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 claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISLAM; Muhammad Nazmul et al. US PGPUB 20180368126 A1, in view of Jung; Hyejung et al. US 20220377812 A1, supported by provisional application 62/911,197, filed 2019/10/04, further in view of Xiong; Gang et al. US PGPUB 20200396744 A1 supported by 62/910249, filed on 10/03/2019.
Regarding claim 1. Islam teaches A method for determining beam failure recovery, executed by a terminal device, comprising:
Responsive to a beam failure, (Fig. 10, 1001, [0122] At block 1001, the scheduled entity may utilize its beam detection circuit 940 to determine a beam failure of a current beam with a scheduling entity (e.g., a base station).) initiating a contention-based random access process triggered for beam failure recovery; (Fig. 10, 1008 [0126] At block 1008, the scheduled entity may transmit, on the determined resource, a BFRR as a RACH preamble (message 1) to the base station.
receiving a downlink response message (Fig. 10, 1010, RACH response) and
determining that the beam failure recovery is completed based on the received downlink response message, wherein the downlink response message is a response message corresponding to the contention-based random access process. ([0127] At block 1010, the scheduled entity may receive a RACH response (message 2) from the base station in response to the RACH preamble (i.e., BFRR).)
Islam does not teach
wherein, when the downlink response message comprises a messgse B (msgB) in a 2-step random access process, the msgB comprises:
a Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) scrambled by a Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNT) and received in a Common Search Space (CSS). wherein all Control Resource Sets (CORESET) associated with the CSS and Synchronization Signal and Physical Broadcast Channel blocks GSBs} associated with a message A (msgA)} m the 2-step random access process have the same beam information or are Quasi Co-Located (OCL).
However, Jung teaches
wherein, when the downlink response message comprises a messgse B (msgB) in a 2-step random access process, ([0029] Embodiments can provide details on PDCCH monitoring for MsgB. If the UE has C-RNTI, the UE can be configured with two PDCCH search space sets (MsgB-SearchSpaceCommon, supported by ‘197 page 5, “Network response to msgA (i.e. msgB/msg2) can include the following:” the msgB comprises:
a Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) scrambled by a Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNT) (Id. supported by ‘197, page 20, first paragraph “ a corresponding CORESET provided by a DE-specific parameter 'MsgB-SearchSpace' in PDCCH-Config are configured for a DCI format with CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI or other UEspecific RNTis.) and received in a Common Search Space (CSS). ([0029] supported by ‘197 page 20, first paragraph, same as above)
in order to reduce latency related to connection set-up ([0003])
Islam and Jung are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of msgB in USS in Jung in order to reduce latency related to connection set-up.
Islam and Jung does not teach
wherein all Control Resource Sets (CORESET) associated with the CSS and Synchronization Signal and Physical Broadcast Channel blocks SSBs associated with a message A (msgA) in the 2-step random access process have the same beam information or are Quasi Co-Located (QCL).
However, Xiong teaches
wherein all Control Resource Sets (CORESET) associated with the CSS and Synchronization Signal and Physical Broadcast Channel blocks SSBs associated with a message A (msgA) in the 2-step random access process have the same beam information or are Quasi Co-Located (QCL). ([0147] In particular, if a UE detects a DCI format 1_0 with the CRC scrambled by the corresponding RA-RNTI or MsgB-RNTI and receives the corresponding PDSCH that includes the DL-SCH transport block, the UE may assume the same DM-RS antenna port quasi co-location properties (QCL) for the detected SSB index or a SSB the UE used for PRACH association. Supported by 62/910249 page 8, last paragraph.)
in order to reduce latency for PDCCH decoding by position CORESET in the same beam information as other information.
Islam and Xiong are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of beam information colocation in Xiong in order to reduce decoding latency.
Regarding claim 2. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach The method according to claim 1, and Islam teaches wherein the beam failure occurs in a secondary cell; and the random access process comprises
sending a message 3 (msg3), ([0107] the UE may transmit (at 706) an RRC connection request message (message 3) to the BS 504 based on the temporary C-RNTI. ) wherein the msg3 comprises a Beam Failure Recovery Medium Access Control Control Element (BFR MAC CE), ([0128] the RRC connection request may include a flag or field (e.g., one bit field) that may be set to a predetermined value to indicate that the RACH procedure is being performed to transmit a BFRR.) or
the random access process comprises sending a message A (msgA), wherein the msgA comprises a BFR MAC CE.
Regarding claim 4. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach The method according to claim 1, but Islam and Xiong do not teach
wherein when the downlink response message comprises the msgB in the 2-step random access process, and the msgB further comprises:
a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI, wherein the PDCCH carries an uplink grant;a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI, wherein the PDCCH carries an uplink grant, and the uplink grant indicates a HARQ process number that is the same as that of transmission of a message A (msgA);a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and a Physical Downlink Shared CHannel (PDSCH) scheduled by the PDCCH, wherein the PDSCH is scheduled by a downlink grant carried by the PDCCH, and the PDSCH comprises a timing advance command; or a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and received in a Common Search Space (CSS) or a User equipment-specific Search Space (USS).
