DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 04/28/2025.
Claims 45, 47-48, 50-64, and 66-74 are pending.
Claims 1-44, 46, 49, and 65 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/205 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filled on 09/23/2025, with respect to under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of 45, 47-48, 50-55, 58-63, and 67-72 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 45, 47-48, 50-55, 58-63, and 67-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over FU et al. (CN 110913428) in view of DEENOO et al. (WO 2019/032882).
Regarding claim 45, FU discloses a method performed by a wireless device [See Fig. 1, page 12; a method for reporting information performed by a UE], the method comprising:
in response to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, due to the expiry of a timer 310 at the wireless device [See Fig. 1, page 12, lines 24-30; in response to the RLF failure caused by T310 overtime], logging information related to radio link monitoring resources (RLM) [See Fig. 1, page 20, lines 26-30; when detecting a radio link failure/handover failure/beam failure recovery success of a connected state link is abnormal, recording/logging a RLF-related recording information/(reporting information)/(logging information) related to radio link monitoring resources (RLM), see page 12 lines 11-14; when the wireless link quality all resources corresponding to the RLM resource], comprising beam measurement information of a serving cell on reference signals (RS) the UE is monitoring for RLM or beam failure detection (BFD) [Page 20, line 37; recording/logging a RLF-related recording information/(reporting information)/(logging information) comprising beam related information which comprises of the serving cell and/or the adjacent cell of the beam measurement result on reference signals (RS) the UE is monitoring for RLM or beam failure detection (BFD) (see Page 13 lines 6-16)], wherein the beam measurement information comprises indications of explicitly configured synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) or explicitly configured channel state information-reference signals (CSI-RSs) [See Page 13 line 8; Page 16, lines 13-15; wherein the measuring content (of the serving cell and/or the adjacent cell of the beam measurement result, Page 21, lines 4-7) is SSB or CSI-RS corresponding to service beam]; and
in response to re-establishment after the RLF, reporting the logged information related to the RLM resources [See Page 16, lines 39; Page 28 lines 29; in response to re-establishment after the RLF, reporting the logged information related to the RLM resources; see page 12 lines 11-14; when the wireless link quality all resources corresponding to the RLM resource].
Although, FU discloses all aspects of claim invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources.
However, DEENOO discloses in response to re-establishment after the RLF, reporting the logged information related to the RLM resources [See ¶ 217; in response to the radio link failure caused due to beam recovery failure RLF triggered by an RLM procedure, The WTRU provide a RLF report/ logged information that included in the RRCConnectionReestablishmentRequest message], wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources [See ¶ 217; wherein the RLF report/ logged information comprises a one or more RS resources from the second set of resources associated with the RLM resources].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources” as taught by SHARMA in the system of FU, so that it would to provide a larger number of antenna elements to achieve a higher beamforming gain, and provide analog and/or hybrid beamforming to reduce implementation cost, for example by reducing the number of radio frontend chains [see DEENOO, ¶ 2].
Regarding claim 47, FU discloses a method performed by a network node [See page 20; a method performed by a network node], the method comprising:
receiving, from a wireless device in response to re-establishment of the wireless device after radio link failure, RLF, due to the expiry of a timer 310 [See Fig. 1, Page 12 lines 24-30, Page 16 lines 33-41; receiving, from a wireless device in response to re-establishment of the wireless device after radio link failure, RLF, due to the expiry of a timer 310 (T310 overtime)], a report comprising information logged by the wireless device in response to detecting the RLF [Fig. 1, Page 17 line 1; Page 20 lines 26-30; when detecting a radio link failure/handover failure/beam failure recovery success of a connected state link is abnormal, recording/logging a RLF-related recording information/(reporting information)/(logging information) related to radio link monitoring resources, also see Page 20 lines 38-41, Fig. 2], wherein the logged information is related to radio link monitoring (RLM) resources [See Page 20, line 37; wherein the report information comprises: the connection state link abnormal type indication information, beam related information and resource related information related to the wireless link quality all resources corresponding to the RLM resource (see Page 12 lines 11-14)],
comprising beam measurement information of a serving cell on reference signals (RS) the UE is monitoring for RLM or beam failure detection (BFD) [See Page 20, line 37; recording/logging a RLF-related recording information/(reporting information)/(logging information) comprising beam related information which comprises of the serving cell and/or the adjacent cell of the beam measurement result on reference signals (RS) the UE is monitoring for RLM or beam failure detection (BFD) (see Page 13 lines 6-16)], wherein the beam measurement information comprises indications of explicitly configured synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) or explicitly configured channel state information-reference signals (CSI-RSs) [See page 13 line 8; Page 16, lines 13-15; wherein the measuring content (of the serving cell and/or the adjacent cell of the beam measurement result, See Page 21, lines 4-7) is SSB or CSI-RS corresponding to service beam].
Although, FU discloses all aspects of claim invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources.
However, DEENOO discloses in response to re-establishment after the RLF, reporting the logged information related to the RLM resources [See ¶ 217; in response to the radio link failure caused due to beam recovery failure RLF triggered by an RLM procedure, The WTRU provide a RLF report/ logged information that included in the RRCConnectionReestablishmentRequest message], wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources [See ¶ 217; wherein the RLF report/ logged information comprises a one or more RS resources from the second set of resources associated with the RLM resources].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the logged information comprises a resource index associated with the RLM resources” as taught by SHARMA in the system of FU, so that it would to provide a larger number of antenna elements to achieve a higher beamforming gain, and provide analog and/or hybrid beamforming to reduce implementation cost, for example by reducing the number of radio frontend chains [see DEENOO, ¶ 2].
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites a wireless device comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 4; a terminal 40comprising a processor 41) configured to perform the method steps of the wireless device recited as in claim 45; therefore, claim 48 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 45.
Regarding claim 50, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein detecting the RLF comprises detecting a beam failure recovery failure [See page 12, lines 24-30; wherein detecting the RLF comprises detecting a beam failure recovery failure], wherein the logged information comprises an indication for the detection of the beam failure [See page 12, lines 24-30; wherein the logged information/(RLF recording) comprises an indication for the detection of the beam failure,].
Regarding claim 51, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information further comprises state information when the detection of RLF occurred, the state information comprising one or more of beam measurement information on resources that were being monitored when the RLF was detected; and beam measurement information on other resources [See Fig. 2, page 20 lines 38-41; wherein the logged information further comprises state information when the detection of RLF occurred, the state information comprising one or more of beam measurement information on resources that were being monitored when the RLF was detected].
Regarding claim 52, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring [See Fig. 2, page 21 lines 4-8; wherein the logged information/(report information) comprises (connection state link abnormal type indication information, beam related information and resource related information) comprises at least one of the following information beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring].
Regarding claim 53, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the RLF due to an indication from medium access control of a random access channel, RACH, failure [See page 13 lines 6-16; wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the RLF due to an indication from medium access control of a random access channel, RACH, failure, also see page 17 A30 lines 12-15].
Regarding claim 54, FU discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more neighboring cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring [See page 15 lines 23-25, wherein the logged information/(reporting information comprising beam-related information) comprises beam measurement information of one or more neighboring cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring, also see page 17 A50].
Regarding claim 55, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring for radio resource management [See page 18 lines 3-6; the serving cell and the adjacent cell measuring result; this refers to the measurement result of the cell level, including all available SSB-based cell level of the measuring result and the measuring result of the cell level based on CSI-RS, a serving cell signal quality and the surrounding neighbor cell signal quality generally know when HOF occur].
Regarding claim 58, the claim recites a network node comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 6; a network device 60 comprising a processor 61) configured to perform the method steps of the network node recited as in claim 47; therefore, claim 58 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 47.
Regarding claim 59, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the network node of claim 58.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises an indication that the wireless device detected a beam failure [See page 12, lines 24-30; wherein the logged information/(RLF recording) comprises an indication for the detection of the beam failure].
Regarding claim 60, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the network node of claim 58.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information further comprises state information when the detection of the RLF occurred, the state information comprising one or more of beam measurement information on resources that were being monitored by the wireless device when the RLF was detected; and beam measurement information on other resources [See Fig. 2, page 20 lines 38-41; wherein the logged information further comprises state information when the detection of RLF occurred, the state information comprising one or more of beam measurement information on resources that were being monitored when the RLF was detected].
Regarding claim 61, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the network node of claim 58.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device was monitoring [See Fig. 2, Page 20, line 37, page 21 lines 4-8; wherein the logged information/(report information) comprises (connection state link abnormal type indication information, beam related information and resource related information) comprises at least one of the following information beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring].
Regarding claim 62, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the network node of claim 58.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more neighboring cells on reference signals the wireless device was monitoring [See page 15 lines 23-25, wherein the logged information/(reporting information comprising beam-related information) comprises beam measurement information of one or more neighboring cells on reference signals the wireless device is monitoring, also see page 17 A50].
Regarding claim 63, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the network node of claim 58.
FU further discloses wherein the logged information comprises beam measurement information of one or more serving cells on reference signals the wireless device was monitoring for radio resource management [See page 18 lines 3-6; the serving cell and the adjacent cell measuring result; this refers to the measurement result of the cell level, including all available SSB-based cell level of the measuring result and the measuring result of the cell level based on CSI-RS, a serving cell signal quality and the surrounding neighbor cell signal quality generally know when HOF occur].
Regarding claims 67-72, the claims recite the method of claim 45 to perform the method performed by the wireless device recited as in claims 50-55; therefore, claims 67-72 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 50-55.
Claims 56-57, 64, 66, and 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over FU et al. (CN 110913428) in view of DEENOO et al. (WO 2019/032882), and further in view of SHARMA et al. (WO 2018/115387).
Regarding claim 56, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of claim 48, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to send, to the network node, an indication that the wireless device has logged information available.
However, SHARMA discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to send, to the network node, an indication that the wireless device has logged information available [See Fig. 1, page 6 lines 23-26; at 104, UE 12 sends a RRC Connection Re-establishment Complete message to the target eNB 14, wherein the RRC Connection Re-establishment Complete message UE 12 includes a flag to indicate that radio link failure information is available for reporting].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to send, to the network node, an indication that the wireless device has logged information available” as taught by SHARMA in the combined system of FU and DEENOO, so that it would to provide a radio link failure report, the radio link failure report comprising beam specific information to improve the signaling in such technologies [see SHARMA, page 1 line 28 to page 2 line 3].
Regarding claim 57, the combined system of FU and DEENOO discloses the wireless device of Claim 48, but does not explicitly disclose
However, SHARMA discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive, from the network node in response to the indication that the wireless device has logged information available, a request to report the logged information [See page 6 lines 26-27; at 105, the target eNB 14 sends a UE Information Request message to UE 12 to request the UE 12 to report the RLF information]; and
report the at least a portion of the logged information to the network node in response to the received request [See page 6 lines 28-29; at 106, UE 102 sends a UE Information Response message to the target eNB to provide its report (RLF information) to the target eNB 14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive, from the network node in response to the indication that the wireless device has logged information available, a request to report the logged information; and report the at least a portion of the logged information to the network node in response to the received request” as taught by SHARMA in the combined system of FU and DEENOO, so that it would to provide a radio link failure report, the radio link failure report comprising beam specific information to improve the signaling in such technologies [see SHARMA, page 1 line 28 to page 2 line 3].
Regarding claims 64 and 66, the claims recite the network node of Claim 58 to perform the method steps of the wireless device recited as in claims 56 and 57; therefore, claims 64 and 66 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 56 and 57.
Regarding claims 73 and 74, the claims recite the method of Claim 45 to perform the method steps of the wireless device recited as in claims 56 and 57; therefore, claims 73 and 74 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 56 and 57.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 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 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469