DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed October 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 15, 16, and 27 are cancelled as previously indicated.
Claims 1, 3-14, 17-26, and 28-30 are currently pending.
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 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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, 18, 21, 23-26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al. (hereinafter Huawei) (Non-Patent Literature – “Beam failure recovery for SCell” – 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting) in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0058130 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Huawei teaches and discloses an apparatus and method of beam failure recovery in a wireless communications system, comprising:
detecting, by a user equipment (UE) (UE, figure 4; page 3), a beam failure of a first downlink beam received at the UE from a base station (page 3, section 2.2.1; figures 1-3; teaches detecting a beam failure);
sending, by the UE to the base station, a random access channel (RACH) request identifying one or more candidate downlink beams received at the UE from the base station (pages 3-4, section 2.2.2; page 4, section 2.2.3; teaches “…New candidate beam identification If UE detects beam failure, it needs to identify a new beam that satisfies a threshold from the candidate beam list configured by RRC to recover the link and reports to gNB. Then, with the newly identified beam, beam failure recovery response transmission is performed…”); and
receiving, at the UE from the base station, a response to the RACH request, the response identifying a second downlink beam from the one or more candidate downlink beams to replace the first downlink beam (page 4, section 2.2.3; “…After a UE detects beam failure and determines a new beam, it will select a PRACH resource associated with the new beam to transmit beam failure recovery request. Thus, when gNB receives the request, it will transmit beam failure recovery response with the new beam associated…”) and indicating a type of beam recovery associated with the second downlink beam for which the base station has reserved downlink beam resources (page 6, section 2.2.4; “…For beam failure recovery response transmission for SCell. It has been discussed the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL. As described before, if UE can receive the beam failure recovery response from gNB, it represents the new beam identified by UE can be used for PDCCH transmission on SCell. The beam failure recovery response should be transmitted on the same cell with PDCCH that beam failure happens with the PRACH…”).
However, Huawei may not explicitly disclose wherein the type of beam recovery is included as an indication in a same control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell (although Huawei does teach and suggest “the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL”; page 6, section 2.2.4).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches and suggests wherein the type of beam recovery is included as an indication in a same control resource set (CORESET) (Beam-Failure-Recover-Response-CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell ([0066]; [0067]; “…the Pcell and the Scell may correspond to the same base unit, or to different base units. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to the same base unit, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message only logically sending from the Pcell to the Scell. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to different base units, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message being sent from one base unit (the base unit connected via the Pcell) to another base unit (the base unit connected via the Scell)…”; [0068]; [0084]; [0088]; [0096]; teaches a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell as taught by Zhu with the method of beam failure recovery as disclosed by Huawei for the purpose of saving resource overhead and improving beam recovery process in carrier aggregation, as suggested by Zhu.
Regarding claims 3, 17, and 28, Huawei discloses a beam failure recovery response where the CORESET carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL and Zhu teaches and discloses a wireless device indication of BRF parameters including uplink resource sets related to beam failure recovery of uplink beams associated with a primary cell and secondary cell, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the type of beam recovery is indicated by an identification of the same CORESET scrambled with a different radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) for each of the PCell recovery and the SCell recovery.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches and suggests wherein the type of beam recovery is indicated by an identification of the same CORESET scrambled with a different radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) for each of the PCell recovery and the SCell recovery ([0066]; [0068]; [0088]; [0096]; teaches a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell with CRC scrambled with C-RNTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell with CRC scrambled with C-RNTI as taught by Zhu with the method of beam failure recovery as disclosed by Huawei, as modified by Zhu, for the purpose of saving resource overhead and improving beam recovery process in carrier aggregation, as suggested by Zhu.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches wherein the first downlink beam is a downlink transmission beam for a SCell supported by the base station (pages 1-2, section 2.1; figures 1 and 2; “…support beam failure recovery for SCell in CA/DC case…SCell may be configured with downlink-only…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; “…discussed the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL…”; teaches a downlink beam for a SCell supported by the gNB).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches wherein the first downlink beam is a downlink transmission beam for a PCell supported by the base station (page 6, section 2.2.4; “…discussed the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL…”; teaches a downlink beam for a PCell supported by the gNB).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches receiving, at the UE from the base station, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order (pages 4-5, section 2.2.2; “…UE receives the beam failure recovery response, the link of PDDCH reception is recovered…the newly identified beam should able to represent PDCCH link…”); performing, by the UE, a RACH procedure in response to the PDCCH order, wherein the RACH procedure includes sending the RACH request and receiving the response to the RACH request; and determining, by the UE, an uplink transmit beam based on the RACH procedure (pages 4-5, section 2.2.3; “…PRACH resources are used for beam failure recovery request transmission…UE detects beam failure and determines a new beam, it will select a PRACH resource associated with the new beam to transmit beam failure recovery request…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; “…the beam failure recovery response should be transmitted on the same cell with PDCCH that beam failure happens…”; teaches receiving PDCCH in order to perform PRACH procedure for sending a request and receiving a response).
Regarding claim 10, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches wherein the uplink transmit beam is associated with a SCell supported by the base station (pages 4-5, section 2.2.3; “…PUCCH based BFR on SCell UL is another option…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; teaches uplink beam associated with SCell).
Regarding claim 11, Huawei, as modified by Cirik2 and Zhu, further teaches wherein the uplink transmit beam is associated with a PCell supported by the base station (pages 4-5, section 2.2.3; “…PRACH BFR…on PCell UL is an option…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; “…PUCCH based BFR on PCell…with uplink can also be used…”; teaches uplink beam associated with PCell).
Regarding claims 12 and 30, Huawei teaches and discloses an apparatus and method of beam failure recovery in a wireless communications system, comprising:
receiving, at a base station from a user equipment (UE) (UE, figure 4; page 3), a random access channel (RACH) request identifying one or more candidate downlink beams received at the UE from the base station (pages 3-4, section 2.2.2; page 4, section 2.2.3; teaches “…New candidate beam identification If UE detects beam failure, it needs to identify a new beam that satisfies a threshold from the candidate beam list configured by RRC to recover the link and reports to gNB. Then, with the newly identified beam, beam failure recovery response transmission is performed…”); and
sending, from the base station to the UE, a response to the RACH request, the response identifying a second downlink beam from the one or more candidate downlink beams to replace a first downlink beam (page 4, section 2.2.3; “…After a UE detects beam failure and determines a new beam, it will select a PRACH resource associated with the new beam to transmit beam failure recovery request. Thus, when gNB receives the request, it will transmit beam failure recovery response with the new beam associated…”) and indicating a type of beam recovery associated with the second downlink beam for which downlink beam resources have been reserved (page 6, section 2.2.4; “…For beam failure recovery response transmission for SCell. It has been discussed the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL. As described before, if UE can receive the beam failure recovery response from gNB, it represents the new beam identified by UE can be used for PDCCH transmission on SCell. The beam failure recovery response should be transmitted on the same cell with PDCCH that beam failure happens with the PRACH…”).
However, Huawei may not explicitly disclose wherein the type of beam recovery is included as an indication in a same control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell (although Huawei does teach and suggest “the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL”; page 6, section 2.2.4).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches and suggests wherein the type of beam recovery is included as an indication in a same control resource set (CORESET) (Beam-Failure-Recover-Response-CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell ([0066]; [0067]; “…the Pcell and the Scell may correspond to the same base unit, or to different base units. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to the same base unit, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message only logically sending from the Pcell to the Scell. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to different base units, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message being sent from one base unit (the base unit connected via the Pcell) to another base unit (the base unit connected via the Scell)…”; [0068]; [0084]; [0088]; [0096]; teaches a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell as taught by Zhu with the method of beam failure recovery as disclosed by Huawei for the purpose of saving resource overhead and improving beam recovery process in carrier aggregation, as suggested by Zhu.
Regarding claim 13, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches receiving, at the base station, a message from the UE indicating that a beam failure has occurred at the UE (page 4, section 2.2.3; “…After a UE detects a failure…transmit beam failure recovery request…”; teaches the base station receives indication that a beam failure occurred).
Regarding claim 14, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches wherein the message from the UE indicating that the beam failure has occurred comprises a scheduling request (SR) (page 4, section 2.2.3; “…After a UE detects a failure…transmit beam failure recovery request…SR transmission for requesting PUSCH resource”; teaches the base station receives indication that a beam failure occurred includes a SR).
Regarding claim 18, Huawei discloses a beam failure recovery response where the CORESET carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL and Zhu teaches and discloses a wireless device indication of BRF parameters including uplink resource sets related to beam failure recovery of uplink beams associated with a primary cell and secondary cell, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the base station reserves the same CORESET for each of the PCell recovery and the SCell recovery.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu teaches and suggests wherein the base station reserves the same CORESET for each of the PCell recovery and the SCell recovery ([0066]; [0068]; [0088]; [0096]; teaches a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery as taught by Zhu with the method of beam failure recovery as disclosed by Huawei, as modified by Zhu, for the purpose of saving resource overhead and improving beam recovery process in carrier aggregation, as suggested by Zhu.
Regarding claim 25, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, further teaches wherein the uplink transmit beam is associated with a SCell supported by the base station (pages 4-5, section 2.2.3; “…PUCCH based BFR on SCell UL is another option…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; teaches uplink beam associated with SCell), or wherein the uplink transmit beam is associated with a PCell supported by the base station (pages 4-5, section 2.2.3; “…PRACH BFR…on PCell UL is an option…”; page 6, section 2.2.4; “…PUCCH based BFR on PCell…with uplink can also be used…”; teaches uplink beam associated with PCell).
Claims 6, 8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al. (hereinafter Huawei) (Non-Patent Literature – “Beam failure recovery for SCell” – 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting) in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0058130 A1), and further in view of KIM et al. (hereinafter Kim) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0036430 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 22, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, discloses transmitting downlink beam which include reference signals, but may not expressly disclose wherein the first downlink beam uses a millimeter wave (mmW) frequency band to transmit periodic reference signals.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches and suggests wherein the first downlink beam uses a millimeter wave (mmW) frequency band to transmit periodic reference signals ([0194]; “…A system using multiple beams by technology of analog BF etc. as in mmW performs a beam maintenance procedure…The beam maintenance procedure includes a beam measurement procedure and a beam reporting procedure. For beam maintenance, the UE measures the reference signal received power (RSRP) (or channel quality indicator (CQI)) of a measurement RS per beam…the UE may measure the measurement RS per beam…”; teaches a downlink beam using mmW for transmitting periodic reference signals (RS) to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate transmitting periodic reference signal using mmW as taught by Kim with the method and apparatus as disclosed by Huawei, as modified by Zhu, for the purpose of providing reference signals for beam maintenance in an mmW system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 19, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 20 is objected based their dependency on claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Consider claim 1, Applicant argues, on pages 8-10 of the Remarks, that the combination of Huawei and Zhu does not disclose or suggest “wherein the type of beam recovery is indicated by at least one control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's argument because as recited in the above rejections, Huawei, as modified by Zhu, does still teach and suggest wherein the type of beam recovery is indicated by at least one control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell.
Huawei clearly teaches and discloses the beam failure recovery procedure including the exchange of the RACH request and response signaling between the UE and the base station (pages 4-6, sections 2.2.3-2.2.4). Although Huawei may not explicitly disclose the type of beam recovery is indicated by at least one control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell, Huawei does teach “the COSEREST carrying beam failure recovery response should be configured on SCell DL or PCell DL” (page 6, section 2.2.4).
Zhu is relied upon and clearly teaches a response indicating the same CORESET for each of a PCell and SCell recovery and for recover of uplink beams associated with the PCell and SCell. In spite of Applicant’s arguments, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Zhu does teach and suggest that the control resource set (Beam-failure-Recovery-Response-CORESET) is in reference to recovery in a primary cell (Pcell) and a secondary cell (Scell). Zhu further teaches that the control resource set (Beam-failure-Recovery-Response-CORESET) is further in reference to recovery of uplink beam associated with Pcell and Scell (“…the Pcell and the Scell may correspond to the same base unit, or to different base units. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to the same base unit, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message only logically sending from the Pcell to the Scell. In the condition that the Pcell and the Scell correspond to different base units, the step 604 may be regarded as the beam failure recovery request message being sent from one base unit (the base unit connected via the Pcell) to another base unit (the base unit connected via the Scell)…”; “…the new candidate beam indicated by the information regarding new candidate beam (i.e. CSI-RS resource ID or SSB_index), a CORSET resource preconfigured for beam recovery by higher layer parameter Beam-failure-Recover-Response-CORESET…”; “…the remote unit may try to notify the Pcell and/or the Scell of the beam failure recovery via PUCCH of Pcell and/or PUCCH of Scell…”).
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is the combination of Huawei and Zhu that teaches and suggests wherein the type of beam recovery is indicated by at least one control resource set (CORESET) for each of a primary cell (PCell) recovery, a secondary cell (SCell) recovery, recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the PCell, and recovery of an uplink transmit beam associated with the SCell.
Applicants are reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As a matter of fact, the "examiner has the duty of police claim language by giving it the broadest reasonable interpretation." Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 65 USPQ2d 1862, 1830, (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In response to Applicant's arguments, it is noted that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is also noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For independent claims 12, 26, and 30, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claim 1.
For dependent claims 2-11, 13-25, and 27-29, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's argument for at least the same reasons as disclosed above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 26, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
February 7, 2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477