DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/12/2024 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 26 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are 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
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 of this title, 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(s) 1-6, 8, 14-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US Pub. 20200229161 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 20230397193 A1).
For claims 1 and 14, Raghavan discloses a mobile station for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (Fig. 3 shows processing circuitry and memory; stored PDCCH/PDSCH TCI information is used by the circuitry) [¶0058, 0069]; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory and based at least in part on information stored in the memory (Fig. 3 shows processing circuitry and memory; stored PDCCH/PDSCH TCI information is used by the circuitry) [¶0058, 0069], configured to:
wherein time resources associated with the PDSCH communication at least partially overlap with time resources associated with a control resource set (CORESET) associated with a second TCI state different from the first TCI state (Fig. 2; PDSCH DMRS using spatial QCL information different from the PDCCH DMRS and occupying at least one common symbol; the PDCCH is associated with the CORESET whose active TCI supplies that QCL information) [¶0025]; and
prioritize reception of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication associated with the CORESET based at least in part on the second TCI state being different from the first TCI state (the UE to give reception precedence to the PDCCH when the overlapping PDSCH and PDCCH Type-D information differs) [¶0025, 0027].
But Raghavan doesn’t explicitly teach receive a unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication indicating a first TCI state associated with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication,
However, Liu discloses receive a unified transmission configuration indicator (TCI) indication indicating a first TCI state associated with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication (Figs. 1 and 8; the joint/unified framework “unified TCI framework” indicates a downlink receive beam, including a dynamically indicated PDSCH beam “PDSCH scheduled by DCI”) [¶0042-43].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing channel communication states used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Raghavan with Liu to ensure proper channel status can be used to optimize data communication, thus, improving network efficiency.
Claim 1 differs from claim 14 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Raghavan further discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a mobile station [¶0058-59].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 15, Raghavan as modified by Liu, Liu further discloses the unified TCI indication is received in at least one of a downlink control information communication or a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communication (Fig. 1; MAC-CE activation of unified/joint states followed by DCI selection for the scheduled PDSCH) [¶0057 0071]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 3 and 16, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses receiving, by the mobile station, a scheduling downlink control information (DCI) communication associated with the PDSCH communication (Fig. 2; analyzing a PDSCH scheduled by downlink control information) [¶0024, 0027],
wherein prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on an offset between the scheduling DCI communication and the time resources associated with the PDSCH being less than a threshold time duration (conditions the default-QCL and conflict-priority procedure on the offset from scheduling DCI to PDSCH being below a configured threshold) [¶0025].
For claims 4 and 17, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on the first TCI state being associated with a Type D quasi co location type (the PDSCH TCI state with spatial receive information and expressly apply the conflict rule to the Type-D QCL parameter) [¶0010, 0024-25].
For claims 5 and 18, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses the PDSCH communication and the CORESET are associated with a same component carrier (the ordinary intra-carrier case before extends the rule to carrier aggregation) [¶0024-25].
For claims 6 and 19, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses the PDSCH communication is associated with a first component carrier, and wherein the CORESET is associated with a second component carrier different from the first component carrier (applies the PDCCH-priority rule to intra-band carrier aggregation where the PDSCH and CORESET belong to separate carriers) [¶0025].
For claims 8 and 21, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses receiving, by the mobile station, a scheduling downlink control information (DCI) communication associated with the PDSCH communication (cross-carrier scheduling in which the PDCCH carrying the DCI and the PDSCH are received on different carriers) [¶0027],
wherein the scheduling DCI communication is associated with a first component carrier and the PDSCH communication is associated with a second component carrier different from the first component carrier (cross-carrier scheduling in which the PDCCH carrying the DCI and the PDSCH are received on different carriers) [¶0027],
wherein a third TCI state associated with a lowest activated TCI identifier associated with an active bandwidth part is different from the second TCI state (the UE, for the cross-carrier short-offset case, to use the activated TCI state having the minimum identifier that is applicable to the PDSCH in its active BWP) [¶0027], and
wherein prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on the third TCI state being different from the second TCI state (the UE, for the cross-carrier short-offset case, to use the activated TCI state having the minimum identifier that is applicable to the PDSCH in its active BWP) [¶0027].
Claim(s) 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US Pub. 20200229161 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 20230397193 A1) in further view of Liu’ (US Pub. 20240039587 A1).
For claims 7 and 20, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Raghavan further discloses wherein prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on the third TCI state being different from the second TCI state (the default PDSCH Type-D QCL state from the CORESET having the minimum control-resource-set identifier and then compares it with the overlapping PDCCH/CORESET state) [¶0025].
But Raghavan, as modified by Liu, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Liu’.
Liu’ discloses a physical cell identifier (PCI) associated with the first TCI state is different from a PCI associated with a serving cell associated with the PDSCH communication, wherein a third TCI state associated with a lowest CORESET identifier is different from the second TCI state (Fig. 2 depicts serving and additional cells/TRPs; associates the additional PCI with TCI states activated for PDSCH or PDCCH on the carrier) [¶0105, 0113].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing channel communication states used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Raghavan and Liu with Liu’ to ensure proper cell identifier can be related to channel status can be used to optimize data routing, thus, improving data processing speed.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US Pub. 20200229161 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. 20220077982 A1).
For claims 9 and 22, Raghavan discloses a mobile station for wireless communication (Fig. 3 shows proce006ssing circuitry and memory; stored PDCCH/PDSCH TCI information is used by the circuitry) [¶0058, 0069], comprising:
a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory and based at least in part on information stored in the memory (Fig. 3 shows proce006ssing circuitry and memory; stored PDCCH/PDSCH TCI information is used by the circuitry) [¶0058, 0069] configured to:
wherein time resources associated with the SFN PDSCH communication at least partially overlap with time resources associated with a control resource set (CORESET) associated with a second TCI state different from the first TCI state (Fig. 2; PDSCH DMRS using spatial QCL information different from the PDCCH DMRS and occupying at least one common symbol; the PDCCH is associated with the CORESET whose active TCI supplies that QCL information) [¶0025]; and
prioritize reception of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication associated with the CORESET based at least in part on the second TCI state being different from the first TCI state (the default PDSCH beam from, respectively, the lowest CORESET identifier or lowest activated TCI identifier; compares that beam with the overlapping PDCCH beam and gives the PDCCH precedence. The claim’s “third state differs” wording is the TCI-state formulation of different Type-D comparison) [¶¶0025, 27].
But Raghavan doesn’t explicitly teach receive a scheduling downlink control information (DCI) communication associated with a single-frequency network (SFN) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication,
wherein the scheduling DCI communication indicates a first TCI state associated with the SFN PDSCH communication,
However, Zhang discloses receive a scheduling downlink control information (DCI) communication associated with a single-frequency network (SFN) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication (Fig. 1 shows DCI scheduling the PDSCH; identifies transmission of that PDSCH from two non-colocated points as SFN transmission) [¶0045, 0053],
wherein the scheduling DCI communication indicates a first TCI state associated with the SFN PDSCH communication (Figs. 2–4 map DCI TCI-field values to TCI states; applies first and second TCI states to the short-offset PDSCH) [¶0058, 0054], and
Since, all are analogous arts addressing channel communication states used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Raghavan with Zhang to ensure proper channel status can be used to optimize data communication, thus, improving network efficiency.
Claim 9 differs from claim 22 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Raghavan further discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a mobile station [¶0058-59].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 10 and 23, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on an offset between the scheduling DCI communication (Fig. 2; analyzing a PDSCH scheduled by downlink control information) [¶0024, 0027] and the time resources associated with the PDSCH being less than a threshold time duration (conditions the default-QCL and conflict-priority procedure on the offset from scheduling DCI to PDSCH being below a configured threshold) [¶0025].
For claims 11 and 24, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses prioritizing reception of the PDCCH communication associated with the CORESET is further based at least in part on the first TCI state being associated with a Type D quasi co location type (associate the PDSCH TCI state with spatial receive information and expressly apply the conflict rule to the Type-D QCL parameter) [¶¶0010, 0024–25].
For claims 12 and 25, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses the PDSCH communication and the CORESET are associated with a same component carrier (the ordinary intra-carrier case before ¶25 extends the rule to carrier aggregation) [¶0024].
For claims 13 and 26, Raghavan, as modified by Liu, discloses the PDSCH communication is associated with a first component carrier, and wherein the CORESET is associated with a second component carrier different from the first component carrier (applies the PDCCH-priority rule to intra-band carrier aggregation where the PDSCH and CORESET belong to separate carriers) [¶0025].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12047963 B2; US 12047963 B2
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
