default beam in a wireless communication (figure 2, see specifically the processors and controllers),
wherein in a case where a beam to be applied to the downlink signal or the uplink signal is changed from the default beam (¶ [0149], see specifically switches to implicit beam),
the processor is configured to change the beam to be applied to the downlink signal or the uplink signal back to the determined default beam based on a response from a base station corresponding to a request for changing to the default beam (¶ [0106], see specifically implicit beam switch, ¶ [0151], see specifically rejection message, ¶ [0138], see specifically original beam or default beam),
the request for changing to the default beam being transmitted based on a result of radio link monitoring (¶ [0105], see specifically CSI report and monitoring).
Yuan fails to explicitly teach determining, based on a Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration, a default beam.
Shokri Razaghi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches determining, based on a Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration, a default beam (¶ [0116], see specifically default beam can be RRC configured.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to set a default beam by RRC signaling.
The motivation is that RRC is commonly used in 3GPP systems to configure different aspects of the radio communications.
Regarding Claim 11, Yuan teaches the processor is configured to change the beam to be applied to the downlink signal or the uplink signal back to the determined default beam at a timing of transmission or reception of a specific signal, or at a timing after an elapse of a predetermined time from the timing of transmission or reception of the specific signal (¶ [0106], see specifically implicit beam switch, ¶ [0151], see specifically rejection message, ¶ [0138], see specifically original beam or default beam).
Regarding Claim 12, Yuan teaches the processor is configured to change an uplink signal or a downlink signal by applying the default beam when changing the changed beam back to the default beam (¶ [0106], see specifically implicit beam switch, ¶ [0151], see specifically rejection message, ¶ [0138], see specifically original beam or default beam).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-15 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shokri Razaghi.
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 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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights