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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 8/14/24 has been considered by the Office.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges the preliminary amendment cancelling claims 1-20 and adding claims 21-40. As such claims 21-40 are pending and are examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 26, 27, 29,31-34, 36-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2021/159351) (cited by Applicant in IDS) (hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 21, Zhang discloses A User Equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, ref. 105) comprising:
at least one processor (para 31, and Fig, 2 ref 210); and
at least one memory including computer program code (para 31 and Fig. 2, ref 235), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the UE at least to perform:
receiving an indication of a plurality of candidate Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states wherein the plurality of candidate TCI states comprise at least one TCI state different to the TCI state with which the UE is currently configured (paras 72-73: system 200 causes the collection of measurements and correlates TCI states of various physical cell IDs; TCI states and groups can correspond to a serving gNB and a neighboring gNB cell (e.g. neighboring gNB cell correlates to the claimed at least one TCI state different to the TCI state with which the UE is currently configured)); and
transmitting an indication of a selected TCI state from the plurality of candidate TCI states where the selected TCI state is different to the TCI state with which the UE is currently configured (para 76: system can transmit a new TCI state to a UE via MAC CE, and the UE sends the ACK for the MAC CE before the UE can start communicating with the new cell the corresponds to the physical cell ID associated with the new TCI state); and
wherein the transmission of the selected TCI state uses one of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) and an ACK transmission (para 76: system can transmit a new TCI state to a UE via MAC CE, and the UE sends the ACK for the MAC CE before the UE can start communicating with the new cell the corresponds to the physical cell ID associated with the new TCI state).
As to claim 22, Zhang discloses the at least one processor and the at least one memory are configured to cause the UE to perform switching the UE to the selected TCI state (Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 effected by the structure explained in Fig. 2).
As to claim 23, Zhang discloses the at least one processor and the at least one memory are configured to cause the UE to assume Uplink transmissions using the selected TCI state starting at a predetermined time following the indication of the selected TCI state (Para 76: “waits for a given number of slots (milliseconds)”).
As to claim 26, Zhang discloses at least one processor and the at least one memory are configured to cause the UE to perform selecting a TCI state from the candidate TCI states based on estimated Uplink budgets on the candidate TCI states (para 73-74: system 200 determines whether to handover 5G to a neighboring cell based on L3 reports and/or the L3 filtered L1 reports) (note: under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “based on….estimated uplink budgets” any selection of candidates due to some criteria would be reasonable to read on this terminology).
As to claim 27, Zhang discloses the at least one processor and the at least one memory are configured to cause the UE to perform selecting a TCI state from the candidate TCI states based on whether a corresponding Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) is above a threshold level (para 48 shows an event such as an RSRP from a neighbor gNB above a threshold is sent to the system 200 for selection, then its understood that this event and candidate TCI state would be used for a criteria for selection (i.e. based on)).
As to claim 29, Zhang discloses a plurality of TCI states are associated into a group such that an indication of one of the TCI states in the group as a candidate TCI state enables the UE to consider other TCI states in the group as candidate states (para 69 and Fig. 7 showing the process of grouping TCI states into groups per cell, or can be different cells).
Claims 31-34, 36-37, and 40 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Furthermore, Zhang discloses a node apparatus to configure a UE with a TCI state and other aspects disclosed above from the opposite side of the configuration mechanism (Figs. 2 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
As to claim 28, Zhang discloses the invention substantively as described above. Zhang as described above also discloses a plurality of TCI states consisting of various beams connecting to serving gNB and target gNB’s. Zhang does not explicitly state that the selected TCI state uses a different panel of the UE compared to the current TCI state, however Zhang does disclose that the UE can comprise one or more antennas that can be the same or different types to enable wireless communication over a wireless network (para 31 and Fig. 2). As such the dual antennas are functionally equivalent to the claimed ‘panels’ as described in specification (p. 12, lines 5-10), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to understand that the various beams can utilize either of the antennas (the claimed panels) in order to provide the most reliable and effective method of communication for the device.
Claims 25, 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Qualcomm (R1-1720672; “Remaining details on QCL” 11/27/2017) (cited by applicant in IDS (hereinafter Qualcomm).
As to claim 25, Zhang discloses the invention as described above. Zhang does disclose transmitting an ACK to acknowledge the TCI state change, however does not explicitly state that the ACK is transmitted on the selected TCI state. In analogous art, Qualcomm discloses another handover system wherein the gNB and UE switch PDSCH beams, and then the UE sends an ACK/NACK after decoding PDSCH (p. 6, section 2.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the ACK aspects of Qualcomm with the system of Zhang in order to minimize the transition time to a new TCI state/beam, thereby reducing transmission delays and improving throughput.
Claims 35 and 39 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 24 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Intel (R4-1900111; “On TCI State Switch Delay”; Agenda Item 6.12.7.6, dated 25 February-1 March 2019) (cited by Applicant in IDS) (hereinafter Intel).
As to claim 24, Zhang discloses the invention as described above. Zhang does disclose acknowledging the TCI state change, but does not explicitly state it is transmitted in a HARQ-ACK and not specifically in a HARQ-ACK transmitted using the current TCI state. In analogues art, Intel discloses another 5G handoff system which discloses transmitting the acknowledgement via a HARQ-ACK, and then the total processing/activation time before transmitting on the new TCI state (p. 3, lines 31+), citing to TS 38.214 section 5.1.5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Intel transmitting the acknowledgement in a HARQ-ACK transmission in the current TCI state in order to facilitate reliable transmissions and minimize delays in acknowledging of transmissions.
Claim 38 is rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chung et al. (USPN 11778637) (hereinafter Chung).
As to claim 30, Zhang teaches the invention as described above. While Zhang teaches acknowledging the candidate TCI states, it does not explicitly state a number of HARQ-ACK bits is equal to a number of candidate TCI states. In analogous art, Chung discloses another wireless telecommunication system wherein the indication of a plurality of candidate TCI states is equal to a number HARQ-ACK bits (col. 30, lines 30-41: of up to 128 candidate TCI states, 8 may be activated and may be mapped to codepoints of the TCI field and col. 40, lines 35-45 which shows the length of the specific sequence is 8-bits and a specific TCI state may be indicated by the bit value of the specific sequence among the activated TCI states). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the technique disclosed in Chung of allocating candidate TCi states to specific bits to the system of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method to allocate TCI states in acknowledgement packets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph E Avellino whose telephone number is (571)272-3905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm.
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. 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.
JOSEPH E. AVELLINO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights