CTNF 18/722,013 CTNF 89152 DETAILED ACTION This communication is in responsive to Application 18/722013 filed on 06/20/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims: Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 is directed to, inter alia, “computer storage medium.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “computer storage medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media (or non-transitory 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 (or absent of a controlling definition in the specification). See MPEP §2111.01. Here, the specification lacks a controlling definition to “computer storage medium,” instead, the specification provides examples of “storage medium” without excluding transitory signals. See published specification in ¶0055. The limitation thus is interpreted to include transitory signals or signal per se in view of the customary meaning of “computer storage medium.” When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.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). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a) (1 ) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (Bai) US 2019/0363919 A1 . Regarding claim 1, Bai teaches a method of operating a radio node in a wireless communication network (Fig. 18), the method comprising: transmitting first signalling in a first allocation unit (Fig. 18; 1802) and transmitting second signalling in a second allocation unit (Fig. 18; 1804), the first allocation unit and the second allocation unit being neighboured in time domain (Fig. 18; 1802 and 1804), a transmission filter being applied in a filtering interval (transmission filter is defined as software that define upper or lower limits of transmission, see instant published specification [0010]. Here, see ¶0119, ¶0122 & Fig. 17-18), the filtering interval covering part of the first allocation unit and part of the second allocation unit (Fig. 18; 1806 and 1810), the transmission filter being based on a beam change state pertaining to the transmission of one or both of the first signalling and the second signalling (¶0122 & Fig. 18; serving beam and target beam). Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies. Regarding claim 3, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the beam change state one or more of indicates, represents, and depends on, whether a beam change occurs between the first allocation unit and the second allocation unit (Fig. 18 & ¶0122). Regarding claim 5, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein one of both of the shape and size of the transmission filter is based on the beam change state (¶0122). Regarding claim 6, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transmission filter pertains to one or both of an amplitude and transmission power for transmitting one or both of the first signalling and the second signalling (¶0122). Regarding claim 8, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the transmission filter is associated to one or both of a lower minimum amplitude and lower transmission power for a beam change occurring between the first allocation unit and the second allocation unit than for no beam change occurring between the first allocation unit and the second allocation unit (¶0122 & Fig. 18-1807). Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies. Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies. Claims 14 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies. Claims 15 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies. Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 8, thus the same rationale applies . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Nam et al. (hereinafter Nam) US 2021/0306063 A1 . Regarding claim 4, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the beam change state one or more of indicates, represents, and depends on, a beam change density of signalling. Nam teaches wherein the beam change state one or more of indicates, represents, and depends on, a beam change density of signalling (density is defined as the number of frequencies of beam changes (instant specification ¶0016). Here, Nam teaches if the beam switching delay is comparable to the symbol length and/or longer than the CP duration (e.g., in instances with relatively high subcarrier spacings, as show in FIG. 5B) and/or beam switching occurs relatively frequently, the effect of out-of-band emission may be measurable and/or consequential. For example, some wireless devices may be required to satisfy spectral mask requirements that measure emitted radiation. In some examples, if beam switching is performed frequently, the duration during which unwanted emissions (e.g., out-of-band emission due to beam switching) increases and, when averaged over time, may not satisfy the spectral mask requirements, ¶0080 & Figs. 5A-B) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Nam into the system of Bai in order to extend a transmission for an extended period of time based on the beam change (abstract). Additionally, the method includes applying a windowing function to the transmission during the extended period of time (abstract). Regarding claim 7, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the beam change state one or more of indicates, represents, and depends on the beam change being based on analog beam forming . Nam teaches wherein the beam change state one or more of indicates, represents, and depends on the beam change being based on analog beam forming (¶0032; When the transmitter performs a beam switch, the transmitter may incur a delay. For example, performing analog beam switching includes the transmitter receiving and decoding control information, re-programming RF software and/or firmware, and retuning of RF front ends of the transmitter) Regarding claim 9, Bai further teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the transmission filter is associated to one or both of a lower minimum amplitude and lower transmission power for a higher beam change density than for a lower beam change density. wherein the transmission filter is associated to one or both of a lower minimum amplitude and lower transmission power for a higher beam change density than for a lower beam change density (¶0080; this limitation is a design choice and obvious in view of ¶0080 because if the beam switching delay is relatively small compared to the symbol length (e.g., the beam switch delay is contained within the CP duration, as shown in FIG. 5A) and beam switching does not occur frequently, the effect of out-of-band emission may be relatively small or negligible. However, if the beam switching delay is comparable to the symbol length and/or longer than the CP duration (e.g., in instances with relatively high subcarrier spacings, as show in FIG. 5B) and/or beam switching occurs relatively frequently, the effect of out-of-band emission may be measurable and/or consequential. For example, some wireless devices may be required to satisfy spectral mask requirements that measure emitted radiation. In some examples, if beam switching is performed frequently, the duration during which unwanted emissions (e.g., out-of-band emission due to beam switching) increases and, when averaged over time, may not satisfy the spectral mask requirements) . Claims 13 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies. Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies. Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 9, thus the same rationale applies. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM. 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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. MAHRAN ABU ROUMI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2455 /MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 2 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 3 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 5 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 6 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 7 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 8 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/722,013 Page 9 Art Unit: 2455
Prosecution Insights