However, Jung teaches
a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI, wherein the PDCCH carries an uplink grant; a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI, wherein the PDCCH carries an uplink grant, and the uplink grant indicates a HARQ process number that is the same as that of transmission of a message A (msgA);a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and a Physical Downlink Shared CHannel (PDSCH) scheduled by the PDCCH, wherein the PDSCH is scheduled by a downlink grant carried by the PDCCH, and the PDSCH comprises a timing advance command; or a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and received in a Common Search Space (CSS) or a User equipment-specific Search Space (USS). ([0131] At least some embodiments can provide for search space configuration for MsgB. … [0137] a USS set configured by SearchSpace in PDCCH-Config with searchSpaceType=ue-Specific for DCI formats with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI, MCS-C-RNTI, SP-CSI-RNTI, or CS-RNTI(s).
supported by provisional application at least at page 19, last paragraph.)
in order to reduce latency related to connection set-up ([0003])
Islam and Jung are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of msgB in USS in Jung in order to reduce latency related to connection set-up.
Regarding claim 7-8 and 10. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach A terminal device, comprising: a memory storing computer readable instructions; and a processer coupled to the memory (Islam Fig. 9, Processor 904, memory 905, CRM 906) and configured to execute the computer readable instructions to perform the method in claim 1, 2, and 4. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13-14 and 16. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, when executed by a processor, (Islam Fig. 9, Processor 904, CRM 906 etc) implements a method for determining beam failure recovery recited in claim 1, 2 and 4. It is rejected for the reasons above.
Claim 3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, Jung and Xionig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GOU, WEI et al. CN 103796315 A, previously cited.
Regarding claim 3. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach The method according to claim 1, and Islam teaches wherein the downlink response message comprises the msg4 in the 4-step random access process, ([0139] In one example, if the base station determines that the received C-RNTI matches a C-RNTI of a UE that may use the RACH procedure for conveying a BFRR, the base station may transmit a beam refinement signal through message 4 of a RACH procedure.)
Islam and Jung and Xiong do not teach the msg4 further comprises one or more of the following:
a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTL wherem the PDCCH carnes an uplink grant. and the uplink grant mdicates a Hybrid Automatic Repoat reQuest (HARQ) process number that is the same as that of transmission of a message 3 (mse3) in the contention-based random access process: or
a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and received in the CSS.
However, Guo teaches
msg4 comprises one or more of the following: a PDCCH scrambled by a C-RNTI and received in the CSS or a User equipment-specific Search Space (USS). ([0180] the base station transmitted by the UE is received msg3, the msg4 downlink control information uses the C-RNTI or Temporary C-RNTI to the UE the ePDCCH in the PRB of the USS default after scrambling)
in order to ensure the reliability of msg4 ([0155])
Islam and Guo are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of PDCCH in CSS in Guo in order to ensure the reliability of msg4.
Regarding claim 9. Islam, Jung and Xiong and Guo teach The terminal device according to claim 7, perform the method in claim 3. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15. Islam, Jung and Xiong and Guo teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program according to claim 13 implements a method for determining beam failure recovery recited in claim 3. It is rejected for the reasons above.
Claims 5-6, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, Jung and Xiong as applied to claim 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Tsai; Hsin-His US Patent 11381300 B2.
Regarding claim 5. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach The method according to claim 1, but it does not teach wherein: in the random access process, if the random access process falls back from a 2-step random access process to a 4-step random access process, the downlink response message comprises a msg4 in the 4-step random access process.
However, Tsai teaches in the random access process, if the random access process falls back from a 2-step random access process to a 4-step random access process, the downlink response message comprises a msg4 in the 4-step random access process. (Fig. 4, Msg B resulted in Msg3 and Msg. 4, see generally col 7 line 50 to col 8, describing 2 step fallback to 4 step RA process)
in order to improve system reliability (col 1 line 30).
Islam and Tsai are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of primary/secondary cell in Tsai in order to improve system reliability.
Regarding claim 6. Islam, Jung and Xiong teach The method according to claim 1, but it does not teach wherein the beam failure occurs in a primary cell or a secondary cell.
However, Tsai teaches
the beam failure occurs in a primary cell or a secondary cell. (col 21, lines 1-15, “BFR procedure: The BFR procedure may be a SpCell BFR procedure and/or a SCell BFR procedure.”)
in order to improve system reliability (col 1 line 30).
Islam and Tsai are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Islam with the technique of primary/secondary cell in Tsai in order to improve system reliability.
Regarding claim 11-12, Islam, Jung, Xiong and Tsai teaches the terminal device according to claim 7, performing the method recited in claim 5-6. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 17-18, Islam, Jung, Xiong and Tsai teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, performing the method recited in claim 5-6. It is rejected for the same reason.
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 ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights