DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 factual inquiries 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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal et al (US 2021/0068162), hereinafter Agiwal, Svedman et al. (US 2022/0109547), hereinafter Svedman, and Chin et al. (US 2020/0314883), hereinafter Chin.
Regarding Claim 1, Agiwal teaches: A method of a beam failure recovery for a secondary cell (SCell) for a user equipment (UE): “a method by a terminal [UE] for beam failure recovery is provided . . . second configuration information on a secondary cell (SCell) from a base station, detecting beam failure on the SCell . . . a PRACH occasion configured for beam failure recovery request transmission on the SCell based on the second configuration information” (Agiwal ¶ 0023), and receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), wherein the PDCCH carries a beam failure recovery response (BFRR) in response to the BFRQ from the base station: “UE monitors the PDCCH of the SCell identified by the Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) while bfr-ResponseWindow is running at operation 141” (Agiwal ¶ 0083 and Fig 1). One can see in Fig. 1 at stage 132 that the UE receives a BFRR from the gNB or base station.
PNG
media_image1.png
736
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Agiwal Fig 1
Agiwal fails to teach: receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signaling from a base station, wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first Scell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable is configured to be enable or disable to indicate the UE to perform or not perform a beam failure recovery, when being configured to be enable, the value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells; receiving a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is carried in an RRC signaling, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; and transmitting, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 1, Svedman teaches: receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signaling from a base station, wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first Scell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable is configured to be enable or disable to indicate the UE to perform or not perform a beam failure recovery, when being configured to be enable, the value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells: “Step S404. In this step a query is made regarding whether a UE received an RRC configuration of a set of BFD-enabled cells from the network. In some cases, a cell may be configured with BFD enabled and/or disabled by the same reconfiguration message by which the cell is added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of an added cell. In some cases, an already configured, e.g. already added, cell may be configured with BFD-enabled and/or -disabled after the cell has been added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of a modified cell. If the response is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S405, and if negative the process proceeds to the query at step S406. Step S405. If the UE received a configuration updating a set of BFD-enabled and/or -disabled cells, the UE updates the set. In various embodiments, such a set is not explicitly maintained in the UE. Instead, a BFD configuration for each configured cell and/or for configured BWPs of configured cells is maintained” (Svedman ¶ 0337-0338).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal and Svedman for the purpose of improving communication by allowing a UE to ensure its capability is not exceeded: “In some embodiments, processing circuitry at the UE applies a selection rule or procedure to reduce the BFD demands on the UE by the UE determining on which cell(s), BWP(s) and/or BFD-RS (out of the configured) it will performs BFD. Thus, a UE equipped to adapt the number of cells on which it will perform BFD, and/or the BWP and/or reference signals of the cells on which it will perform BFD so the UE capability is not exceeded.” (Svedman ¶ 0010).
Svedman does not teach: receiving a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter indicates the UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; transmitting, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 1, Chin teaches: receiving a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission: “the PUSCH duration of an activated CG for retransmission may be scheduled via a DG (e.g., a DCI addressed to a configured scheduling radio network temporary identifier (CS-RNTI) and the NDI is not toggled compared to a value of the previous transmission that uses the same HARQ process indicated in the DCI) or configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (e.g., an information element (IE) that enables repetition of PUSCH duration(s) of an activated CG, if configured and with a value greater than 1)” (Chin ¶ 0050) carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the MAC entity/HARQ entity may prioritize the PUSCH duration that can accommodate a specific type of MAC CE (e.g., if the MAC PDU to be transmitted on the PUSCH duration includes a specific type of MAC CE). The specific type of MAC CE may be preconfigured or indicated by a BS” (Chin ¶ 0081); transmitting, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a BSR MAC CE. In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a Beam Failure Recovery Request (BFRQ) MAC CE, which may be an UL MAC CE transmitted from the UE to the BS for indicating beam failure related information (of a secondary cell (SCell)). Once a (SCell) beam failure recovery procedure is triggered, the MAC entity of the UE may send the BFRQ MAC CE via a PUSCH resource to a serving BS. In one implementation, the specific MAC CE may be a MAC CE with the highest configured priority. The priority of the MAC CE may be configured by the network via an RRC message or DCI signaling” (Chin ¶ 0081).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal and Svedman with Chin for the purpose of the UE handling overlapping PUSCH durations. Chin states: “Multiple PUSCH durations allocated to the UE may overlap in the time domain. A PUSCH duration allocated by an activated CG may fully or partially overlap with another PUSCH duration allocated by a DG in the same serving cell of the UE. There is a need in the industry for an improved and efficient mechanism for the UE to handle overlapping between multiple PUSCH durations” (Chin ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 8, Agiwal teaches: A user equipment (UE) of a beam failure recovery for a secondary cell (SCell): “a terminal [UE] for beam failure recovery is provided . . . second configuration information on a secondary cell (SCell) from a base station, detecting beam failure on the SCell . . . a PRACH occasion configured for beam failure recovery request transmission on the SCell based on the second configuration information” (Agiwal ¶ 0023), comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: “the terminal includes a transceiver 2410, a controller 2420 and a memory 2430. The transceiver 2410, the controller 2420 and the memory 2430 are configured to perform the operations of the UE” (Agiwal ¶ 0253); and receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), wherein the PDCCH carries a beam failure recovery response (BFRR) in response to the BFRQ from the base station: “UE monitors the PDCCH of the SCell identified by the Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) while bfr-ResponseWindow is running at operation 141” (Agiwal ¶ 0083 and Fig 1). One can see in Fig. 1 at stage 132 that the UE receives a BFRR from the gNB or base station.
Agiwal fails to teach: receive a radio resource control (RRC) signaling from a base station, wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first Scell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable is configured to be enable or disable to indicate the UE to perform or not perform a beam failure recovery, when being configured to be enable, the value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells; receive a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is carried in an RRC signaling, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; and transmit, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 8, Svedman teaches: receive a radio resource control (RRC) signaling from a base station, wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first Scell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable is configured to be enable or disable to indicate the UE to perform or not perform a beam failure recovery, when being configured to be enable, the value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells: “Step S404. In this step a query is made regarding whether a UE received an RRC configuration of a set of BFD-enabled cells from the network. In some cases, a cell may be configured with BFD enabled and/or disabled by the same reconfiguration message by which the cell is added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of an added cell. In some cases, an already configured, e.g. already added, cell may be configured with BFD-enabled and/or -disabled after the cell has been added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of a modified cell. If the response is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S405, and if negative the process proceeds to the query at step S406. Step S405. If the UE received a configuration updating a set of BFD-enabled and/or -disabled cells, the UE updates the set. In various embodiments, such a set is not explicitly maintained in the UE. Instead, a BFD configuration for each configured cell and/or for configured BWPs of configured cells is maintained” (Svedman ¶ 0337-0338).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal and Svedman for the purpose of improving communication by allowing a UE to ensure its capability is not exceeded: “In some embodiments, processing circuitry at the UE applies a selection rule or procedure to reduce the BFD demands on the UE by the UE determining on which cell(s), BWP(s) and/or BFD-RS (out of the configured) it will performs BFD. Thus, a UE equipped to adapt the number of cells on which it will perform BFD, and/or the BWP and/or reference signals of the cells on which it will perform BFD so the UE capability is not exceeded.” (Svedman ¶ 0010).
Regarding Claim 8, Svedman fails to teach: receive a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is carried in an RRC signaling, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; wherein the transceiver is configured to: transmit, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 8, Chin teaches: receive a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is carried in an RRC signaling, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission: “the PUSCH duration of an activated CG for retransmission may be scheduled via a DG (e.g., a DCI addressed to a configured scheduling radio network temporary identifier (CS-RNTI) and the NDI is not toggled compared to a value of the previous transmission that uses the same HARQ process indicated in the DCI) or configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (e.g., an information element (IE) that enables repetition of PUSCH duration(s) of an activated CG, if configured and with a value greater than 1)” (Chin ¶ 0050) carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the MAC entity/HARQ entity may prioritize the PUSCH duration that can accommodate a specific type of MAC CE (e.g., if the MAC PDU to be transmitted on the PUSCH duration includes a specific type of MAC CE). The specific type of MAC CE may be preconfigured or indicated by a BS” (Chin ¶ 0081); wherein the transceiver is configured to: transmit, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a BSR MAC CE. In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a Beam Failure Recovery Request (BFRQ) MAC CE, which may be an UL MAC CE transmitted from the UE to the BS for indicating beam failure related information (of a secondary cell (SCell)). Once a (SCell) beam failure recovery procedure is triggered, the MAC entity of the UE may send the BFRQ MAC CE via a PUSCH resource to a serving BS. In one implementation, the specific MAC CE may be a MAC CE with the highest configured priority. The priority of the MAC CE may be configured by the network via an RRC message or DCI signaling” (Chin ¶ 0081).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal and Svedman with Chin for the purpose of the UE handling overlapping PUSCH durations. Chin states: “Multiple PUSCH durations allocated to the UE may overlap in the time domain. A PUSCH duration allocated by an activated CG may fully or partially overlap with another PUSCH duration allocated by a DG in the same serving cell of the UE. There is a need in the industry for an improved and efficient mechanism for the UE to handle overlapping between multiple PUSCH durations” (Chin ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, Agiwal teaches: A base station of a beam failure recovery for a secondary cell (SCell), comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the memory and the transceiver: “a base station includes a transceiver 2510, a controller 2520 and a memory 2530. The transceiver 2510, the controller 2520 and the memory 2530 are configured to perform the operations of the network” (Agiwal ¶ 0261), wherein the processor is configured to; transmit, to the UE, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), wherein the PDCCH carries a beam failure recovery response (BFRR) in response to the BFRQ: “UE monitors the PDCCH of the SCell identified by the Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) while bfr-ResponseWindow is running at operation 141” (Agiwal ¶ 0083 and Fig 1). One can see in Fig. 1 at stage 132 that the UE receives a BFRR from the gNB or base station.
Agiwal fails to teach: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) signaling to a user equipment (UE), wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first SCell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable being enable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells; and transmit a second higher layer parameter from the base station, wherein the second higher layer parameter is carried in an RRC signaling, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; wherein the transceiver is configured to: receive a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) for reporting a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission transmitted from the UE.
Regarding Claim 15, Svedman teaches: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) signaling to a user equipment (UE), wherein the RRC signaling carries a first higher layer parameter, the first higher layer parameter being beamFailureRecoveryEnable configured to the BWP in the first Scell, wherein a value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable is configured to be enable or disable to indicate the UE to perform or not perform a beam failure recovery, when being configured to be enable, the value of the beamFailureRecoveryEnable indicates the UE to perform a beam failure recovery on a bandwidth part (BWP) in a first SCell of a plurality of SCells: “Step S404. In this step a query is made regarding whether a UE received an RRC configuration of a set of BFD-enabled cells from the network. In some cases, a cell may be configured with BFD enabled and/or disabled by the same reconfiguration message by which the cell is added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of an added cell. In some cases, an already configured, e.g. already added, cell may be configured with BFD-enabled and/or -disabled after the cell has been added to the set of configured cells, e.g. a BFD enabling and/or disabling configuration is included in the configuration of a modified cell. If the response is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S405, and if negative the process proceeds to the query at step S406. Step S405. If the UE received a configuration updating a set of BFD-enabled and/or -disabled cells, the UE updates the set. In various embodiments, such a set is not explicitly maintained in the UE. Instead, a BFD configuration for each configured cell and/or for configured BWPs of configured cells is maintained” (Svedman ¶ 0337-0338).
Svedman fails to teach: transmit a second higher layer parameter to the UE, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating the UE to send a PUSCH transmission carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell; wherein the transceiver is configured to: receive a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) for reporting a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission transmitted from the UE.
Regarding Claim 15, Chin teaches: transmit a second higher layer parameter to the UE, wherein the second higher layer parameter is SCellBFRSchedulingRequestResourceConfig, indicating the UE to send a PUSCH transmission: “the PUSCH duration of an activated CG for retransmission may be scheduled via a DG (e.g., a DCI addressed to a configured scheduling radio network temporary identifier (CS-RNTI) and the NDI is not toggled compared to a value of the previous transmission that uses the same HARQ process indicated in the DCI) or configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (e.g., an information element (IE) that enables repetition of PUSCH duration(s) of an activated CG, if configured and with a value greater than 1)” (Chin ¶ 0050) carrying a MAC CE message that reports a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the MAC entity/HARQ entity may prioritize the PUSCH duration that can accommodate a specific type of MAC CE (e.g., if the MAC PDU to be transmitted on the PUSCH duration includes a specific type of MAC CE). The specific type of MAC CE may be preconfigured or indicated by a BS” (Chin ¶ 0081); wherein the transceiver is configured to: transmit, to the base station, a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) through a MAC CE message carried in a granted PUSCH transmission to report a beam failure in the BWP in the first SCell: “In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a BSR MAC CE. In one implementation, the specific type of MAC CE may be a Beam Failure Recovery Request (BFRQ) MAC CE, which may be an UL MAC CE transmitted from the UE to the BS for indicating beam failure related information (of a secondary cell (SCell)). Once a (SCell) beam failure recovery procedure is triggered, the MAC entity of the UE may send the BFRQ MAC CE via a PUSCH resource to a serving BS. In one implementation, the specific MAC CE may be a MAC CE with the highest configured priority. The priority of the MAC CE may be configured by the network via an RRC message or DCI signaling” (Chin ¶ 0081).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal and Svedman with Chin for the purpose of the UE handling overlapping PUSCH durations. Chin states: “Multiple PUSCH durations allocated to the UE may overlap in the time domain. A PUSCH duration allocated by an activated CG may fully or partially overlap with another PUSCH duration allocated by a DG in the same serving cell of the UE. There is a need in the industry for an improved and efficient mechanism for the UE to handle overlapping between multiple PUSCH durations” (Chin ¶ 0005).
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Cirik et al. (US 2019/0306842) hereinafter Cirik.
Regarding Claim 3, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The method of Claim 1.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: performing, by the UE, the beam failure recovery, if the UE is configured with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 3, Cirik teaches: performing, by the UE, the beam failure recovery, if the UE is configured with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “At step 2104, the wireless device may select a beam (e.g., a selected beam) based on detecting the at least one beam failure. The selected beam may be a beam with good channel quality (e.g., based on RSRP, SINR, and/or BLER) that may be selected from a set of candidate beams. The candidate beams may be indicated by a set of reference signals (e.g., SSBs, or CSI-RSs) [NBI RS]” (Cirik ¶ 0244 and Figure 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
797
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cirik Fig. 21
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 4, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The method of Claim 1.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: wherein performing, by the UE, the beam failure recovery comprises: reporting an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the UE based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold.
Regarding Claim 4, Cirik teaches performing, by the UE, the beam failure recovery comprises: reporting an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the UE based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold: “A wireless device may (e.g., based on a RSRP measurement on CSI-RS) report a beam index, which may be indicated in a CRI for downlink beam selection and/or associated with an RSRP value of a beam” (Cirik Paragraph 0124) and “An RRC message may configure a wireless device with one or more parameters (e.g., in BeamFailureRecoveryConfig) for a beam failure detection and recovery procedure. The one or more parameters may comprise one or more of . . . an RSRP threshold (e.g., beamFailureCandidateBeamThreshold) for a beam failure recovery” (Cirik ¶ 0247).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 5, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The method of Claim 1.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: performing, by the UE, the beam failure recover, if the UE is configured with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 5, Cirik teaches: performing, by the UE, the beam failure recover, if the UE is configured with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “The one or more configuration parameters may comprise at least one of one or more first reference signals of the first BWP[BFD RS], one or more second RSs of the first BWP, and/or one or more beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) resources via the first BWP” (Cirik ¶ 0297). Figure 27 below shows that receiving the configuration parameters begins the beam failure recovery process.
PNG
media_image3.png
826
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cirik Fig. 27
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The UE of Claim 8.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: wherein the processor is configured to perform the beam failure recovery if the UE is configured with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell
Regarding Claim 10, Cirik teaches: the processor is configured to perform the beam failure recovery if the UE is configured with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “At step 2104, the wireless device may select a beam (e.g., a selected beam) based on detecting the at least one beam failure. The selected beam may be a beam with good channel quality (e.g., based on RSRP, SINR, and/or BLER) that may be selected from a set of candidate beams. The candidate beams may be indicated by a set of reference signals (e.g., SSBs, or CSI-RSs) [NBI RS]” (Cirik ¶ 0244 and Figure 21).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 11, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The UE of Claim 8.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: wherein the processor is configured to report an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the processor based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold.
Regarding Claim 11, Cirik teaches: wherein the processor is configured to report an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the processor based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold: “A wireless device may (e.g., based on a RSRP measurement on CSI-RS) report a beam index, which may be indicated in a CRI for downlink beam selection and/or associated with an RSRP value of a beam” (Cirik Paragraph 0124) and “An RRC message may configure a wireless device with one or more parameters (e.g., in BeamFailureRecoveryConfig) for a beam failure detection and recovery procedure. The one or more parameters may comprise one or more of . . . an RSRP threshold (e.g., beamFailureCandidateBeamThreshold) for a beam failure recovery” (Cirik ¶ 0247).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 12, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The UE of Claim 8.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: the processor is configured to perform the beam failure recovery if the UE is configured with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 12, Cirik teaches: the processor is configured to perform the beam failure recovery if the UE is configured with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “The one or more configuration parameters may comprise at least one of one or more first reference signals of the first BWP[BFD RS], one or more second RSs of the first BWP, and/or one or more beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) resources via the first BWP” (Cirik ¶ 0297). Figure 27 above shows that receiving the configuration parameters begins the beam failure recovery process.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 17, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The base station of Claim 16.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: the processor is configured to configure the UE with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 17, Cirik teaches: the processor is configured to configure the UE with a new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “At step 2104, the wireless device may select a beam (e.g., a selected beam) based on detecting the at least one beam failure. The selected beam may be a beam with good channel quality (e.g., based on RSRP, SINR, and/or BLER) that may be selected from a set of candidate beams. The candidate beams may be indicated by a set of reference signals (e.g., SSBs, or CSI-RSs) [NBI RS]” (Cirik ¶ 0244 and Figure 21).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 18, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The base station of Claim 16.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: the processor is configured to request the UE to report an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the UE based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold.
Regarding Claim 18, Cirik teaches: the processor is configured to request the UE to report an index of one NBI RS that is chosen by the UE based on comparing a reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the one NBI RS to a threshold: “A wireless device may (e.g., based on a RSRP measurement on CSI-RS) report a beam index, which may be indicated in a CRI for downlink beam selection and/or associated with an RSRP value of a beam” (Cirik Paragraph 0124) and “An RRC message may configure a wireless device with one or more parameters (e.g., in BeamFailureRecoveryConfig) for a beam failure detection and recovery procedure. The one or more parameters may comprise one or more of . . . an RSRP threshold (e.g., beamFailureCandidateBeamThreshold) for a beam failure recovery” (Cirik ¶ 0247).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 19, Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin teach: The base station of Claim 16.
Agiwal, Svedman, and Chin do not teach: the processor is configured to configure the UE with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell.
Regarding Claim 19, Cirik teaches: the processor is configured to configure the UE with a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS), which indicates the UE to perform the beam failure recovery for the BWP in the first SCell: “The one or more configuration parameters may comprise at least one of one or more first reference signals of the first BWP[BFD RS], one or more second RSs of the first BWP, and/or one or more beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) resources via the first BWP” (Cirik ¶ 0297). Figure 27 above shows that receiving the configuration parameters begins the beam failure recovery process.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the references of Agiwal, Chang, and Yu with Cirik for the purpose of reducing timing misalignment between the UE and the base station. Cirik states: “the wireless device may prevent and/or reduce timing misalignment between the wireless device and the base station, which may reduce latency, increase efficiency of resource usage, and/or conserve power” (Cirik ¶ 0004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473 /B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights