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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 28 and 30 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 28, the limitation “The method of claim 27” is confusing since claim 27 is not a method but a “UE” claim.
In claim 30, the limitation “The method of claim 29” is confusing since claim 29 is a “network node” claim. Also, in claim 30, the function of “transmit, during a time period, …” is confusing since claim 29 recites “receive an acknowledgement …” These two limitations appear to contradict each other since the same “one or more processors” are performing this function within a “network node.”
For purposes of applying prior art, the above identified indefinite claim limitations are interpreted to read on the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-20, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakishima et al., US 2020/0359459, (“Kakishima”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Kakishima teaches “A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indication that activates a network node-predicted transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state (see Fig. 6 and paragraph no. 0063, “Then, the gNB 20 transmits a MAC CE activation command to the UE 10. The MAC CE activation command indicating activated TCI states of the configured TCI states for the PDSCH. The maximum number of the activated TCI is 8” and paragraph no. 0064, “When the UE 10 receives the MAC CE activation command”);
transmitting an acknowledgment (ACK) associated with the MAC CE indication (see Fig. 6 and paragraph no. 0064, “When the UE 10 receives the MAC CE activation command, the UE 10 transmits, to the gNB 20, a HARQ for the MAC CE activation command in slot “n””); and
receiving downlink control information (DCI) that indicates the network node- predicted TCI state for a subsequent communication, the DCI scheduling the subsequent communication at a scheduled time that is based at least in part on a threshold amount of time from the ACK or from the MAC CE indication” (see Fig. 6 and paragraph no. 0065,”The gNB 20 transmits, to the UE 10, DCI including DCI field ‘Transmission Configuration Indication’ that indicates an activated (predetermined) TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH. The activated TCI state for the scheduled PDSCH state may be mapped to a codepoint in the DCI field” and paragraph no. 0066, “The UE 10 may apply mapping each of the activated TCI states indicated in the MAC CE activation command to a codepoint of DCI field ‘Transmission Configuration Indication’ “k” slots after the slot “n” where the UE 10 transmits the HARQ. The value “k” is the number of slots. Thus, the UE 10 may apply one of the activated TCI sates corresponding to the activated (predetermined) TCI indicated in the DCI “k” slots in after the slot “n” where the UE 10 transmits the HARQ”; see also, paragraph no. 0067 for a “subsequent communication” (PDSCH reception by the UE at slot n+k)).
Regarding independent claims 14, 27, and 29, these independent claims are corresponding network method, apparatus (i.e. UE), and network node claims of the method claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding claims 27 and 29, see Figs. 13 and 12, respectively, for the claimed structural elements.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 15, 28, and 30, Kakishima teaches “transmitting, during a time period, the ACK associated with the MAC CE indication,
wherein the DCI schedules the subsequent communication at a time that is based at least in part on a threshold amount of time from the time period (see Fig. 6 which shows the PDSCH is scheduled k slots after the HARQ/ACK transmission), or
wherein the DCI schedules the subsequent communication at a time that is based at least in part on the threshold amount of time from the MAC CE indication” (see Fig. 8 which appears to teach this second alternative limitation since the PDSCH is scheduled X slots after the reception of the MAC CE activation command).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Kakishima teaches “wherein the threshold amount of time is based at least in part on one or more of:
an unknown TCI state switching latency,
a UE capability for reception beam prediction,
an indication, by the UE, of the threshold amount of time, or
an indication, within the MAC CE indication, of the threshold amount of time” (see paragraph no. 0068, “As another example, “k” may be dynamically switched … MAC CE and DCI” for the last alternative limitation; the third alternative limitation also appears to be taught in paragraph no. 0068 since “an indication, by the UE, …” must be true if either “K” is defined in the 3GPP specification or received via RRC signaling).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Kakishima teaches “wherein the DCI schedules the subsequent communication at the scheduled time that is further based at least in part on being within an additional threshold amount of time from the ACK or from the MAC CE indication” (see Fig. 8 for the “from the MAC CE indication” alternative limitation).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kakishima teaches “wherein one or more of the threshold amount of time or the additional threshold amount of time is based at least in part on one or more of:
an unknown TCI state switching latency,
a UE capability for reception beam prediction,
an indication, by the UE, of one or more of the first threshold amount of time or the second threshold amount of time, or
an indication, within the MAC CE indication, of one or more of the threshold amount of time or the additional threshold amount of time” (see paragraph no. 0068, “As another example, “k” may be dynamically switched … MAC CE and DCI” for the last alternative limitation).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Kakishima teaches “wherein, prior to reception of the MAC CE indication, the network node-predicted TCI state was not an active TCI state” (paragraph nos. 0061 and 0063).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Kakishima teaches “receiving the subsequent communication without receiving reference signals associated with the network node-predicted TCI state between a first time of receiving the MAC CE indication and a second time of receiving the subsequent communication” (see Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein reception of the subsequent communication without receiving reference signals associated with the network node-predicted TCI state between the first time of receiving the MAC CE indication and the second time of receiving the subsequent communication is based at least in part on one or more of:
an indication, by the UE, of support for predicting reception beams without additional reference signal measurement,
downlink reference signals associated with the network node-predicted TCI state being associated with periodic or semi-persistent channel measurement resources, or
an indication, by the UE and within feedback associated with the MAC CE, that the reference signals are not requested.”
Claim 9 depends from claim 8.
Re claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest “receiving the subsequent communication after receiving reference signals associated with the network node-predicted TCI state between a first time of receiving the MAC CE indication and a second time of receiving the subsequent communication.”
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the abstract and paragraph no. 0201 of Oh et al., US 2023/0328704 and see the abstract of Zhang et al., US 2023/0087280.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights