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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/4/2024 and 8/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim 26-27, 31-34, 38-41 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0116981 A1) in view of Raghavan et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0229161 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Saber discloses a user equipment (UE) (See Sabber; Fig. 2; UE 214 and Fig. 22; Electronic Device 2200), comprising: at least one processor (See Sabber; Fig. 22; Processor 2220); and at least one memory storing computer program code (See Sabber; Fig. 22; Memory 2230) that, with the at least one processor, causes the UE to
receive, from a network side, a configuration of a group of unified transmission configuration indication (TCI) states (See Par. [14]-[15], [50], [76] and Fig. 6 of Saber for a reference to the UE receives repeated PDCCHs from a network, each including DCI scheduling the same PDSCH, and links them via common PDCCH candidate numbers across search-space sets of a CORESET. A single PDCCH candidate has two different TCI states) and a configuration for a spatial diversity transmission of a downlink control channel (See Par. [14]-[15], [170], [180], [190] and Fig. 6 of Saber for a reference to the UE receives repeated PDCCHs from a network, each including DCI scheduling the same PDSCH. A single PDCCH candidate has two different TCI states. Associating one CORESET with two different TCI states enabling the repeated/spatially-diverse PDCCH transmission);
Saber does not explicitly disclose determine a first quasi co-location (QCL) assumption for a downlink control channel transmission of the spatial diversity transmission and a second QCL assumption for a downlink shared channel transmission based on the configuration of the group of unified TCI states, the second QCL assumption being different from the first QCL assumption; and when a scheduling gap between the downlink control channel transmission and the downlink shared channel transmission is greater than a predetermined time threshold, apply the second QCL assumption to the downlink shared channel transmission.
However, Raghavan discloses determine a first quasi co-location (QCL) assumption for a downlink control channel transmission of the spatial diversity transmission and a second QCL assumption for a downlink shared channel transmission based on the configuration of the group of unified TCI states, the second QCL assumption being different from the first QCL assumption (See Par. [10]-[13], [19], [25]-[26] of Raghavan for a reference to TCI states are configured for PDCCH, PDSCH and channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) in order to convey the QCL indication for the respective RS. The UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH are quasi co-located with respect to the QCL parameters associated with the TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint” (second QCL), which is distinct from the QCL used for PDCCH/CORESET reception (first QCL)); and
when a scheduling gap between the downlink control channel transmission and the downlink shared channel transmission is greater than a predetermined time threshold, apply the second QCL assumption to the downlink shared channel transmission (See Par. [12], [22]-[25] of Raghavan for a reference to that UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the RSs in the TCI state with respect to the QCL type parameter(s) given by the indicated TCI state if the time offset [Scheduling Gap] between the reception of the DL DCI and the corresponding PDSCH is equal to or greater than a threshold timeDurationForQCL).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghavan to Saber. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by efficiently utilize resource sets according to the TCI states. (Raghavan; Par. [48]-[49])
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically Saber discloses wherein the downlink control channel transmission is a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission and the downlink shared channel transmission is a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission scheduled by the PDCCH transmission (See Par. [6]-[8] of Saber for a reference to a single DCI (PDCCH) 106 is transmitted to a user equipment (UE) 114 from a first TRP 102, and schedules a PDSCH 108 with two layers. A first layer 110 of the PDSCH is transmitted from a first antenna port within the first TRP 102, while a second layer 112 is transmitted from a second antenna port within a second TRP 104).
Regarding claim 31, Saber does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to determine a third QCL assumption for an uplink control channel transmission, the uplink control channel transmission includes feedback information associated with the downlink shared channel transmission, and the third QCL assumption is different from each of the first QCL assumption and the second QCL assumption.
However, Raghavan discloses the UE to determine a third QCL assumption for an uplink control channel transmission, the uplink control channel transmission includes feedback information associated with the downlink shared channel transmission (See Par. [22], [38]-[41] of Raghavan for a reference to the UE would transmit a PUCCH with HARQ-ACK information in slot n corresponding to the PDSCH carrying the activation command, the indicated mapping between TCI states and codepoints of the DCI field. After a UE receives an initial higher layer configuration of TCI states and before reception of the activation command, the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH of a serving cell are quasi co-located with the SS/PBCH block determined in the initial access procedure with respect to ‘QCL-TypeA’, and when applicable, also with respect to ‘QCL-TypeD), and the third QCL assumption is different from each of the first QCL assumption and the second QCL assumption (See Par. [10]-[13], [19], [25]-[26] of Raghavan for a reference to the UE may assume that the DM-RS ports of PDSCH are quasi co-located with respect to the QCL parameters associated with the TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint” (second QCL), which is distinct from the QCL used for PDCCH/CORESET reception (first QCL)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghavan to Saber. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by efficiently utilize resource sets according to the TCI states. (Raghavan; Par. [48]-[49])
Regarding claim 32, Saber does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink control channel transmission is a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission, and the feedback information includes hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) information.
However, Raghavan discloses wherein the uplink control channel transmission is a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission, and the feedback information includes hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) information (See Par. [22], [38]-[41] of Raghavan for a reference to the UE would transmit a PUCCH with HARQ-ACK information in slot n corresponding to the PDSCH carrying the activation command, the indicated mapping between TCI states and codepoints of the DCI field).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghavan to Saber. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by efficiently utilize resource sets according to the TCI states. (Raghavan; Par. [48]-[49])
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically saber discloses wherein the spatial diversity transmission of the downlink control channel includes a plurality of downlink control channel transmissions corresponding to a plurality of beams that are different from one another, and the plurality of downlink control channel transmissions carry the same control resource set (CORESET) information and include the downlink control channel transmission (See Par. [14]-[15], [64]-[66] and Fig. 6 of Saber for a reference to the UE receives repeated PDCCHs from a network, each including DCI scheduling the same PDSCH, and links them based on PDCCH candidate numbers that are in common across SS sets of a CORESET,” each repeated PDCCH associated with a respective TCI state of that CORESET).
Regarding claim 34, Saber does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to determine, for the downlink shared channel transmission, a default beam based on one of: a first configuration in which the default beam is determined as a beam, among a plurality of beams, having an activated TCI state with a smallest identifier (ID), or a second configuration in which signaling for scheduling the plurality of beams includes information specifying the default beam.
However, Raghavan discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to determine, for the downlink shared channel transmission, a default beam based on one of: a first configuration in which the default beam is determined as a beam, among a plurality of beams, having an activated TCI state with a smallest identifier (ID), or a second configuration in which signaling for scheduling the plurality of beams includes information specifying the default beam (See Par. [26]-[27] of Raghavan for a reference to the UE obtains its QCL assumption for the scheduled PDSCH from the activated TCI state with the lowest ID applicable to PDSCH in the active BWP of the scheduled cell [“a first configuration in which the default beam is determined as a beam, among a plurality of beams, having an activated TCI state with a smallest identifier (ID)” option is cited]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghavan to Saber. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by efficiently utilize resource sets according to the TCI states. (Raghavan; Par. [48]-[49])
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically saber discloses wherein the downlink shared channel transmission includes a plurality of downlink shared channel transmissions on a plurality of spatial layers, and the plurality of downlink shared channel transmissions correspond to a plurality of beams that are different from one another (See Par. [5]-[6], [82] of Saber for a reference to the single-DCI M-TRP PDSCH has two layers, “a first layer transmitted from a first antenna port within the first TRP, while a second layer is transmitted from a second antenna port within a second TRP [multiple spatial layers of one PDSCH corresponding to different beams/TRPs]).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically saber discloses wherein the downlink control channel transmission and the downlink shared channel transmission are associated with a first transmission and reception point (TRP) (See Par. [5]-[6], of Saber for a reference to that with single-DCI M-TRP, a single PDCCH is transmitted from one of the TRPs and schedules one or more PDSCHs), the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to determine a third QCL assumption for an additional downlink shared channel transmission associated with a second TRP, and the third QCL assumption is different from each of the first QCL assumption and the second QCL assumption (See Par. [7]-[8], [82] of Saber for a reference to that in multi-DCI M-TRP, each of the two TRPs transmits their own DCI (PDCCH). Each DCI schedules one PDSCH. All of the layers of a given PDSCH are transmitted from the antenna ports within the same TRP [a first PDSCH tied to a first TRP and an additional (second) PDSCH tied to a second TRP, each with its own QCL/TCI-state association]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically saber discloses wherein the downlink control channel transmission is a single downlink control channel transmission that is received from one of the first TRP or the second TRP, and schedules both the downlink shared channel transmission and the additional downlink shared channel transmission (See Par. [4]-[8] of Saber for a reference to a single DCI (PDCCH) 106 is transmitted from a first TRP 102, and schedules a PDSCH 108 with two layers, one layer from the first TRP and the other from a second TRP [a single PDCCH transmission from one TRP scheduling shared-channel transmissions associated with both TRP]).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Saber and Raghavan, specifically saber discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to receive, from the second TRP, an additional downlink control channel transmission scheduling the additional downlink shared channel transmission, and determine a fourth QCL assumption for the additional downlink control channel transmission, and the fourth QCL assumption is different from each of the first, second, and third QCL assumptions (See Par. [7]-[8], [110], [178]-[179] of Saber for a reference to the second TRP transmits their own DCI (PDCCH) which schedules the PDSCH associated with that second TRP [an additional, TRP-specific PDCCH consistent with a fourth QCL assumption distinct from the first three]Any two TCI states have different QCL-D types).
Regarding claim 44, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 26.
Regarding claim 45, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 26, including a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon (See Par. [15] of Saber for a reference to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. in view of Raghavan et al. un view of Venugopal et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0105805 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US. Pub. No. 2013/0286960 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first QCL assumption is associated with a first pair of beams and the second QCL assumption is associated with a second pair of beams, and each beam of the second pair of beams is narrower than each beam of the first pair of beams.
However, Venugopal discloses wherein the first QCL assumption is associated with a first pair of beams and the second QCL assumption is associated with a second pair of beams (See Par. [45]-[50] of Venugopal for a reference to QCL relations apply to a pair of beams and that separate TCI subsets are associated with PDCCH/CORESET and PDSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Venugopal to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by enabling the UE to determine a default beam for transmitting the SRS/PUCCH if spatial relation information is not configured for a dedicated SRS/PUCCH transmission. (Venugopal; Par. [47])
The combination of Saber, Raghavan and Venugopal does not explicitly disclose each beam of the second pair of beams is narrower than each beam of the first pair of beams.
However, Li discloses each beam of the second pair of beams is narrower than each beam of the first pair of beams (See Par. [54]-[61], [79]-[81] of Li for a reference to base station can use one or more antennas or antenna arrays to carry out beam forming. Antenna arrays can form beams having different widths (wide beam, narrow beam, etc.). Assigning wide control channel beams to control and narrower beams to data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li to the combination of Saber, Raghavan and Venugopal. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by increasing system capacity through spatially separating downlink and uplink transmissions between the BS and multiple mobile devices. (Li; Par. [46])
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. in view of Raghavan et al. and further in view of Cirik et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0385840 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to determine a third QCL assumption for an aperiodic pilot signal transmission associated with the downlink control channel transmission, and the third QCL assumption is different from each of the first QCL assumption and the second QCL assumption.
However, Cirik discloses the UE to determine a third QCL assumption for an aperiodic pilot signal transmission associated with the downlink control channel transmission, and the third QCL assumption is different from each of the first QCL assumption and the second QCL assumption (See Par. [142]-[144], [218], [220] of Cirik for a reference to an aperiodic CSI resource of the one or more CSI resources may be associated with a TCI state of one or more TCI-State configurations. The TCI state may provide a QCL assumption and a QCL type, separately [Different] from the PDSCH QCL assumption).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cirik to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by reducing wrong scheduling decisions, as well as increasing data rate, quality of service, and reducing error rates, when the base station assigns more accurate scheduling parameters. (Cirik; Par. [263])
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the aperiodic pilot signal transmission is one of: a downlink aperiodic channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) transmission received by the UE, or an uplink aperiodic sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission transmitted by the UE.
However, Cirik discloses wherein the aperiodic pilot signal transmission is one of: a downlink aperiodic channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) transmission received by the UE, or an uplink aperiodic sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission transmitted by the UE (See Par. [146]-[148], [218] of Cirik for a reference to an aperiodic CSI resource of the one or more CSI resources may be associated with a TCI state of one or more TCI-State configurations. The aperiodic pilot signal transmission may be a downlink aperiodic channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) transmission received by the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cirik to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by reducing wrong scheduling decisions, as well as increasing data rate, quality of service, and reducing error rates, when the base station assigns more accurate scheduling parameters. (Cirik; Par. [263])
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. in view of Raghavan et al. and further in view of Zhou et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0120656 A1).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to report, to the network side, capabilities of the UE indicating one or more groups of TCI states that the UE is able to process simultaneously.
However, Zhou discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to report, to the network side, capabilities of the UE indicating one or more groups of TCI states that the UE is able to process simultaneously (See Par. [7], [26] of Zhou for a reference to the UE indicates, to an access point, a capability indicating a number of active spatial relations supported for detecting downlink reference signals, and receiving one or more configurations of spatial relations, and detecting one or more of the reference signals. The configuration indicates one or more distinct transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states of one or more aperiodic channel state information reference signals [The UE reports a capability regarding groups of TCI states it can process simultaneously]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhou to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by allowing the UE to more efficiently use the active spatial relations based on its capabilities, through limiting the number of possible active spatial relations configured by the access point. (Zhou; Par. [26])
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the capabilities reported by the UE include a parameter indicating a maximum number of simultaneously activated downlink TCI states supported by the UE.
However, Zhou discloses wherein the capabilities reported by the UE include a parameter indicating a maximum number of simultaneously activated downlink TCI states supported by the UE (See Par. [25] of Zhou for a reference to the UE can indicate a capability of a number of active spatial relations to the access point, which can correspond to a number (a maximum number) of reference signals the UE is capable of detecting [a maximum-number-of-simultaneously-active-TCI-states capability parameter reported to the network]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhou to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by allowing the UE to more efficiently use the active spatial relations based on its capabilities, through limiting the number of possible active spatial relations configured by the access point. (Zhou; Par. [26])
Claims 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. in view of Raghavan et al. in view of Zhou et al. and further in view of Mondal et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0168779 A1).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Saber, Raghavan and Zhou does not explicitly disclose wherein reporting the capabilities of the UE includes reporting, in a group-based beam report associated with a single transmission and reception point (TRP), the one or more groups of TCI states that the UE is able to receive simultaneously.
However, Mondal discloses wherein reporting the capabilities of the UE includes reporting, in a group-based beam report associated with a single transmission and reception point (TRP), the one or more groups of TCI states that the UE is able to receive simultaneously (See Par. [16]-[26], [45]-[46] of Mondal for a reference to reporting of CRI/SSBRI is ordered such that in a single CSI-report with groupBasedBeamReporting enabled, the first CRI/SSBRI is associated with the first reception panel and the second CRI/SSBRI is associated with the second reception panel [an explicit group-based beam report (groupBasedBeamReporting) that conveys, in a single CSI report, the groups of TCI-states/beams the UE can receive simultaneously]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mondal to the combination of Saber, Raghavan and Zhou. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by allowing a UE to monitor PDCCH from multiple TRPs for both single DCI multi-TRP and multi-DCI multi-TRP operation. (Mondal; Par. [13])
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saber et al. in view of Raghavan et al. and further in view of Koorapaty et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0239247 A1).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit a single uplink control channel transmission to the first TRP, the single uplink control channel transmission including feedback information associated with both the downlink shared channel transmission and the additional downlink shared channel transmission.
However, Koorapaty discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit a single uplink control channel transmission to the first TRP, the single uplink control channel transmission including feedback information associated with both the downlink shared channel transmission and the additional downlink shared channel transmission (See Par. [12], [16] of Koorapaty for a reference to a wireless device receives a first downlink control channel message that schedules a first downlink shared channel transmission, and receives a second downlink control channel message that schedules a second downlink shared channel transmission, and determines an uplink control channel resource, where the uplink control information comprises HARQ feedback for both the first and the second downlink transmission [a single PUCCH resource carrying combined feedback for two PDSCHs]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koorapaty to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by improving the power consumption by reducing overhead messaging required for PUCCH resource allocation. (Koorapaty; Par. [164])
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Saber and Raghavan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit a first uplink control channel transmission to the first TRP and a second uplink control channel transmission to the second TRP, the first uplink control channel transmission including first feedback information associated with the downlink shared channel transmission, and the second uplink control channel transmission including second feedback information associated with the additional downlink shared channel transmission.
However, Koorapaty discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit a first uplink control channel transmission to the first TRP and a second uplink control channel transmission to the second TRP, the first uplink control channel transmission including first feedback information associated with the downlink shared channel transmission, and the second uplink control channel transmission including second feedback information associated with the additional downlink shared channel transmission (See Par. [9], [15] of Koorapaty for a reference to a wireless device receives a downlink control channel that schedules a downlink shared channel transmission and determines an uplink control channel resource, wherein the uplink control information comprises HARQ feedback for the downlink shared channel transmission. A per-transmission PUCCH-resource-determination applied once per TRP/DCI , which yields separate PUCCH resources/transmissions to each of the first and second TRPs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koorapaty to the combination of Saber and Raghavan. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance by improving the power consumption by reducing overhead messaging required for PUCCH resource allocation. (Koorapaty; Par. [164])
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al. (US 2024/0195483 Al) teaches default beam behavior of PUSCH for further enhanced multiple input multiple output (FeMIMO).
Zhou et al. (US 2023/0171837 A1) teaches methods that may be performed by a processor of a wireless device for managing beam failure recovery.
Kyung et al. (U.S. 2022/0322413 Al) teaches PDCCH and PDSCH transmission involving multiple transmission points (TRPs) in new radio (NR) mobile communication networks.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights