DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 6-7 were cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 8-22 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/24, 03/05/25, 05/20/26, and 8/31/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 21 are objected due to following errors:
In claim 4 (lines 7, 9,14) and claim 21 (lines 6, 8,10), the term “single TRP operation” should be changed to – “the” or “said” single TRP operation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 8 (line 3), it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “are different”. “A spatial receive parameter assumption” or “TCI states” is/ are different?
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 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20210105780 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jin.
Regarding claim 1:
Jin discloses a method performed by a user equipment device (UE) for supporting a multi-beam indication (method performed by a terminal, e.g. UE, for data transmission and reception to and from a plurality of transmission reception points {TRPs} configured in a cell using beams [0011]), comprising:
receiving, from a base station, at least one transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state list corresponding to one or more transmission-reception point (TRP) operational modes (receiving, from eNB, e.g., base station, instruction on TRP operation configured as RRC configuration information [0338] which includes TCI states list of serving cell [0329]);
wherein an operational mode is one of a joint TCI indication mode (beam indication for TRP1 and TRP2 is transmitted in MAC CE [0295], wherein beam indication is TCI state for each TRP, e.g., joint TCI indication [0188]); or a separate TCI indication (or twice-indicated beams/ TCI states are configured for TRP1 and TRP2 [0168] or separate TCI state in MAC CE is for TRP2 [0208]);
determining an operational mode for one or more serving cells (determining TCI state, e.g., separate TCI state for TRP2, for serving cells {indicated by serving cell ID parameter} [0208-0213]);
communicating with the one or more serving cells according to the determined operational mode (performing PUCCH transmission through TRP(s) to serving cell [0292 and 0233] wherein TRP is indicated with separate TCI state [0208]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to communicate with serving cell(s) through TRP(s), according to the determined operational mode – joint or separate TCI indication mode; thus improving data transmissions/ receptions in a beam-based communications system – Jin [0022].
Regarding claim 3:
Jin discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Jin further disclose receiving, from the base station, an indication of at least one of a reference bandwidth part or reference component carrier for a serving cell of the one or more serving cells (receiving {from eNB} a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) { activating one TCI state for a bandwidth part (BWP) of a serving cell [0014]), wherein the indication identifies an additional TCI state list for multi-TRP operation (RRC configuration for TCI state configuration include both TRP1 and TRP2 [0200]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to identify an additional TCI state list for multi-TRP operation corresponding to reference bandwidth, component carrier for a serving cell; thus allowing UE to interpret transmission/ reception parameters for data transmissions/ receptions by considering TCI states and bandwidth and component carriers, in order to efficiently support multiple TRPs/ cells while avoiding ambiguity.
Regarding claim 4:
Jin discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Jin further discloses receiving, from the base station, an indication of a plurality of TCI states (receiving in a radio resource control (RRC) message {sent from eNB} TCI states [0014]; and
determining which of the plurality of indicated TCI states is applicable for single TRP operation (determining one TCI state for first TRP or second TRP [0014], based on at least one of:
applying a first TCI state in the list of the indicated TCI states for single TRP operation; applying a last TCI state in the list of the indicated TCI states for single TRP operation; or
applying a TCI state as indicated by the base station for single TRP operation (based on TCI state indicated by TCI information {from eNB}, receiving PDSCH [0014]).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 11 is in a device {e.g. processor} claim format, wherein Jin [in claim 11] also discloses a memory; and processing circuitry in communication with the memory and configured to cause a wireless device to perform the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 16 is in a non-transitory computer readable memory format [0416].
Claims 2, 5, 12, 14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Xi et al. (US 20210159966 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xi’66.
Regarding claim 2:
Jin discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Jin does not disclose when a TCI state list is not configured for a serving cell of the one or more serving cells, the method further comprises: receiving, from the base station, an indication of at least one of a reference bandwidth part, a reference component carrier, or a reference TRP for the serving cell.
Xi’66, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining when a TCI state list is not configured for a serving cell of the one or more serving cells (when receiving a TCI field indicating a TCI state that does not comprise a beam(s) [0157]);
receiving, from the base station, an indication of at least one of a reference bandwidth part, a reference component carrier, or a reference TRP for the serving cell (switching to a BWP based on predefined rules, e.g., reference BWP or to a specific BWP that has lowest ID, e.g., reference BWP, in a TCI table [0157]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to receive an indication of a beam, which is associated with bandwidth part from the base station, when TCI state does not comprise a beam or the TCI state list is not configured for serving cell(s); thus allowing UE to interpret certain transmission/ reception parameters for data transmissions/ receptions by using reference parameters when there is no explicit indication from the base station/TRP.
Regarding claim 5:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Jin further discloses when the at least one TCI state list includes a plurality of TCI states (TCI states are provided as a list [0329]).
Jin does not disclose determining a default beam to buffer downlink data to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold based on indicated TCI states included in a TCI state list for a serving cell.
Xi’66, from the same field endeavor, teaches determining a default beam to buffer downlink data (WTRU determines default beam for PDSCH reception, e.g., buffer downlink data [0160] to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold ( to receive CSI-RS or PDSCH in case the time offset is less than the Threshold-Sched-Offset [0147]) based on indicated TCI states included in a TCI state list for a serving cell (based on configured TCI state [0160]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine a default beam to buffer downlink data to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold; thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly.
Regarding claim 12:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Jin does not, while Xi’66 further teaches determining a default beam to buffer downlink data (determining default beam to receive PDSCH [0160]) to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold based on at least one of quasi-co-location (QCL) assumption or TCI states for Control Resource Sets (CORESETs) in a most recent slot (receiving PDSCH, if the time offset is less than a threshold, determining PDSCH of a serving cell are QCLed based on a default TCI state used for a PDCCH QCL indication of the lowest CORESET-ID in the latest slot in which one or more CORESETs are configured for the WTRU [0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to based one at least one aforementioned parameter; thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly.
Regarding claim 14:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 12.
Jin does not, while Xi’66 further teaches buffering downlink data across serving cells in a band based on the QCL assumption or TCI states (receiving PDSCH on BWP or carrier or component carrier (CC), e.g., across serving cells in band based on beam configuration, e.g., TCI state [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to buffer downlink data across serving cells based on QCL assumption on TCI states; thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly.
Regarding claim 17:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 16.
Jin does not disclose determining a default beam to buffer downlink data to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold based on common TCI states included in a TCI state list for a serving cell indicated in one of a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or downlink control information (DCI) received from the base station.
Xi’66, from the same field endeavor, teaches determining a default beam to buffer downlink data (WTRU determines default beam for PDSCH reception, e.g., buffer downlink data [0160] to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold ( to receive CSI-RS or PDSCH in case the time offset is less than the Threshold-Sched-Offset [0147]) based on common TCI states included in a TCI state list for a serving cell (based on joint beam indication form multiple TRSs [0006]) indicated in one of a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or downlink control information (DCI ) received from the base station (indicated in MAC Control Element (MAC-CE), DCI [0112, lines 9-12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine a default beam to buffer downlink data to receive an aperiodic Channel State Information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS) or a physical downlink shared channel with a scheduling offset less than a threshold based on common TCI states indicated in MAC CE or DCI; thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly, according to the joint beam configuration/ common TCI states delivered in control signaling.
Regarding claim 18:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 17.
Jin does not disclose when at least one of a semi-persistent CSI-RS, periodic CSI-RS, aperiodic CSI- RS, or PDSCH has a scheduling offset larger than the threshold in a serving cell, buffering data based, at least in part, on a QCL assumption for the serving cell.
Xi’66, from the same field endeavor, teaches disclose when at least one of a semi-persistent CSI-RS, periodic CSI-RS, aperiodic CSI- RS, or PDSCH has a scheduling offset larger than the threshold in a serving cell (when scheduling offset of PDSCH is larger than the Threshold-Sched-Offset [0162]), buffering data based, at least in part, on a QCL assumption for the serving cell (receiving PDSCH and PDCCH reception for a WTRU is across multiple BWPs or CCs, by utilizing spatial QCL reference [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to buffer data based, at least in part, on a QCL assumption, when the scheduling offset is larger than the threshold; thus enabling UE to process incoming signals by applying known channel characteristics.
Regarding claim 19:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 17.
Jin does not, while Xi’66 further disclose when simultaneous multi-beam reception is supported (WTRUs communicate with one or more gNBs 180a, 180b, 180c substantially simultaneously [0082] or having simultaneous transmissions over DL bandwidth [0170]), determine a second default beam to buffer downlink data based on at least one of common TCI states included in a TCI state list for a serving cell (determine default beam/QCL reference for PDSCH reception [0160]) indicated in one of a MAC CE received from the base station (indicated in MAC CE from network device [0126]), a DCI received from the base station (in DCI from network device [0126]), a QCL assumption for CORESETs in a most recent slot or TCI states for CORESETs in a most recent slot (determining that PDSCH of a serving cell is QCLed based on a default TCI state used for a PDCCH QCL indication of lowest CORESET-ID in latest slot in which one or more CORESETs are configured for WTRU [0158].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine a default beam to buffer downlink data based one at least one aforementioned parameter; thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly.
Regarding claims [20-22]:
Claims [20- 22] are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to [claims 2, 4, 5] above, respectively, except that claim [20] is in a non-transitory computer readable memory medium format, and claims [21-22] are in a processor, and they depends on claim 12.
Claims 8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xi’66, as applied to claims 5 and 12, respectively, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20220224470 A1), hereinafter referred to as Matsumura’70.
Regarding claim 8:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 5.
Jin further discloses when a spatial receive parameter assumption for indicated TCI states for multiple serving cells within a band or band group are different (determining one beam or TCI state, e.g., spatial receive parameter, configured to RRC and required to be actually used for uplink and downlink data transmission [0303] to/ from serving cells in intra-band carrier aggregation {CA} situation [0333, 0046, 0339]), the method further comprises:
selecting TCI states to buffer downlink data across the multiple serving cells (determining configured beam direction to perform downlink data transmission [0303] sent from different serving cells [0158]).
Jin in view of Xi’66 do not further disclose selecting TCI states based on priority of a serving cell within the multiple serving cells.
Matsumura’70, from the same field of endeavor, teaches selecting TCI states to buffer downlink data across the multiple serving cells based on priority of a serving cell within the multiple serving cells (based on TCI state indicating RS of QCL type A {for serving cell SCell, e.g., cell type} or RS of QCL type D {for serving cell PCell} [0122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to select TCI states to buffer downlink data across the multiple serving cells based on priority of a serving cell {PCell} within the multiple serving cells; thus enhancing transmissions while avoiding signaling overheads for the spatial relation and communication interruption – Matsumara’70 [0234].
Regarding claim 10:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 5.
Jin in view of Xi’66 does not further disclose the threshold is reported via a user equipment device (UE) capability.
Matsumura’70, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the threshold is reported via a user equipment device (UE) capability (information of scheduling offset threshold is transmitted from UE to base station [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed that UE reports information of scheduling offset threshold to base station; thus helping the base station to efficiently perform the scheduling.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 10 above, except that claim 15 is in a device claim format.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xi’66 and Matsumura’70, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20240235783 A1), hereinafter referred to as Matsumura’83.
Regarding claim 9:
Jin in view of Xi’66 and Matsumura’70 discloses all limitations of claim 8.
Jin in view of Xi’66 and Matsumura’70 does not further disclose when the priority is based on cell type, a primary serving cell within the multiple serving cells has a higher priority than a secondary serving cell within the multiple serving cells; wherein, when the priority is based on cell TRP operation, a serving cell within the multiple serving cells operating as a single TRP has a higher priority than a serving cell within the multiple serving cells operating as a multiple TRP; and wherein, when the priority is based on cell index, a serving cell within the multiple serving cells with a lower index has a higher priority than a serving cell within the multiple serving cells with a higher index. .
Matsumura’83, from the same field of endeavor, teaches when the priority is based on cell index, a serving cell within the multiple serving cells with a lower index has a higher priority than a serving cell within the multiple serving cells with a higher index (prioritized TCI state is based on cell with lowest index [0676]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to select TCI states to buffer downlink data across the multiple serving cells based on priority of a serving cell {PCell} within the multiple serving cells; thus ensuring basic radio monitoring, control channel reception {sent by PCell, which is known to have lower index} take precedence over secondary data-only carriers, e.g., SCell having higher index.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Xi’66, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Xi et al. (20200288479 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xi’79.
Regarding claim 13:
Jin in view of Xi’66 discloses all limitations of claim 12.
Jin in view of Xi’66 does not further disclose determining the default beam to buffer downlink data and identifying at least one of the QCL assumption or the TCI states based on configuration and priority for the CORESETs and associated search spaces (SSs).
Xi’79, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the default beam to buffer downlink data and identifying at least one of the QCL assumption or the TCI states (receiving PDCCH based on QCL reference or TCI state [0158]
based on configuration and priority for the CORESETs and associated search spaces (SSs) (based on spatial QCL assumption on an associated search space within a CORESET [0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to buffer downlink data and identify at least one of the QCL assumption or the TCI states based on configuration and priority for the CORESETs and associated search spaces (SSs); thus enabling the reception of downlink data in a timely manner – due to the fact that a known default beam can be selected quickly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights