Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To determine obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the analysis considers whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time the invention was made, given the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. A key aspect of this analysis is identifying a motivation to combine prior art references.

The patent US11641661B2, titled "Methods and apparatuses for determining quasi co-location (QCL) assumptions for beam operations," addresses challenges in 5G New Radio (NR) wireless communication systems related to beamforming and determining QCL assumptions, particularly when multiple Control Resource Sets (CORESETs) are configured for a User Equipment (UE). The invention aims to prevent unfavorable beam switching and clarify QCL assumption rules in ambiguous scenarios.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art for US11641661B2 would likely be a telecommunications engineer or researcher with expertise in 5G NR standards (3GPP), wireless communication protocols, signal processing, and beamforming techniques. This individual would be familiar with concepts such as UEs, Base Stations (BSs), Control Resource Sets (CORESETs), Downlink Control Information (DCI), Physical Downlink Control Channels (PDCCH), Physical Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCH), Quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumptions, Reference Signals (RSs) like CSI-RS and DM-RS, and carrier aggregation (CA).

Cited Prior Art References

The patent US11641661B2 explicitly lists the following prior art keywords: "coreset," "monitored," "coresets," "search space," and "pdsch." While the patent itself does not detail specific prior art references in the "Prior Art Keywords" section, it is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/660,726, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/754,165, filed on November 1, 2018. This provisional application's filing date (November 1, 2018) is the priority date for the present patent. The prior art relevant for this analysis would be any information publicly available before this date.

For a thorough obviousness analysis, one would typically review the "References Cited" section of the patent itself, as this would include the prior art considered by the examiner. However, since that list is not provided in the prompt, this analysis will proceed based on the general understanding of the problem addressed by the patent and the technical field.

Differences Between the Claimed Invention and the Prior Art

The background section of US11641661B2 highlights ambiguities and unfavorable beam switching issues in current specifications for next-generation wireless communication systems (e.g., 5G NR) when multiple CORESETs are configured for a UE. The patent aims to provide methods and apparatuses to address these ambiguities and prevent undesirable beam switching. Specifically, it focuses on rules for determining QCL assumptions for:

• Receiving a Downlink Reference Signal (DL RS) when monitoring multiple CORESETs (Claim 1, 9).
• Receiving a PDSCH scheduled by DCI from a PDCCH when a scheduling offset is less than a threshold (Claim 1, 9).
• Handling scenarios where CORESETs overlap, are non-monitored, or have different QCL-TypeD properties (e.g., Claim 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16).
• RLM RS selection processes (detailed in the specification, though not explicitly in claims 1-16).
• Default aperiodic CSI-RS beam determination (detailed in the specification).

The core differences likely lie in the specific rules and logic for resolving QCL assumption conflicts or ambiguities, particularly when dealing with overlapping and monitored/non-monitored CORESETs, and scheduling offsets, to ensure efficient and unambiguous beam operations.

Obviousness Combinations and Motivation to Combine

Without specific prior art references from US11641661B2's "References Cited" section, it is challenging to construct concrete obviousness combinations. However, based on the general problem statement and the technical field of 5G NR, typical motivations for combining prior art would include:

1. Addressing known problems in wireless communication standards: The patent explicitly states that "current specifications for the next generation wireless communication system may cause a UE to perform unfavorable beam switching" and that a "UE is likely unable to decide which QCL assumption to use due to the ambiguity of the current specifications." This indicates a clear "design need or market pressure to solve a problem". A POSITA would be motivated to combine existing knowledge of beamforming, QCL, and CORESET management to resolve these ambiguities and improve system performance.
2. Improving efficiency and reducing complexity: Unfavorable beam switching is inefficient. Any combination of prior art that streamlines QCL assumption determination and avoids such switching would be motivated by a desire to improve overall system efficiency and reduce computational complexity at the UE.
3. Predictable design choices and routine optimization: Many aspects of defining rules within a standard can be considered routine optimization. If prior art references individually disclose aspects of CORESET configuration, QCL assumptions, and scheduling, a POSITA would be motivated to combine these to create a comprehensive set of rules for handling various overlapping scenarios, especially if the solutions are predictable.

Hypothetical Obviousness Argument (General):

Consider a hypothetical combination of two types of prior art that would likely be present at the priority date:

• Prior Art A: 3GPP Technical Specifications for NR Physical Layer (e.g., early drafts or releases pre-Nov 2018): This prior art would disclose the fundamental concepts of CORESETs, search spaces, PDCCH, PDSCH, QCL types (e.g., QCL-TypeD), TCI states, DL RS (CSI-RS, DM-RS), and the general framework for beam management in NR. It would likely define how UEs monitor CORESETs and apply QCL assumptions for basic scenarios. This is the "existing personal watercraft" in a hypothetical example.
• Prior Art B: Technical contributions or research papers addressing challenges with overlapping resources or ambiguous beam indications in early 5G NR development: This prior art would specifically highlight the issues of unfavorable beam switching or ambiguity in QCL assumption determination when multiple CORESETs overlap or when scheduling offsets are small, particularly when dealing with non-monitored CORESETs or multiple QCL-TypeD properties. This is the "thrust steering system" for the jet boat.

Motivation to Combine:

A POSITA, confronted with the ambiguities and potential for unfavorable beam switching described in Prior Art B, and armed with the foundational knowledge from Prior Art A, would have a clear motivation to combine the teachings to provide a more robust and unambiguous set of rules for QCL assumption determination. The problem itself (unfavorable beam switching, ambiguity) would provide the impetus for combining known elements.

For example, if Prior Art A describes how CORESETs are configured with IDs and associated with search spaces, and Prior Art B identifies that issues arise when CORESETs with different QCL assumptions or monitoring statuses overlap in time, a POSITA would be motivated to define priority rules. The idea of using the "lowest CORESET ID among monitored CORESETs" (as in Claim 1) is a predictable solution for establishing a clear priority in ambiguous scenarios. Similarly, establishing a threshold for scheduling offset to determine QCL assumption priority (as in Claim 1 and 7) would be a logical refinement to ensure consistent beamforming behavior, especially given the strict timing requirements in 5G NR.

The rationale would be that a POSITA would find it an "obvious solution" to a "known problem" to integrate specific priority rules and conditions (like scheduling offsets and CORESET IDs) into the existing framework of CORESET-based QCL assumption determination to resolve the identified ambiguities and prevent inefficient beam switching. The objective would be to improve the reliability and efficiency of beam operations in a multi-beam, multi-CORESET environment.

This analysis is general due to the lack of specific cited prior art references. A definitive obviousness finding would require a detailed comparison with specific disclosures within those references.