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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/24, including preliminary amendments filed on 12/23/24, has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 13, 17-18, 23, 26-27, 31-33, 38, 42-43, 48, and 53-54 are pending.
Claims 3-5, 9-12, 14-16, 19-22, 24-25, 28-30, 34-37, 39-41, 44-47, 49-52, and 55 have been canceled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, 17-18 and 32, 38, 42-43 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Muruganathan and Liu generally disclose TCI states, including as related to PUSCH, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in claims. For instance, regarding claims 7/32, TCI as related to FDM and TDM, DMRS and CDM, and SFN. Additionally, regarding claims 13/38, first/second indication info wrt second DCI including particular formats and/or other than particular formats. Consequently, these claims are allowable.
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.
(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 1-2, 6, 26-27, 31 and 53, 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muruganathan (US 20230216626 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muruganathan discloses a method for indicating a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state, performed by a terminal, comprising:
receiving first indication information, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate a first TCI state, the first TCI state comprises N TCI states, and each of the N TCI states comprises at least one of a joint TCI state or an uplink TCI state, wherein N is an integer greater than 1 (UE is configured with TCI states for UL PUSCH by a network thru DCI signaling, where 2 states (i.e., > 1) are indicated in the UL DCI [par. 0112-117]); and
receiving second indication information, wherein the second indication information is configured to indicate a second TCI state used in a case that a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is transmitted, and the second TCI state comprises M TCI states (UE is configured with TCI states for UL PUSCH by a network thru DCI signaling, where 2 states (i.e., > 1) are indicated in the UL DCI and where a subset (i.e., M) are activated by the network thru a MAC CE [par. 0112-117]),
wherein the M TCI states are a subset of the N TCI states, and M is a positive integer not greater than N (UE is configured with TCI states for UL PUSCH by a network thru DCI signaling, where 2 states (i.e., > 1) are indicated in the UL DCI and where a subset (i.e., M <= N) are activated by the network thru a MAC CE [par. 0112-117]).
Regarding claim 26, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 53, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Muruganathan further discloses a terminal [fig. 15], comprising: a processor [fig. 15 no. 1502]; and a transceiver [fig. 15 no. 1506] connected to the processor.
Regarding claim 54, it is substantially similar to claim 26, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Muruganathan further discloses an access network device [fig. 12], comprising: a processor [fig. 12 no. 1204]; and a transceiver [fig. 12 no. 1210] connected to the processor.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Muruganathan discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Muruganathan further discloses wherein the first PUSCH is configured with at least one of:
a transmission scheme based on a frequency division multiplexing (FDM) [fig. 2, 9-11, par. 0021];
a transmission scheme based on a time division multiplexing (TDM) [fig. 1-2, 9-11, par. 0067];
demodulation reference signal (DMRS) ports of at least two code division multiplexing (CDM) groups [fig. 2, 9-11]; or
a transmission scheme based on a single-frequency network (SFN).
Regarding claims 6 and 31, Muruganathan discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Muruganathan further discloses wherein the first PUSCH is configured with at least one of following configuration parameters:
at least one sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set indicator [par. 0024];
at least one SRS resource indicator [par. 0022-024];
at least one field layer;
at least one precoding information and number of layers [par. 0025];
at least one transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) [par. 0025];
at least one SRS resource set [par. 0022-024];
at least one pathloss reference signal; or
at least one power control parameter set.
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 (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 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 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 claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan as applied to claims 1 and 26 respectively, and further in view of Zhu (US 20230319846 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 33, Muruganathan discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Muruganathan discloses wherein the method comprises at least one of: the first indication information is carried in a first medium access control control element (MAC CE), and the first MAC CE is configured to indicate the N TCI states, as discussed above, Muruganathan does not explicitly disclose or the first indication information is carried in a second MAC CE and first downlink control information (DCI), the second MAC CE is configured to indicate N TCI states corresponding to each of at least two code points, and the first DCI is configured to indicate one code point of the at least two code points, wherein the first indication information comprises the N TCI states, and each of the N TCI states has a default mapping relationship with identification information. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhu.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhu discloses:
or the first indication information is carried in a second MAC CE and first downlink control information (DCI), the second MAC CE is configured to indicate N TCI states corresponding to each of at least two code points, and the first DCI is configured to indicate one code point of the at least two code points,
wherein the first indication information comprises the N TCI states, and each of the N TCI states has a default mapping relationship with identification information [par. 0365].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muruganathan with Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of supporting increased capacity [Zhu par. 0008].
Claims 23 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muruganathan as applied to claims 1 and 26 respectively, and further in view of Liu (US 20230397193 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 48, Muruganathan discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Muruganathan discloses wherein the second indication information, as discussed above, Muruganathan does not explicitly disclose comprises at least one of at least one bandwidth part identity (BWP ID) or at least one component carrier identity (CC ID). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Liu.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
comprises at least one of at least one bandwidth part identity (BWP ID) or at least one component carrier identity (CC ID) [par. 0066, 75].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muruganathan with Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of transmitting and receiving PUSCH with joint TCI states [Liu par. 0001].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights