DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-5 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM PG PUB 2026/0172174.
Re Claims 1, 14, 15 and 16, KIM teaches in figure 4, S400, a UE (comprising a memory and processor) to receive from a base station (comprising a memory and processor) a beam hopping DRX pattern (a bean pattern over a time domain) [0085] wherein the beam hopping DRX pattern is associated with a plurality of subsets of beams; the UE receives the beam hopping DRX pattern in a DRX pattern configuration (information…with beam pattern) via RRC signaling wherein the DRX configuration is associated with the beam hopping pattern (the beam pattern).
Re Claims 2, 17, KIM teaches in S400, the indication information for the beam hopping DRX pattern includes a first non-active duration (inactive period…skipping the monitoring for wireless communication) and a first active duration (active period…monitoring for wireless communication) for discontinuous transmission [0108].
Re Claims 3, 18, KIM teaches the beam hopping pattern.
Re Claims 4, 19, KIM determines the beam hopping scheme is enabled/disable is based at least one parameter of the cell DTX configuration such as the active/inactive durations (at least one parameter) [0085].
Re Claim 5, KIM teaches the beam hopping pattern is associated with the set of beams with the non-active and active durations (a first and second durations).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM PG PUB 2026/0172174 in view of SHA et al PG PUB 2021/0400510.
Re Claims 6, 20, KIM fails to explicitly teach “…wherein first DCI comprises a plurality of information blocks, each information block… corresponding to a respective subset of beams…the set of beams.”. However, SHA et al teaches a DCI a bitmap (a plurality of information blocks) with a plurality of bits (each information block) corresponding to a plurality of beams (a respective subset of beams) [0118]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the DCI in KIM with the DCI in SHA to save signaling overhead [0102]. Therefore, it would have been obvious one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 7, KIM in view of SHA et al teaches the UE receiving a RRC signaling to configure the bitmap (one or more information blocks) in the DCI to be monitored by the UE.
Re Claim 11, KIM in view of SHA et al teaches receiving subsequent DCI (a second DCI) corresponding to DCI format associated with the cell DTX configuration to promote power saving.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM PG PUB 2026/0172174 in view of SHA et al PG PUB 2021/0400510 as applied to Claim 7 above and further in view of SONG et al PG PUB 2021/0028844.
Re Claims 8, 9, SHA et al teaches the bitmap indicates whether one or more beams are activated; KIM teaches the cell DTX configuration is activated or deactivated for a subset of beams wherein a set of DL signals is applicable for the cell DTX configuration. KIM in view of SHA et al fails to explicitly teach “whether a set of common signals are to be received during a cell inactive period of the cell DTX configuration;”. However, SONG et al teaches the UE receiving an indication whether the terminal in an inactive time reports a CSI report [0100] wherein the CSI report is associated is associated with a set of common signals such as CSI-RS. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have received the set of CSI-RS during the inactive times of the cell DRX configuration to improve communication efficiency [SONG 0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 10, SONG et al teaches during the active time for the cell DRX configuration, the UE receives data such as SPS-PDSCH [0078].
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM PG PUB 2026/0172174 in view of SHA et al PG PUB 2021/0400510 as applied to Claim 11 above and further in view of Babaei PG PUB 2023/0059092.
Re Claim 12, KIM in view of SHA et al fails to explicitly teach “…the UE receive a SIB that indicates a CORESET associated with at least one of the first DCI or the second DCI.”. However, Babaei teaches the UE receiving a SIB indicating a CORESET for scheduling information [0197]. By combining the teachings, the SIB can indicate the CORESET in KIM to enable UE to monitor the DCI for scheduling the PDSCH during the active period. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have received the CORESET to enable monitoring for the DCI. Therefore, it would have been obvious one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 13, SHA et al teaches the bitmap (mapped information blocks) having a one-to-mapping to the respective beams which is applied to first and second DCIs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights