DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to preliminary amendments filed on 12/23/2024.
Claims 1-12 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/091696 and claims foreign priority to CN202210475047.8 filed 4/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2025 and 10/1/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transceiver module, and processing module in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
[0056] In a possible implementation, a structure of the apparatus includes a processing module and a transceiver module. The processing module is configured to support the apparatus in performing the functions of the terminal device in any one of the first aspect, the third aspect, the fifth aspect, or the possible implementations of the first aspect, the third aspect, or the fifth aspect, and/or is configured to support the apparatus in performing the functions of the network device in any one of the second aspect, the fourth aspect, the sixth aspect, or the possible implementations of the second aspect, the fourth aspect, or the sixth aspect. The transceiver module is configured to support communication between the apparatus and another communication device. For example, when the apparatus is the terminal device, the transceiver module is configured to receive information from a network device and the like. For another example, when the apparatus is the network device, the transceiver module is configured to receive information from a terminal device and the like. The communication apparatus may further include a storage module. The storage module is coupled to the processing module, and stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the apparatus. In an example, the processing module may be a processor, the communication module may be a transceiver, and the storage module may be a memory. The memory may be integrated with the processor, or may be disposed separately from the processor.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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)(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, 4-5, 8-9, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumara et al. (EP 4514020 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Matsumara teaches:
A communication method, comprising:
receiving first indication information; (a UE receives an RRC parameter which configures multiple TCI states for both DL and UL, a MAC CE may activate multiple TCI states among the multiple configured TCI states, and a DCI (i.e. first indication information) selects/indicates one or more activated TCI state to apply to one or more channels [Matsumara: 0136-41]);
wherein the first indication information is useable to indicate a first spatial parameter; (a TCI state is information related to quasi-co-location (QCL) of the signal/channel, and may be referred to as a spatial reception parameter [Matsumara: 0013]);
the first spatial parameter is useable for communicating a first type of signal/channel, and the first type of signal/channel comprises at least two of: a sounding reference signal (SRS), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), a phase tracking reference signal (PTRS), a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), a tracking reference signal (TRS), or a synchronization signal block (SSB); (the channel/signal for which the TCI state or spatial relation is configured (specified) may be, for example, at least one of: a downlink shared channel (Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)), a downlink control channel (Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)), an uplink shared channel (Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH)), and an uplink control channel (Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)) [Matsumara: 0021; 0360], a synchronization signal block (SSB), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a reference signal for measurement (Sounding Reference Signal (SRS)), a CSI-RS for tracking (also referred to as a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS)), and a reference signal for QCL detection (also referred to as a QRS) [Matsumara: 0022]);
and communicating a first signal/channel based on the first spatial parameter; (the unified TCI framework may indicate a common beam (common TCI state) and apply the common beam to one or more of the UL and DL channels instead of defining a TCI state or a spatial relation for each channel [Matsumara: 0119]);
wherein a type of the first signal/channel is the first type, and a first index corresponding to the first signal/channel is the same as a first index corresponding to the first indication information; (the UE may select/determine a TCI state to apply to the channel/signal from among multiple indicated TCI states, based on the index related to the TRP configured/indicated for the channel/signal [Matsumara: 0008; 0292; 0153-58; Fig. 17]).
With regard to Claim 4, Matsumara teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving first information, wherein the first information is useable to indicate that the first indication information is applicable to the first signal/channel; (a UE receives an RRC parameter (i.e. first information) which configures multiple TCI states for both DL and UL, a MAC CE may activate multiple TCI states among the multiple configured TCI states, and a DCI (i.e. first indication information) selects/indicates one or more activated TCI state to apply to one or more channels [Matsumara: 0136-41]).
With regard to Claims 5, 8-9, & 12, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 4 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 5, 8-9, & 12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 4.
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.
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 2, 6, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumara et al. (EP 4514020 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0070849 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Matsumara teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first indication information is indicated by first downlink control information (DCI); (TCI states may be activated by a MAC CE, and UL/DL DCI may select/indicate one from the X active TCI states [Matsumara: 0123]);
and sending a time of the first signal/channel is after the application time of the first indication information; (the indicated TCI state may be applied to at least one (or all) of UL/DL channels/RSs [Matsumara: 0136; 0141]).
However, Matsumara does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
wherein an application time of the first indication information is after a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement(HARQ-ACK) that is indicated by first downlink control information (DCI).
In a similar field of endeavor involving TCI activation using a unified TCI framework [Li: 0061], Li discloses:
wherein an application time of the first indication information is after a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement(HARQ-ACK) that is indicated by first downlink control information (DCI); (when the target TCI state is known, the downlink TCI switching to the indicated DL TCI state or joint TCI state in the DCI format is completed starting from the first slot that is at least BeamAppTime-r17 symbols after the last symbol of the PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK in response to the DCI triggering TCI state activation [Li: 0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumara in view of Li in order to delay application of a new spatial parameter until after HARQ-ACK in the system of Matsumara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsumara with Li as doing so would ensure an existing HARQ process completes prior to changing the UE’s beam configuration, thereby maintaining beam configuration consistency between the network and the UE.
With regard to Claims 6 & 10, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 2 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 6 & 10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3, 7, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumara et al. (EP 4514020 A1) in view of Muruganathan et al. (US 2024/0205695 A1).
With regard to Claim 3, Matsumara teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the type of the first signal/channel comprises:
a SRS; or a CSI-RS; (the channel/signal for which the TCI state or spatial relation is configured (specified) may be, for example, at least one of: a synchronization signal block (SSB), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a reference signal for measurement (Sounding Reference Signal (SRS)), a CSI-RS for tracking (also referred to as a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS)), and a reference signal for QCL detection (also referred to as a QRS) [Matsumara: 0022]);
wherein the first index corresponding to the first signal/channel is a control resource set group index, and the control resource set group index is determined based on indication information in reference signal resource information corresponding to the first signal/channel; (a CORESET pool index of each CORESET is configured by RRC [Matsumara: 0118], wherein the MAC CE contains a CORESET pool ID field indicating the correspondence (mapping) between an activated TCI state and a codepoint of a TCI field indicated by DCI set in the field Ti (codepoint of DCI TCI) is specific to ControlResourceSetId configured by a CORESET pool ID [Matsumara: 0153]. Examiner notes the claimed reference signal resource information is interpreted in view of [0226] of the published specification).
However, Matsumara does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a periodic SRS; or a periodic CSI-RS.
In a similar field of endeavor involving beam management in multi-TRP systems, Muruganathan discloses:
a periodic SRS; or a periodic CSI-RS; (SRS and CSI-RS resources can be explicitly associated with a CORESET pool index via higher layer configuration (e.g., via RRC configuration of the CORESET pool index in the SRS and CSI-RS resource configuration) [Muruganathan: 0257-58]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumara in view of Muruganathan in order to utilize a periodic SRS or a periodic CSI-RS in the system of Matsumara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Matsumara with Muruganathan as doing so would enable the corresponding CORESET index and spatial parameters to be associated with a periodic reference signal, while reducing control signaling associated with repeated DCI triggering of aperiodic reference signals.
With regard to Claims 7 & 11, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 3 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 7 & 11 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li (US 2026/0197126 A1) which teaches a unified TCI state in which each of the PDCCH and the PUCCH activates one TCI state or spatialrelationinfo by using a media access control element (MAC CE) [Li: 0030].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights