DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 19/264,224 filed on November 21, 2025, which is a CON of 18/300,596 (US 12,401,412 B2). Claims 2, 5, 8-10, 12-13, 16-18, 22-24, 26, 28-30 and 32-34 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19-21, 25, 27 and 31 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 14-15, 19-21, 25, 27 and 31 are subject to examination.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. The IDSs submitted on 07/09/25 and 07/25/25 have been entered and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections/Suggestions
4. Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, “network, comprising:” (line 1) should be replaced with “network, the method comprising:”;
in claim 6, “criteria, wherein” (line 3) should be replaced with “criteria, and wherein” and “may comprise:” (line 4) should be replaced with “comprise:”; similar objection applies to claim 7;
in claim 25, “user device, UEs,” (line 3) should be replaced with “user equipments, UEs,” and “and/or_” (line 4) should be replaced with “and/or”; and
in claim 27, “to from” (line 8) should be replaced with “to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
5. 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.
6. 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: “the apparatus” in claims 1, 27 and 31.
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.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 14-15, 19-21, 25, 27 and 31 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "like a base station or another UE" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, claim 1 recites limitations “the network entity” (line 6), “the capability” (line 13) and “the one or more SSBs and/or CSI-RSs” (line 14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 further recites “a network entity” in line 9. It is not clear whether said “network entity” (line 9) is different from or the same as said “network entity” as recited in line 6 of claim 1. Hence, renders claim 1 and its dependent claims indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 27 and 31.
Claim 6 recites limitations “the one or more received beams” (lines 5-6, 8 & 12) and “the predefined threshold” (lines 9-10 & 13). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites limitations “the one or more transmit beams” (lines 7 & 13) and “the receiver” (line 8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Regarding claim 7, the phrase "like"/“e.g.,” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; similar rejection applies to claims 14-15, 19-21 and 25.
Claim 11 recites limitation “the reference signal” (line 3) and. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “signal as the feedback…” (line 7). Since preceding said “signal as the feedback…” a coordinator (e.g., and/or) is missing, it is not clear whether the limitation should read “…network entities,” and “signal as the feedback..” OR “…network entities,” or “signal as the feedback...”. Similar rejection applies to claim 21.
Claim 31 recites limitation “the communicating” (line 3) and. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Reason for Allowance
9. As stated above, this instant application is the CON. The difference between the instant and CON applications is that the instant recites additional limitations i.e., wherein the apparatus is to transmit to the network entity a Sounding Reference Signal, SRS, using one or more beams beamformed by the apparatus using an uplink spatial filter without beamsweeping, the spatial filer being a spatial domain transmission filter configured by a network entity using one or more downlink signals, the downlink signals comprising a Synchronization Signal Block, SSB, and/or a Channel-State Information Reference Signal, CSI-RS, and wherein, responsive to a request from the network entity, the apparatus is to send capability information indicating at least the capability of the apparatus to provide a feedback indicating that the apparatus uses the one or more SSBs and/or CSI-RSs for setting the spatial domain transmission filter used for beamforming the one or more beams.
Go (US 2022/0166468 A1) teaches in Figure 17 a UE comprising antennas (108), in Figure 7 a SSB beam and CSI-RS beam, in Figure 14 transmitting UE capability information and in Paragraph 377 a spatial domain transmission filter. Davydov (US 2021/0399855 A1) teaches in Figure 5 a UE comprising antennas (575) and in Figure 4 a spatial domain transmission filter (408/412). Soriaga (US 10,505,597 B2) teaches in Figure 14 transmitting SRSs and feedbacks.
However, the prior art of record when implemented, would not produce said apparatus as claimed in claims 1 & 27 and said method as claimed in claim 31. In addition, the prior art of record fails to disclose said apparatus (Figures 1b & 3-7: UE) as claimed in “combination” with “the corresponding structure, material or act described in the Applicant’s specification as performing the entire claimed function and [or] equivalents thereof” where applicable under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM 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 AIR at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, SAM K. AHN can be reached on (571) 272-3044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights