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 .
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, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119/120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. EP 19191793.9 and 17/572,378 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Prior-filed applications fail to provide enablement for at least the following claimed features, as well as similarly worded features:
wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant’s specification dated 10/17/2024 fails to provide any description related to “wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states”
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.
Claims 1, 11, 12 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.
Claims 1, 11, 12 recite the limitation “wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states” which makes the claims indefinite. It’s unclear if the “a first TCI state” and “a second TCI state” are part of the configured “at least two TCI states”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for claiming dependency from rejected claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 11, 12 of US Patent 12,156,188, hereafter patent’188, in view of Frenne et al (USPN 20230042806).
Regarding claim 1 of instant application, claim 1 of patent’188 discloses
a communication apparatus, comprising: (see claim 1 line 1)
a transceiver, which, in operation, receives downlink control information (DCI) signaling (see claim 1 line 2)
a processor, which, in operation, obtains from the DCI signaling a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) indicator specifying that at least two TCI states are configured (see claim 1 lines 3-6)
Patent’188 does not expressly disclose wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states
Frenne discloses wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states (TCI state #1 is associated with reception of even PRGs, TCI state #2 is associated with reception of odd PRGs [0079]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “to an integer multiple of PRGs in accordance with a frequency-domain resource assignment” as taught by Frenne into Patent’188’s system with the motivation to assign subsets of PRBs to different TCI states via DCI for PDSCH transmissions from multiple TRPs (Frenne, paragraph [0024, 0071-0079])
Regarding claim 4 of instant application, claim 5 of patent’188 discloses similar claim features
Regarding claim 9 of instant application, claim 11 of patent’188 discloses similar claim features
Regarding claim 10 of instant application, claim 12 of patent’188 discloses similar claim features
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Frenne et al (USPN 20230042806).
Regarding claim 1, Frenne discloses
a communication apparatus, comprising: (UE, FIG. 12 #1200, comprising [0063-0064]
a transceiver, which, in operation, receives downlink control information (DCI) signaling (transceiver, FIG. 12 #1201, receives downlink signaling [0064, 0114], FIG. 15
a processor, which, in operation, obtains from the DCI signaling a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) indicator specifying that at least two TCI states are configured (processor, FIG. 12 #1203, configures a first TCI and a second TCI [0063, 0114]
wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states (TCI state #1 is associated with reception of even PRGs, TCI state #2 is associated with reception of odd PRGs [0079]
Claim 12 is rejected based on similar ground(s) in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Frenne discloses
a scheduling node, comprising: (RAN node, FIG. 13 #1300, comprising [0065-0067]
a transceiver, which, in operation, transmits downlink control information (DCI) signaling (transceiver, FIG. 13 #1301, for transmitting DCI [0117-0119], FIG. 16
a processor, which, in operation, provides within the DCI signaling a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) indicator specifying that at least two TCI states are configured (processor, FIG. 13 #1303, operable to transmit DCI indicating a first and second TCI states for a scheduled data transmission on PRBs [0117-0119, 0132-0133]
wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states (TCI state #1 is associated with reception of even PRGs, TCI state #2 is associated with reception of odd PRGs [0079]
Regarding claim 2, Frenne discloses “wherein the at least one PRG for each TCI state is included in a frequency region of each TCI state” PRGs are grouped and each PRG is exclusively associated with one TCI states’ frequency region [0079, 0084, 0108]
Regarding claim 3, Frenne discloses “wherein a codepoint of the TCI indicator indicates a number of the at least two TCI states, and the processor, in operation, determines a number of the frequency regions according to the at least two TCI states” codepoint of TCI DCI field indicates two TCI states, the PRBs comprise first subset of PRBs associated with first TCI state and second subset of PRBs associated with second TCI state [0114, 0023]
Regarding claim 5, Frenne discloses “wherein the processor, in operation, associates frequency regions to the at least two TCI states according to a configured pattern” combination based odd/even assignment itself a specification configured pattern [0079, 0084]
Regarding claim 8, Frenne discloses “wherein the processor, in operation, sequentially associates consecutive frequency regions to each of the at least two TCI states” first half of scheduled bandwidth for PDSCH may be assigned to TCI state #1 and second half may be assigned to TCI state #2 [0079]
Regarding claim 9, Frenne discloses “wherein the processor, in operation, configures a size of a frequency region: as a fixed size common for all frequency regions of all TCI states; (PRG size can be 2 or 4 RBs or wideband, PRG size applies across the whole bandwidth [0079]
or according to a semi-static signaling received by the transceiver and specifying: a size common for all frequency regions of all TCI states(RRC signaling size [0020-0022]
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.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenne in view of Saliya et al (USPN 20220167329).
Regarding claim 4, Frenne discloses “wherein the processor, in operation, assigns a frequency region” PRG size can be 2 or 4 RBs, or wideband and assigned to TCI state #1 in first half of bandwidth and TCI state #2 to second half of bandwidth [0079]
Frenne does not expressly disclose “to an integer multiple of PRGs in accordance with a frequency-domain resource assignment”
Saliya discloses assigning a frequency region built from an integer multiple PRB portions [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “to an integer multiple of PRGs in accordance with a frequency-domain resource assignment” as taught by Saliya into Frenn’s system with the motivation to allow network operators flexibility in balancing frequency diversity against per-TRP resource size (Saliya, paragraph [0027-0029])
Regarding claim 6, Frenne discloses “wherein the configured pattern a TCI state after each integer number M, wherein M is not smaller than 1” odd/even PRG combination pattern discloses M=1 case where TCI state alternates after every single consecutive PRG [0079, 0084]
Frenne does not expressly disclose “wherein the configured pattern alternates a TCI state after each integer number M of consecutive frequency regions, wherein M is not smaller than 1”
Saliya discloses partitioning into portions larger than one PRG (e.g. 15/20 PRB portions) where each TRP uses 2 portions, first and third portions associated with TRP1 and second portion associated with TRP2 [0034-0036]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the configured pattern alternates a TCI state after each integer number M of consecutive frequency regions, wherein M is not smaller than 1” as taught by Saliya into Frenn’s system with the motivation to allow network operators flexibility in balancing frequency diversity against per-TRP resource size (Saliya, paragraph [0027-0029])
Regarding claim 10, Frenne does not expressly disclose “obtaining from the DCI an absolute size in terms of PRGs; obtaining from the DCI transport block sizes of frequency regions belonging to different TCI states and determining the size of the frequency region based on the transport block size”
Saliya discloses “obtaining from the DCI an absolute size in terms of PRGs;” deriving portion size dynamically based on dynamic signaling where the DCI/dynamic signaling determines the number and size of portions [0034, 0035]
“obtaining from the DCI transport block sizes of frequency regions belonging to different TCI states and determining the size of the frequency region based on the transport block size” resource allocation tied to TBS determination with single MCS (or two MCS/modulation orders) [0039]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “obtaining from the DCI an absolute size in terms of PRGs; obtaining from the DCI transport block sizes of frequency regions belonging to different TCI states and determining the size of the frequency region based on the transport block size” as taught by Saliya into Frenn’s system with the motivation to allow network operators flexibility in balancing frequency diversity against per-TRP resource size (Saliya, paragraph [0027-0029])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenne in view of Saliya as applied to claim 6 and in further view of Khoshnevisan et al (USPN 20200404667), with provisional application 62/865730 filed 6/24/2019.
Regarding claim 7, combined system of Frenne and Saliya does not expressly disclose “associates a first part of the consecutive frequency regions to the at least two TCI states and a second part of the consecutive frequency regions to one of the at least two TCI states”
Khoshnevisan discloses UE assigns half of number of PRGs to first TCI and the other half number of PRGs to second TCI [0102-0105], FIGs. 9A, 9B, provisional application [00100, 00105]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “obtaining from the DCI an absolute size in terms of PRGs; obtaining from the DCI transport block sizes of frequency regions belonging to different TCI states and determining the size of the frequency region based on the transport block size” as taught by Khoshnevisan into combined system of Frenn and Saliya with the motivation to allow assignment of allocated RBs to individual TCI states among multiple TCI states to reduce signaling (Khoshnevisan, paragraph [0007, 0049])
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saliya et al (USPN 20220167329) in view of Liu et al (USPN 20250266940).
Regarding claim 1, Saliya discloses
a communication apparatus, comprising: (UE, FIG. 6 #610, comprising [0043-0045]
a transceiver, which, in operation, receives downlink control information (DCI) signaling (transceiver, FIG. 6 #613, receives downlink signaling [0045, 0003, 0031, 0034]
a processor, which, in operation, obtains from the DCI signaling a Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) indicator specifying that at least two TCI states are configured (processor, FIG. 6 #613, configures a first TCI and a second TCI [0044, 0031]
Saliya does not expressly disclose wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states
Liu discloses wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states (even PRGs are assigned to first TCI state and odd PRG are assigned to second TCI state [0096-0100]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein, even precoding resource block group (PRG)s are assigned to a first TCI state and odd PRGs are assigned to a second TCI states” as taught by Liu into Saliya’s system with the motivation to reduce signaling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao et al (USPN 20220232614) FIG. 10A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights