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 . Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten et al. (US 20210258063 A1) in view Khosravirad et al. (US 20240089787 A1) and Sun et al. (US 20180288757 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ottersten et al. disclose a method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising: transmitting a message indicating a configuration associated with a beam blocking prediction procedure to be performed by a user equipment (UE); the beam blocking prediction procedure associated with prediction, by the UE, of the beam blocking based at least in part on one or more reference signal (paragraph [0016]; a radio node (second radio node) transmits (first) information to the first radio node. The information comprises a number of quality values related to a number of beam pairs. The quality values are used to predict a time to failure for a beam pairs. The first radio node receives the information and predicts a time to failure for beam pair based on quality values) (paragraph [0091]; The second radio node may perform a series of measurements that may comprise Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Channel State Information-Reference Symbols (CSI-RS) and reports of CSI-RSs may be sent to the first radio node. These CSI-RS quality values are used as input to the machine learning model. This information is used to predict the time of the beam failure) (paragraph [0082]; Predicting the time to failure for the first beam pair based on the number of quality values, e.g., to predict the occurrence of beam failures given beam quality and block error rate information); and transmitting the one or more reference signals based at least in part on the configuration and a beam failure detection procedure associated with the beam blocking prediction procedure (paragraph [0091]; the second radio node transmits/reports CSI-RSs/RSRP. Where the CSI-RSs are associated with the quality values (used for predicting the time to failure for the beam pair) (paragraph [0012]; beam failure is a situation where a serving beam fails. Blockage of link leads to beam link failing). However, Ottersten et al. may not explicitly suggest the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage. Khosravirad et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage (paragraphs [0079] [0052]; the UE may predict a change in the SNR ( i.e. link quality) due to momentary blockage. The link quality may be measured based on RSRP, RSRP). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in Ottersten et al.’s method/system where the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage as suggested by Khosravirad et al. due to obstacles. The motivation would have been to optimize the usage of network resources to provide better service for communication with a terminal device and to enable better usage of resource and enhanced user experience (paragraph [0002]). However, Ottersten et al. and Khosravirad et al. may not explicitly suggest transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure. However, Sun et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure (paragraph [0089]; predicting a potential beam blockage including activating a timer based on a grant from a base station). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in Ottersten et al. and Khosravirad et al.’s method/system the step of transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure as suggested by Sun et al. The motivation would have been to improve communication when switching to another beam may be necessary when a potential link blocking problem may occur (paragraph 0053]).
Regarding claim 22, Ottersten et al. further suggest wherein transmitting the message indicating the configuration comprises: transmitting a set of prediction parameters associated with the beam blocking prediction procedure (paragraph [0016]; a radio node (second radio node) transmits (first) information. The information comprises a number of quality values related to a number of beam pairs. The quality values are used to predict a time to failure for a beam pairs), wherein the set of prediction parameters comprises a threshold quantity of consecutive beam failure instance indicators, a machine learning model, one or more parameters associated with the machine learning model, a prediction type parameter, a modification parameter, a configuration switch indicator, or any combination thereof (paragraph [0091]; the quality values may be used as input to machine learning model).
Regarding claim 30, Ottersten et al. disclose an apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more instructions stored in one or more memories and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit a message indicating a configuration associated with a beam blocking prediction procedure to be performed by a user equipment (UE); the beam blocking prediction procedure associated with prediction, by the UE, of the beam blocking based at least in part on one or more reference signal (paragraph [0016]; a radio node (second radio node) transmits (first) information to the first radio node. The information comprises a number of quality values related to a number of beam pairs. The quality values are used to predict a time to failure for a beam pairs. The first radio node receives the information and predicts a time to failure for beam pair based on quality values) (paragraph [0091]; The second radio node may perform a series of measurements that may comprise Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Channel State Information-Reference Symbols (CSI-RS) and reports of CSI-RSs may be sent to the first radio node. These CSI-RS quality values are used as input to the machine learning model. This information is used to predict the time of the beam failure) (paragraph [0082]; Predicting the time to failure for the first beam pair based on the number of quality values, e.g., to predict the occurrence of beam failures given beam quality and block error rate information); and transmit the one or more reference signals based at least in part on the configuration and a beam failure detection procedure associated with the beam blocking prediction procedure (paragraph [0091]; the second radio node transmits/reports CSI-RSs/RSRP. Where the CSI-RSs are associated with the quality values (used for predicting the time to failure for the beam pair) (paragraph [0012]; beam failure is a situation where a serving beam fails. Blockage of link leads to beam link failing). However, Ottersten et al. may not explicitly suggest the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage. Khosravirad et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage (paragraphs [0079] [0052]; the UE may predict a change in the SNR ( i.e. link quality) due to momentary blockage. The link quality may be measured based on RSRP, RSRP). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in Ottersten et al.’s method/system where the prediction procedure associated with predicting temporary blockage as suggested by Khosravirad et al. due to obstacles. The motivation would have been to optimize the usage of network resources to provide better service for communication with a terminal device and to enable better usage of resource and enhanced user experience (paragraph [0002]). However, Ottersten et al. and Khosravirad et al. may not explicitly suggest transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure. However, Sun et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure (paragraph [0089]; predicting a potential beam blockage including activating a timer based on a grant from a base station). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in Ottersten et al. and Khosravirad et al.’s method/system the step of transmitting an activation message to activate a beam blocking prediction procedure as suggested by Sun et al. The motivation would have been to improve communication when switching to another beam may be necessary when a potential link blocking problem may occur (paragraph 0053]).
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottersten et al. (US 20210258063 A1) in view Khosravirad et al. (US 20240089787 A1) and Sun et al. (US 20180288757 A1), and further in view Svedman et al. (US 20220109547 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ottersten et al., Khosravirad et al. and Sun et al. disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 21 without explicitly suggest transmitting the activation message to activate a modified beam failure detection procedure. However, Svedman et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest transmitting an activation message to activate a modified beam failure detection procedure (paragraphs [0337-0341]; response to query is sent regarding configuration for on (enabled) or off (disabled) regarding BFD enabling/disabling configuration). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in Ottersten et al. and Khosravirad et al.’s method/system the step of transmitting an activation message to activate a modified beam failure detection procedure as suggested by Svedman et al. The motivation would have been to enable the network to efficiently ensure that the UE capability for BFD is not exceeded (paragraph 0376]).
Regarding claim 24, Svedman et al. further suggest receiving a request message requesting activation of the beam blocking prediction procedure, the modified beam failure detection procedure, or both wherein the activation message is transmitted in response to the request message (paragraphs [0337-0341]; response to query (request message) is sent regarding configuration for on (enabled) or off (disabled) regarding BFD enabling/disabling configuration).
Regarding claim 25, Svedman et al. further suggest transmitting a deactivation message to deactivate the beam blocking prediction procedure, a modified beam failure detection procedure, or both (paragraphs [0337-0341]; response to query is sent regarding configuration for on (enabled) or off (disabled) regarding BFD enabling/disabling configuration).
Regarding claim 26, Svedman et al. further suggest receiving a request message requesting deactivation of the beam blocking prediction procedure, the modified beam failure detection procedure, or both, wherein the deactivation message is transmitted in response to the request message (paragraphs [0337-0341]; response to query (request message) is sent regarding configuration for on (enabled) or off (disabled) regarding BFD enabling/disabling configuration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 and 27-29 are allowed.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 08/28/2025 with respect to claim(s) 21 and 30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 HOANG-CHUONG Q VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30-5:30 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, AYAZ SHEIKH can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
HOANG-CHUONG Q. VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2476
/HOANG-CHUONG Q VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476