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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed August 14, 2026. Claims 1, 10-14, 19-22, 26, 27 and 30 have been amended; no claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-30 are pending and are examined herein.
Independent claims 1, 14, 22 and 27 were each amended to add the step of switching from the first beam to the second beam after switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, and dependent claims 11-13, 20 and 21 were made to depend from the amended independent claims; the rejections set forth below rely on passages of Raghavan and Zhou not applied in the prior Office action to the limitations as now claimed and are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to the independent claims is addressed by the new grounds of rejection set forth below, and the arguments are answered to the extent they apply to the claims as amended and to the rejections as restated.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “at no point does Zhou describe any ordering of BWP switching relative to other operations, nor do the BWP-specific parameters of Zhou describe any temporal relationship with operations outside of BWP switching” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV). Zhou is not relied on for the beam switch. Zhou supplies the active bandwidth part switch commanded by a DCI and the rule that the UE “may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch”, a transition that runs “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” (Zhou, para [0026]).
Besides, Raghavan supplies the beam switch and where it is applied: when the PDSCH is scheduled by a DCI having the TCI field, “the TCI field in DCI in the scheduling component carrier points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP” and the UE “shall use the TCI-State according to the value of the ‘Transmission Configuration Indication’ field in the detected PDCCH” for that PDSCH (Raghavan, para [0024]).
In the combination the indicated TCI state belongs to the second bandwidth part and is first applied to the PDSCH scheduled there, which the UE cannot receive until the bandwidth part transition has ended, so the switch to the second beam follows the switch to the second bandwidth part. The ordering is a property of the combined teachings, not of Zhou alone, and it is set out in the rejection of claim 1 below.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “the Office Action does not provide an explicit analysis to support a conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1 based on Raghavan and Zhou” and that “a combination of Raghavan and Zhou would result in a TCI state switching framework and a separate BWP switching framework, each with their own respective time windows” (Remarks, page 13, paragraph 1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
The reasoning stated in the rejection of claim 1 below is explicit and rests on the references’ own text: Raghavan’s scheduling DCI already carries the TCI field, “the TCI field is present in downlink control information (DCI) format 1_1” (Raghavan, para [0012]), and that field “points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP” (Raghavan, para [0024]); Zhou’s active bandwidth part switch is commanded by a DCI on the PDCCH and ends at “the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” (Zhou, para [0026]), with the delay expressed in slots of the larger sub-carrier spacing so that no slot is “wasted, which can be scheduled by gNB for data transmission” (Zhou, para [0034]).
Letting the one DCI that already selects the TCI state of the scheduled bandwidth part also command the switch to that bandwidth part is the combination of known elements, each performing the function it already performs, to yield the predictable result of the UE receiving the scheduled PDSCH on the new bandwidth part with the indicated TCI state after the slot-quantized transition. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A). The two-time windows are not separate in the combination: both are measured from the same DCI to the same scheduled PDSCH.
As to Applicant’s argument that “neither Raghavan nor Zhou describes the BWP timer of Zhou as necessarily being shorter than the TCI state switching delay of Raghavan, nor do they describe the BWP switching timer of Zhou having any relationship with the TCI state switching delay of Raghavan” (Remarks, page 13, paragraph 1), the Examiner agrees that the references do not compare the two durations, and the rejection as set forth below does not rest on their relative length. The ordering of the switches is established instead by the location of the indicated TCI state: the TCI field of the DCI “points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP” (Raghavan, para [0024]), and the UE “may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals” during the bandwidth part transition (Zhou, para [0026]). Because the beam indicated by the DCI is the beam of the scheduled bandwidth part and is first used for a PDSCH that cannot be received before the transition ends, the beam switch follows the bandwidth part switch whatever the length of Raghavan’s switching delay. This reading of the references is new to this action and is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment that added the ordering to the independent claims.
Further, turning to Applicant’s argument that “Nor does the Office Action otherwise establish that the asserted combination of Raghavan and Zhou is the same as the features recited in independent claim 1” and that the claim as a whole must be considered (Remarks, page 14, paragraph 1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination is considered as a whole in the rejection of claim 1 below: one DCI, received in the first bandwidth part, indicates the TCI state of the second bandwidth part and commands the switch to it; the UE completes the switch over Zhou’s transition time, then receives the scheduled PDSCH on the second bandwidth part with the indicated TCI state, at a time set by the sub-carrier spacing of the first or the second bandwidth part. Every limitation of claim 1 is mapped to that single sequence of operations, in the order the claim recites. The specification itself describes the claimed sequence in the same way, as “an indication of TCI state change 220, and a BWP switch 225, that indicates to the UE 115-a to switch to a second TCI state and a second BWP” (Specification, para [0082]), and describes the bandwidth part switch as identified “based on an indication in the DCI 310, or based on a timer associated with a BWP switch” (Specification, para [0086]), which is the DCI-commanded or timer-based switch Zhou describes.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that dependent claims 2-13, 15-21, 23-26 and 28-30 “are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claims 1, 14, 22, and 27 are allowable” (Remarks, page 14, paragraph 4), the dependent claims are argued only by their dependency and stand or fall with the independent claims, which remain rejected for the reasons given above and below.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained in substance and are restated below to address the amended claim language. Because the restated rejections rely on passages not applied in the prior Office action, namely Raghavan, para [0024] and Zhou, para [0026] for the switching order added to claims 1, 14, 22 and 27, and Raghavan, para [0027] for claims 5, 11, 12 and 20, they are new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan (US 2020/0229161 A1) in view of Zhou (US 2019/0268905 A1); Raghavan, US 2020/0229161 A1, was published July 16, 2020, and Zhou, US 2019/0268905 A1, was published August 29, 2019, both before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, March 25, 2022, the international filing date of PCT/CN2022/082988; each qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses: A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications with one or more wireless entities to a second beam for beamformed communications with the one or more wireless entities;, because Raghavan teaches a UE operating in 5G NR whose receive beam for the PDCCH or the PDSCH is set by a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state, where the network changes the transmit beam by switching the TCI state and signals the TCI state change for the PDCCH via a MAC CE and for the PDSCH via DCI, after which the UE switches to and receives with the new TCI state. The TCI state change command (i.e., “beam switch indication” as claimed) names the new TCI state and with it the new beam, which means that the UE receives a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications with one or more wireless entities to a second beam for beamformed communications with the one or more wireless entities: (Raghavan, para [0010] “In FR2, the network can indicate a transmit beam change for PDSCH or PDCCH by switching the TCI state.” . . . para [0013] “TCI state change and corresponding beam switch could be initiated via MAC CE or DCI.” . . . para [0015] “The network could indicate a TCI state change for PDCCH via MAC CE and command and for PDSCH via DCI . . . is expected to switch and receive with the new TCI state after the TCI state switching delay”).
Although Raghavan teaches the UE switching to and receiving with the indicated TCI state after the TCI state switching delay, and the TCI field of the scheduling DCI pointing to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, which the UE uses for the scheduled PDSCH: (Raghavan, para [0015], para [0024]), Raghavan does not explicitly disclose switching, prior to using the second beam, from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part, switching from the first beam to the second beam after the bandwidth part switch, and a beam application time based on a channel parameter of the first or second bandwidth part.
However, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses switching, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth for communications with one or more other wireless entities to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth; as Zhou describes an active bandwidth part (BWP) switch of the UE commanded by a DCI, with a transition time that runs from the last symbol of the PDCCH carrying the switch DCI until the beginning of the slot that DCI indicates for the scheduled transmission, during which the UE is not expected to receive or transmit. In the combination the switch DCI is Raghavan’s scheduling DCI carrying the TCI field, and the UE completes the move to the new BWP before it first receives with the indicated TCI state, such that the UE switches, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth for communications with one or more other wireless entities to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch”; Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI or K2 in the active UL BWP switch DCI”).
In addition, Zhou discloses switching, after switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication; and since Zhou explains the UE receiving no downlink signal during the transition time of the active BWP switch, a transition that ends only at the beginning of the slot the switch DCI indicates for the scheduled PDSCH. In the combination that PDSCH, scheduled in the second BWP, is the first reception for which the UE applies the TCI state that the DCI’s TCI field indicates for the scheduled DL BWP, as conceded above, whereby the UE switches, after switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch . . . until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Moreover, Zhou discloses communicating with the one or more other wireless entities using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part in that Zhou shows the BWP switching delay, after which reception resumes on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest of the sub-carrier spacings SCS₁ and SCS₂ of the two BWPs when the switch changes the spacing, so that no slot the gNB could schedule for data is wasted. In the combination the time from the DCI to the first reception with the indicated TCI state on the new BWP is therefore set by the sub-carrier spacing of the first or the second BWP (i.e., “a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part” as claimed), with the result that the UE communicates with the one or more other wireless entities using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0034], “the BWP switching delay should be expressed with 0.5 ms slot for 30 kHz SCS, otherwise, there may be one 0.5 ms slot wasted, which can be scheduled by gNB for data transmission” . . . para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raghavan so that the scheduling DCI format 1_1 that carries the TCI field also commands the active bandwidth part switch Zhou describes, the UE completing the bandwidth part switch over Zhou’s slot-quantized transition time and then using the indicated TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH on the new bandwidth part, in order to retune to the new bandwidth part without wasting a slot that the gNB could otherwise schedule for data transmission, as Zhou states. Raghavan already scopes the activated TCI states to each DL BWP and lets the DCI point to the TCI states of the scheduled BWP, and Zhou addresses the timing of exactly such a DCI-commanded bandwidth part switch, including the choice of sub-carrier spacing when the two bandwidth parts differ. Combining the two is the combination of known elements, each performing the function it already performs, with the predictable result that the UE applies the new beam on the new bandwidth part at the first slot that both the bandwidth part transition and the TCI indication allow. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both procedures are DCI-driven operations of the same 5G NR UE and gNB and Zhou’s delay is defined on the same slot grid on which Raghavan’s PDSCH is scheduled.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the beam switch indication comprises: receiving, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam, as Raghavan further discloses the DCI format 1_1 that schedules the PDSCH carrying a TCI field whose value points to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, the DCI itself being received on the PDCCH of the bandwidth part the UE is monitoring when it is sent, such that the UE receives, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam (Raghavan, para [0012] “the TCI field is present in downlink control information (DCI) format 1_1 . . . If the scheduling offset between scheduling and PDSCH is larger than Threshold-Sched-Offset and TCI field is present, the TCI state for PDSCH is indicated via DCI” . . . para [0024] “the TCI field in DCI in the scheduling component carrier points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP”).
Furthermore, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses and that indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being commanded by a DCI carried on the PDCCH, the switch DCI indicating the slot in the new BWP at which the UE’s reception resumes, whereby in the combination the same DCI indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Accordingly, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which reception begins on the new BWP, being expressed in slots of the largest of SCS₁ and SCS₂, which is the sub-carrier spacing SCS₁ of the first BWP whenever the first BWP has the larger spacing, whereby the UE determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which reception begins on the new BWP, being expressed in slots of the largest of SCS₁ and SCS₂, which is the sub-carrier spacing SCS₂ of the second BWP whenever the second BWP has the larger spacing, with the result that the UE determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Consequently, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a minimum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, as Raghavan further discloses the time offset timeDurationForQCL from the scheduling DCI after which the UE applies the TCI state that DCI indicates to the scheduled PDSCH being determined from the sub-carrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH and lengthened by an additional delay d when the sub-carrier spacing μPDCCH of the PDCCH carrying the DCI is smaller than the sub-carrier spacing μPDSCH of the scheduled PDSCH. The time is thus set by which of the two spacings is the smaller and by whether that smaller spacing is the spacing of the bandwidth part carrying the DCI, so that the UE determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a minimum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part (Raghavan, para [0027] “The timeDurationForQCL is determined based on the subcarrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH. If μPDCCH<μPDSCH an additional timing delay d is added to the timeDurationForQCL”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which reception begins on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂, the largest of the two spacings being their maximum, which means that the UE determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Therefore, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a reference sub-carrier spacing for communications with the one or more other wireless entities, as Zhou further discloses each BWP being configured with its own sub-carrier spacing by the higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu, and the switching delay for the UE’s communications with the gNB being expressed in slots of the largest of the two configured spacings, which is thereby the spacing taken as the reference for timing those communications, such that the UE determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a reference sub-carrier spacing for communications with the one or more other wireless entities (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂” . . . para [0049], “a subcarrier spacing provided by higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu”).
Accordingly, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the reference sub-carrier spacing corresponds to a sub-carrier spacing of an initial bandwidth part used for communications with the one or more other wireless entities, as Zhou further discloses the timer-based switch returning the UE to the default DL BWP, or the default DL or UL BWP, on which its reception and transmission resume, each configured BWP, the default BWP included, carrying its own sub-carrier spacing set by the higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu, so that the spacing of the default bandwidth part on which the UE lands is the reference spacing in that case, whereby the reference sub-carrier spacing corresponds to a sub-carrier spacing of an initial bandwidth part used for communications with the one or more other wireless entities (Zhou, para [0027], “until the beginning of a slot user equipment (UE) is able to receive DL signals or transmit UL signals in the default DL BWP for paired spectrum or the default DL or UL BWP for unpaired spectrum” . . . para [0049], “a subcarrier spacing provided by higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu”).
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the transition after which reception begins on the new BWP running from the end of the last OFDM symbol of the PDCCH that carried the switch DCI to the beginning of the slot that DCI indicates, a duration that, if expressed in symbols, varies with the symbol length, which Zhou tabulates for each sub-carrier spacing, with the result that the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0029], “If the interruption duration is expressed in the unit of symbol, the interruption may vary according to different symbol lengths” . . . para [0031], “Table 1 below illustrates an example of the symbol and CP length”).
Consequently, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 1, wherein switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a received bandwidth part switch indication or a timer expiration, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being either a DCI-based switch, commanded by the active BWP switch DCI carried on the PDCCH, or a timer-based switch that takes place immediately after a BWP timer expires, so that switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a received bandwidth part switch indication or a timer expiration (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0027], “for a timer-based active BWP switch from a RANI perspective, the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch is the time duration from the beginning of the subframe (FR1) or from the beginning of the half-subframe (FR2) immediately after a BWP timer expires”).
Claim 10 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the received bandwidth part switch indication, the DCI-based active BWP switch mapped above; Zhou’s timer-based switch, also quoted above, meets the other alternative.
For these reasons, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part provides the beam switch indication, as Raghavan further discloses the time offset timeDurationForQCL after which the TCI state indicated by the scheduling DCI applies to the scheduled PDSCH being lengthened by an additional delay d when the sub-carrier spacing μPDCCH of the PDCCH carrying that DCI is smaller than that of the scheduled PDSCH, the PDCCH being in the bandwidth part the UE was monitoring when the indication was provided, which means that the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part provides the beam switch indication (Raghavan, para [0027] “The timeDurationForQCL is determined based on the subcarrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH. If μPDCCH<μPDSCH an additional timing delay d is added to the timeDurationForQCL”).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part where the beam switch indication is to be applied, as Raghavan further discloses the time offset timeDurationForQCL after which the TCI state indicated by the scheduling DCI applies to the scheduled PDSCH being determined based on the sub-carrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH, the PDSCH being received in the bandwidth part in which the indicated TCI state is applied, such that the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part where the beam switch indication is to be applied (Raghavan, para [0027] “The timeDurationForQCL is determined based on the subcarrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH. If μPDCCH<μPDSCH an additional timing delay d is added to the timeDurationForQCL”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: the beam application time is based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part when the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is indicated before the beam switch indication is received, or the beam application time is based at least in part on a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part when the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is indicated after the beam switch indication is received, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which reception begins on the new BWP, being expressed in slots of the largest of SCS₁ and SCS₂, so that the time is based on the first sub-carrier spacing SCS₁ of the first BWP when that spacing is the larger and on the second sub-carrier spacing SCS₂ of the second BWP when that spacing is the larger, the conditions on the order of the indications being construed as set out in the Claim Interpretation section above, whereby the beam application time is based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, or the beam application time is based at least in part on a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Claim 13 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the beam application time based on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, which Zhou meets when SCS₁ is the larger spacing; the other alternative is met in the same way when SCS₂ is the larger. As construed above, the conditions on the order in which the bandwidth part switch and the beam switch indication are received need not occur; were they required, the single DCI of the combination indicates both, so the bandwidth part switch is indicated neither before nor after the beam switch indication, and the examination would be unchanged.
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses: A method for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications to a second beam for beamformed communications;, in that Raghavan shows the network of a 5G NR system changing the transmit beam used toward a UE by switching the TCI state, and indicating that TCI state change to the UE via a MAC CE for the PDCCH or via DCI for the PDSCH, after which the UE switches to and receives with the new TCI state. The TCI state change command (i.e., “beam switch indication” as claimed) names the new TCI state and with it the new beam, with the result that the network entity transmits, to the UE, a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications to a second beam for beamformed communications: (Raghavan, para [0010] “In FR2, the network can indicate a transmit beam change for PDSCH or PDCCH by switching the TCI state.” . . . para [0015] “The network could indicate a TCI state change for PDCCH via MAC CE and command and for PDSCH via DCI.” . . . para [0018] “for DCI based TCI state switch for PDSCH, after the TCI state switch delay, the network transmits PDSCH with lowest MCS with the new TCI state”).
Although Raghavan teaches the network transmitting the PDSCH with the new TCI state after the TCI state switch delay, and the TCI field of its scheduling DCI pointing to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP: (Raghavan, para [0018], para [0024]), Raghavan does not expressly teach switching, prior to using the second beam, from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part for communications with the UE, switching from the first beam to the second beam after the bandwidth part switch, and a beam application time based on a channel parameter of the first or second bandwidth part.
Yet, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses switching, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth for communications with the UE; given that Zhou sets out the active bandwidth part (BWP) of a UE being switched by a DCI that the gNB transmits on the PDCCH, the switch taking effect over a transition time that ends at the beginning of the slot the DCI indicates for the scheduled transmission, so that the gNB moves its communications with that UE to the new BWP by its own command. In the combination the switch DCI is Raghavan’s scheduling DCI carrying the TCI field, and the move to the new BWP is complete before the gNB first transmits to the UE with the indicated TCI state, so that the network entity switches, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth for communications with the UE (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch”; Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI or K2 in the active UL BWP switch DCI”).
In addition, Zhou discloses switching, after switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication; and because Zhou teaches the UE receiving no downlink signal during the transition time of the active BWP switch, a transition that ends only at the beginning of the slot the gNB’s switch DCI indicates for the scheduled PDSCH. In the combination that PDSCH, which the gNB transmits in the second BWP, is the first transmission for which the gNB uses the TCI state its DCI indicates for the scheduled DL BWP, as conceded above, which means that the network entity switches, after switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch . . . until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Furthermore, Zhou discloses communicating with the UE using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part as Zhou describes the BWP switching delay, after which reception resumes on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest of the sub-carrier spacings SCS₁ and SCS₂ of the two BWPs when the switch changes the spacing, so that no slot the gNB could schedule for data is wasted. In the combination the time from the DCI to the first reception with the indicated TCI state on the new BWP is therefore set by the sub-carrier spacing of the first or the second BWP (i.e., “a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part” as claimed), such that the network entity communicates with the UE using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0034], “the BWP switching delay should be expressed with 0.5 ms slot for 30 kHz SCS, otherwise, there may be one 0.5 ms slot wasted, which can be scheduled by gNB for data transmission” . . . para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raghavan so that the scheduling DCI format 1_1 that carries the TCI field also commands the active bandwidth part switch Zhou describes, the network entity completing the bandwidth part switch over Zhou’s slot-quantized transition time and then using the indicated TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH on the new bandwidth part, in order to retune to the new bandwidth part without wasting a slot that the gNB could otherwise schedule for data transmission, as Zhou states. Raghavan already scopes the activated TCI states to each DL BWP and lets the DCI point to the TCI states of the scheduled BWP, and Zhou addresses the timing of exactly such a DCI-commanded bandwidth part switch, including the choice of sub-carrier spacing when the two bandwidth parts differ. Combining the two is the combination of known elements, each performing the function it already performs, with the predictable result that the network entity applies the new beam on the new bandwidth part at the first slot that both the bandwidth part transition and the TCI indication allow. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both procedures are DCI-driven operations of the same 5G NR UE and gNB and Zhou’s delay is defined on the same slot grid on which Raghavan’s PDSCH is scheduled.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 14, (Original) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the transmitting the beam switch indication comprises: transmitting, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam, as Raghavan further discloses the DCI format 1_1 scheduling the PDSCH carrying a TCI field whose value points to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, the network transmitting that DCI on the PDCCH of the bandwidth part the UE is monitoring, so that the network entity transmits, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam (Raghavan, para [0012] “the TCI field is present in downlink control information (DCI) format 1_1 . . . If the scheduling offset between scheduling and PDSCH is larger than Threshold-Sched-Offset and TCI field is present, the TCI state for PDSCH is indicated via DCI” . . . para [0024] “the TCI field in DCI in the scheduling component carrier points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP”).
Moreover, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses and that indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being commanded by a DCI the gNB carries on the PDCCH, the switch DCI indicating the slot in the new BWP at which the UE’s reception resumes, which means that in the combination the same DCI indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
For these reasons, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part, a minimum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, or a reference sub-carrier spacing for communications with the UE, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which the gNB may again schedule the UE on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂, the largest of the two spacings being their maximum, which means that the network entity determines the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Claim 16 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, which is the limitation mapped above.
Therefore, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 16, wherein the reference sub-carrier spacing corresponds to a sub-carrier spacing of an initial bandwidth part used for communications with the UE, as Zhou further discloses the timer-based switch returning the UE to the default DL BWP, or the default DL or UL BWP, on which the gNB’s communications with it resume, each configured BWP, the default BWP included, carrying its own sub-carrier spacing set by the higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu, so that the spacing of the default bandwidth part is the reference spacing in that case, such that the reference sub-carrier spacing corresponds to a sub-carrier spacing of an initial bandwidth part used for communications with the UE (Zhou, para [0027], “until the beginning of a slot user equipment (UE) is able to receive DL signals or transmit UL signals in the default DL BWP for paired spectrum or the default DL or UL BWP for unpaired spectrum” . . . para [0049], “a subcarrier spacing provided by higher layer parameter DL-BWP-mu or UL-BWP-mu”).
Accordingly, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 14, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the transition after which the gNB may again transmit to the UE on the new BWP running from the end of the last OFDM symbol of the PDCCH that carried the switch DCI to the beginning of the slot that DCI indicates, a duration that, if expressed in symbols, varies with the symbol length, which Zhou tabulates for each sub-carrier spacing, whereby the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0029], “If the interruption duration is expressed in the unit of symbol, the interruption may vary according to different symbol lengths” . . . para [0031], “Table 1 below illustrates an example of the symbol and CP length”).
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 14, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 14, wherein switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE or a timer expiration, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being either a DCI-based switch, commanded by the active BWP switch DCI the gNB carries on the PDCCH, or a timer-based switch that takes place immediately after a BWP timer expires, with the result that switching from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE or a timer expiration (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0027], “for a timer-based active BWP switch from a RANI perspective, the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch is the time duration from the beginning of the subframe (FR1) or from the beginning of the half-subframe (FR2) immediately after a BWP timer expires”).
Claim 19 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE, the DCI-based active BWP switch mapped above; Zhou’s timer-based switch, also quoted above, meets the other alternative.
Consequently, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 14, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part provides the beam switch indication, or which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part where the beam switch indication is to be applied, as Raghavan further discloses the time offset timeDurationForQCL after which the TCI state indicated by the scheduling DCI applies to the scheduled PDSCH being determined based on the sub-carrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH, received in the bandwidth part where the indicated TCI state is applied, and lengthened by an additional delay d when the sub-carrier spacing μPDCCH of the PDCCH that provided the indication is the smaller, so that the beam application time is based at least in part on a sub-carrier spacing of which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part provides the beam switch indication, or which of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part where the beam switch indication is to be applied (Raghavan, para [0027] “The timeDurationForQCL is determined based on the subcarrier spacing of the scheduled PDSCH. If μPDCCH<μPDSCH an additional timing delay d is added to the timeDurationForQCL”).
Claim 20 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the sub-carrier spacing of the bandwidth part where the beam switch indication is to be applied, the spacing of the scheduled PDSCH in the passage quoted above; the other alternative is met by the same passage through the spacing μPDCCH of the bandwidth part that provides the indication.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 14, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The method of claim 14, wherein: the beam application time is based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part when the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is indicated before the beam switch indication is received, or the beam application time is based at least in part on a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part when the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is indicated after the beam switch indication is received, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which the gNB may again schedule the UE on the new BWP, being expressed in slots of the largest of SCS₁ and SCS₂, so that the time is based on the first sub-carrier spacing SCS₁ of the first BWP when that spacing is the larger and on the second sub-carrier spacing SCS₂ of the second BWP when that spacing is the larger, the conditions on the order of the indications being construed as set out in the Claim Interpretation section above, which means that the beam application time is based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, or the beam application time is based at least in part on a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Claim 21 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the beam application time based on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, which Zhou meets when SCS₁ is the larger spacing; the other alternative is met in the same way when SCS₂ is the larger. As construed above, the conditions on the order in which the bandwidth part switch and the beam switch indication are received need not occur; were they required, the single DCI of the combination indicates both, so the examination would be unchanged.
Therefore, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to:, as Raghavan describes an apparatus suitable for use as a UE that comprises processing circuitry and a memory, the processing circuitry including a baseband processor, and the operations described being implemented as instructions stored on a storage device and read and executed by at least one processor, such that the apparatus for wireless communication at the UE comprises at least one processor and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to perform the operations that follow: (Raghavan, para [0058] “Apparatus 300 may be suitable for use as a mobile device such as a UE or suitable for use as a base station such as a next-generation Node B (gNB). Apparatus 300 may comprise at least processing circuitry 306 and memory 308.” . . . para [0078] “instructions stored on a computer-readable storage device, which may be read and executed by at least one processor to perform the operations described herein”).
In addition, Raghavan discloses: receive a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications with one or more wireless entities to a second beam for beamformed communications with the one or more wireless entities;, since Raghavan explains a UE operating in 5G NR whose receive beam for the PDCCH or the PDSCH is set by a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state, where the network changes the transmit beam by switching the TCI state and signals the TCI state change for the PDCCH via a MAC CE and for the PDSCH via DCI, after which the UE switches to and receives with the new TCI state. The TCI state change command (i.e., “beam switch indication” as claimed) names the new TCI state and with it the new beam, whereby the UE is caused to receive a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications with one or more wireless entities to a second beam for beamformed communications with the one or more wireless entities: (Raghavan, para [0010] “In FR2, the network can indicate a transmit beam change for PDSCH or PDCCH by switching the TCI state.” . . . para [0013] “TCI state change and corresponding beam switch could be initiated via MAC CE or DCI.” . . . para [0015] “The network could indicate a TCI state change for PDCCH via MAC CE and command and for PDSCH via DCI. . . . is expected to switch and receive with the new TCI state after the TCI state switching delay”).
Although Raghavan teaches the UE switching to and receiving with the indicated TCI state after the TCI state switching delay, and the TCI field of the scheduling DCI pointing to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, which the UE uses for the scheduled PDSCH: (Raghavan, para [0015], para [0024]), Raghavan does not explicitly disclose switching, prior to using the second beam, from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part, switching from the first beam to the second beam after the bandwidth part switch, and a beam application time based on a channel parameter of the first or second bandwidth part.
Nevertheless, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses switch, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth for communications with one or more other wireless entities to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth; in that Zhou shows an active bandwidth part (BWP) switch of the UE commanded by a DCI, with a transition time that runs from the last symbol of the PDCCH carrying the switch DCI until the beginning of the slot that DCI indicates for the scheduled transmission, during which the UE is not expected to receive or transmit. In the combination the switch DCI is Raghavan’s scheduling DCI carrying the TCI field, and the UE completes the move to the new BWP before it first receives with the indicated TCI state, with the result that the UE is caused to switch, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth for communications with one or more other wireless entities to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch”; Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI or K2 in the active UL BWP switch DCI”).
Moreover, Zhou discloses switch, after the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication; and given that Zhou sets out the UE receiving no downlink signal during the transition time of the active BWP switch, a transition that ends only at the beginning of the slot the switch DCI indicates for the scheduled PDSCH. In the combination that PDSCH, scheduled in the second BWP, is the first reception for which the UE applies the TCI state that the DCI’s TCI field indicates for the scheduled DL BWP, as conceded above, so that the UE is caused to switch, after the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch . . . until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Furthermore, Zhou discloses communicate with the one or more other wireless entities using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part because Zhou teaches the BWP switching delay, after which reception resumes on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest of the sub-carrier spacings SCS₁ and SCS₂ of the two BWPs when the switch changes the spacing, so that no slot the gNB could schedule for data is wasted. In the combination the time from the DCI to the first reception with the indicated TCI state on the new BWP is therefore set by the sub-carrier spacing of the first or the second BWP (i.e., “a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part” as claimed), which means that the UE is caused to communicate with the one or more other wireless entities using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0034], “the BWP switching delay should be expressed with 0.5 ms slot for 30 kHz SCS, otherwise, there may be one 0.5 ms slot wasted, which can be scheduled by gNB for data transmission” . . . para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raghavan so that the scheduling DCI format 1_1 that carries the TCI field also commands the active bandwidth part switch Zhou describes, the UE completing the bandwidth part switch over Zhou’s slot-quantized transition time and then using the indicated TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH on the new bandwidth part, in order to retune to the new bandwidth part without wasting a slot that the gNB could otherwise schedule for data transmission, as Zhou states. Raghavan already scopes the activated TCI states to each DL BWP and lets the DCI point to the TCI states of the scheduled BWP, and Zhou addresses the timing of exactly such a DCI-commanded bandwidth part switch, including the choice of sub-carrier spacing when the two bandwidth parts differ. Combining the two is the combination of known elements, each performing the function it already performs, with the predictable result that the UE applies the new beam on the new bandwidth part at the first slot that both the bandwidth part transition and the TCI indication allow. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both procedures are DCI-driven operations of the same 5G NR UE and gNB and Zhou’s delay is defined on the same slot grid on which Raghavan’s PDSCH is scheduled.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 22, (Original) Raghavan discloses The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions to receive the beam switch indication are executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam, as Raghavan further discloses the DCI format 1_1 that schedules the PDSCH carrying a TCI field whose value points to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, the DCI itself being received on the PDCCH of the bandwidth part the UE is monitoring when it is sent, whereby the UE is caused to receive, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam (Raghavan, para [0012] “the TCI field is present in downlink control information (DCI) format 1_1 . . . If the scheduling offset between scheduling and PDSCH is larger than Threshold-Sched-Offset and TCI field is present, the TCI state for PDSCH is indicated via DCI” . . . para [0024] “the TCI field in DCI in the scheduling component carrier points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP”).
In addition, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses and that indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being commanded by a DCI carried on the PDCCH, the switch DCI indicating the slot in the new BWP at which the UE’s reception resumes, with the result that in the combination the same DCI indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 23, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: determine the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part, a minimum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, or a reference sub-carrier spacing for communications with the UE, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which reception begins on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂, the largest of the two spacings being their maximum, with the result that the UE is caused to determine the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Claim 24 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, which is the limitation mapped above.
Consequently, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 22, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the transition after which reception begins on the new BWP running from the end of the last OFDM symbol of the PDCCH that carried the switch DCI to the beginning of the slot that DCI indicates, a duration that, if expressed in symbols, varies with the symbol length, which Zhou tabulates for each sub-carrier spacing, so that the beam application time is determined based at least in part on a first transmission slot, a symbol duration, and a number of symbols, associated with the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0029], “If the interruption duration is expressed in the unit of symbol, the interruption may vary according to different symbol lengths” . . . para [0031], “Table 1 below illustrates an example of the symbol and CP length”).
For these reasons, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 22, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a received bandwidth part switch indication or a timer expiration, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being either a DCI-based switch, commanded by the active BWP switch DCI carried on the PDCCH, or a timer-based switch that takes place immediately after a BWP timer expires, which means that the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a received bandwidth part switch indication or a timer expiration (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0027], “for a timer-based active BWP switch from a RANI perspective, the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch is the time duration from the beginning of the subframe (FR1) or from the beginning of the half-subframe (FR2) immediately after a BWP timer expires”).
Claim 26 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the received bandwidth part switch indication, the DCI-based active BWP switch mapped above; Zhou’s timer-based switch, also quoted above, meets the other alternative.
Therefore, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 27, (Currently Amended) Raghavan discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one processor; and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:, as Raghavan describes an apparatus suitable for use as a base station such as a next-generation Node B that comprises processing circuitry and a memory, the processing circuitry including a baseband processor, and the operations described being implemented as instructions stored on a storage device and read and executed by at least one processor, such that the apparatus for wireless communication at the network entity comprises at least one processor and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to perform the operations that follow: (Raghavan, para [0058] “Apparatus 300 may be suitable for use as a mobile device such as a UE or suitable for use as a base station such as a next-generation Node B (gNB). Apparatus 300 may comprise at least processing circuitry 306 and memory 308.” . . . para [0078] “instructions stored on a computer-readable storage device, which may be read and executed by at least one processor to perform the operations described herein”).
Moreover, Raghavan discloses: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications to a second beam for beamformed communications;, since Raghavan explains the network of a 5G NR system changing the transmit beam used toward a UE by switching the TCI state, and indicating that TCI state change to the UE via a MAC CE for the PDCCH or via DCI for the PDSCH, after which the UE switches to and receives with the new TCI state. The TCI state change command (i.e., “beam switch indication” as claimed) names the new TCI state and with it the new beam, whereby the network entity is caused to transmit, to the UE, a beam switch indication to switch from a first beam for beamformed communications to a second beam for beamformed communications: (Raghavan, para [0010] “In FR2, the network can indicate a transmit beam change for PDSCH or PDCCH by switching the TCI state.” . . . para [0015] “The network could indicate a TCI state change for PDCCH via MAC CE and command and for PDSCH via DCI.” . . . para [0018] “for DCI based TCI state switch for PDSCH, after the TCI state switch delay, the network transmits PDSCH with lowest MCS with the new TCI state”).
Although Raghavan teaches the network transmitting the PDSCH with the new TCI state after the TCI state switch delay, and the TCI field of its scheduling DCI pointing to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP: (Raghavan, para [0018], para [0024]), Raghavan stops short of disclosing switching, prior to using the second beam, from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part for communications with the UE, switching from the first beam to the second beam after the bandwidth part switch, and a beam application time based on a channel parameter of the first or second bandwidth part.
Nevertheless, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses switch, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth for communications with the UE; in that Zhou shows the active bandwidth part (BWP) of a UE being switched by a DCI that the gNB transmits on the PDCCH, the switch taking effect over a transition time that ends at the beginning of the slot the DCI indicates for the scheduled transmission, so that the gNB moves its communications with that UE to the new BWP by its own command. In the combination the switch DCI is Raghavan’s scheduling DCI carrying the TCI field, and the move to the new BWP is complete before the gNB first transmits to the UE with the indicated TCI state, with the result that the network entity is caused to switch, prior to using the second beam for beamformed communications, from a first bandwidth part of a frequency bandwidth to a second bandwidth part of the frequency bandwidth for communications with the UE (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch”; Zhou, para [0026], “the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch may be the time duration from the end of last Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbol of the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI”; Zhou, para [0026], “until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI or K2 in the active UL BWP switch DCI”).
Furthermore, Zhou discloses switch, after the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication; and given that Zhou sets out the UE receiving no downlink signal during the transition time of the active BWP switch, a transition that ends only at the beginning of the slot the gNB’s switch DCI indicates for the scheduled PDSCH. In the combination that PDSCH, which the gNB transmits in the second BWP, is the first transmission for which the gNB uses the TCI state its DCI indicates for the scheduled DL BWP, as conceded above, so that the network entity is caused to switch, after the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, from the first beam to the second beam in accordance with the beam switch indication (Zhou, para [0026], “a UE may not be expected to receive downlink (DL) signals or transmit uplink (UL) signals during the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch . . . until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Moreover, Zhou discloses communicate with the UE using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part because Zhou teaches the BWP switching delay, after which reception resumes on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest of the sub-carrier spacings SCS₁ and SCS₂ of the two BWPs when the switch changes the spacing, so that no slot the gNB could schedule for data is wasted. In the combination the time from the DCI to the first reception with the indicated TCI state on the new BWP is therefore set by the sub-carrier spacing of the first or the second BWP (i.e., “a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part” as claimed), which means that the network entity is caused to communicate with the UE using the second beam and the second bandwidth part based at least in part on a beam application time associated with the second beam, the beam application time based at least in part on a channel parameter of the first bandwidth part or the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0034], “the BWP switching delay should be expressed with 0.5 ms slot for 30 kHz SCS, otherwise, there may be one 0.5 ms slot wasted, which can be scheduled by gNB for data transmission” . . . para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raghavan so that the scheduling DCI format 1_1 that carries the TCI field also commands the active bandwidth part switch Zhou describes, the network entity completing the bandwidth part switch over Zhou’s slot-quantized transition time and then using the indicated TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH on the new bandwidth part, in order to retune to the new bandwidth part without wasting a slot that the gNB could otherwise schedule for data transmission, as Zhou states. Raghavan already scopes the activated TCI states to each DL BWP and lets the DCI point to the TCI states of the scheduled BWP, and Zhou addresses the timing of exactly such a DCI-commanded bandwidth part switch, including the choice of sub-carrier spacing when the two bandwidth parts differ. Combining the two is the combination of known elements, each performing the function it already performs, with the predictable result that the network entity applies the new beam on the new bandwidth part at the first slot that both the bandwidth part transition and the TCI indication allow. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both procedures are DCI-driven operations of the same 5G NR UE and gNB and Zhou’s delay is defined on the same slot grid on which Raghavan’s PDSCH is scheduled.
Regarding claim 28, which depends on claim 27, (Original) Raghavan discloses The apparatus of claim 27, wherein the instructions to transmit the beam switch indication are executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to: transmit, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam, as Raghavan further discloses the DCI format 1_1 scheduling the PDSCH carrying a TCI field whose value points to the activated TCI states of the scheduled DL BWP, the network transmitting that DCI on the PDCCH of the bandwidth part the UE is monitoring, whereby the network entity is caused to transmit, via the first bandwidth part, downlink control information that includes a transmission configuration indicator associated with the second beam (Raghavan, para [0012] “the TCI field is present in downlink control information (DCI) format 1_1 . . . If the scheduling offset between scheduling and PDSCH is larger than Threshold-Sched-Offset and TCI field is present, the TCI state for PDSCH is indicated via DCI” . . . para [0024] “the TCI field in DCI in the scheduling component carrier points to the activated TCI states in the scheduled component carrier or DL BWP”).
In addition, Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses and that indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being commanded by a DCI the gNB carries on the PDCCH, the switch DCI indicating the slot in the new BWP at which the UE’s reception resumes, with the result that in the combination the same DCI indicates to switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI”).
Thus, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 29, which depends on claim 28, (Original) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to: determine the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a first sub-carrier spacing of the first bandwidth part, a second sub-carrier spacing of the second bandwidth part, a minimum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, or a reference sub-carrier spacing for communications with the UE, as Zhou further discloses the BWP switching delay, after which the gNB may again schedule the UE on the new BWP, being expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂, the largest of the two spacings being their maximum, with the result that the network entity is caused to determine the beam application time associated with the second beam based at least in part on a maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part (Zhou, para [0035], “if the BWP switch results in the change of the SCS from SCS₁ to SCS₂, the BWP switching delay may be expressed in the time unit of slots corresponding to the largest SCS between SCS₁ and SCS₂”).
Claim 29 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the maximum sub-carrier spacing of both the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part, which is the limitation mapped above.
Consequently, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 30, which depends on claim 27, (Currently Amended) Raghavan in view of Zhou discloses The apparatus of claim 27, wherein the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE or a timer expiration, as Zhou further discloses the active BWP switch being either a DCI-based switch, commanded by the active BWP switch DCI the gNB carries on the PDCCH, or a timer-based switch that takes place immediately after a BWP timer expires, so that the switch from the first bandwidth part to the second bandwidth part is based at least in part on a bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE or a timer expiration (Zhou, para [0026], “the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) carrying the active BWP switch DCI until the beginning of a slot indicated by KO in the active DL BWP switch DCI” . . . para [0027], “for a timer-based active BWP switch from a RANI perspective, the transition time of active DL or UL BWP switch is the time duration from the beginning of the subframe (FR1) or from the beginning of the half-subframe (FR2) immediately after a BWP timer expires”).
Claim 30 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the bandwidth part switch indication provided to the UE, the DCI-based active BWP switch mapped above; Zhou’s timer-based switch, also quoted above, meets the other alternative.
For these reasons, Raghavan and Zhou are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
