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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 4/14/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, 16-21, 23, 27, 29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. “Luo” US 2021/0184748 in view of Pan et al. “Pan” WO2023/196574 in view of Brunel US 12,155,435 and further in view of Chen et al. “Chen” US 2024/0073313.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Luo teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
predict a blockage condition to a first beam communicating with a network node (the UE can predict potential blockage of a beam corresponding to a base station; Paragraphs 106 and 107);
transmit, to the network node, a beam switch indication indicating a scheduled change in a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state mapped from the first beam to a second beam in response to the predicted blockage condition (in response to predicting a blockage, the UE can notify the base station that a beam is going to be blocked so the base station can switch the beam to a secondary beam prior to failure; Paragraph 106. Further, Paragraphs 108-109 teach the use of TCI state information which is used for communications from the base station to the UE. Thus one can see the notification sent to the base station would cause a change in TCI states mapped to the beams based on the blockage as claimed); and
wherein the indication indicates a beam at the network node that corresponds with the second beam of the UE (the UE notifies the base station of a beam that is going to be blocked and the base station can switch to a secondary beam that is used to communicate with the UE; Paragraph 106. Thus the second beam is seen as corresponding with the UE because that is the beam used to switch and communicate with the UE on. The information received from the UE, which causes the base station to perform a beam switch is viewed as indication information with respect to a corresponding beam at the network node).
Luo does not expressly disclose that the beam switch indication includes a request for the change; however, Pan teaches the WTRU can perform partial beam failure detection and declare a partial beam failure if certain conditions are not met (i.e. blockage prediction). In response to this, the WTRU sends a beam switch request (i.e. beam switch indication including a request for a change); Paragraph 97.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include the UE sending a beam switch indication based on the UE detecting an issue as taught by Pan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on conditions not being met, the UE can request a beam change from the base station as taught by Pan; Paragraph 97.
While the prior art discusses a UE moves and beams can be blocked, the prior art does not expressly disclose the block is predicted based on the actual user blocking the beam via a predicted movement which includes the movement of a hand or finger of the user relative to the UE. Brunel teaches determining potential blockage of beams caused by the head, hands, and/or fingers of a user; column 19 Lines 1-6. Further, the blockage can be predicted based on the anticipated obstruction of movements by the UE such as finger swipe movements; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include predicated a blockage based on a users movements wherein the user is the one blocking the beam as taught by Brunel.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can predict/anticipate obstructions from user movements and correct for it as taught by Brunel; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Brunel teaches that based on the orientation of the mobile device; blockage events can occur; Column 19 lines 51-61. The prior art does not expressly disclose that it is the initiation of an application that causes the movement. Chen teaches a User taps an icon (606) on the screen (i.e. starting an application). The user then changes the screen from the portrait to landscape orientation (i.e. predicted movement); Paragraphs 165-166. The switching of the orientation of the device is thus in response to the starting of an application. When combined with the teachings of Brunel (which discloses a users fingers, hands, etc can cause blockage) one can see the starting of an application causes the orientation to change (which in turn would mean the users hands/fingers are moving) which is tied to potential blockage/movement.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include predicting movement based on the starting of an application as taught by Chen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the user experience is not affected based on the application they are using as taught by Chen; Paragraph 3, see also paragraphs 165-167.
Regarding claim 2, Luo teaches a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Paragraphs 131 and 140 state the receiver and transmitter of Figures 4 and 5 can be a transceiver module. 720 of Figure 7, 1120 of Figure 11, and other areas show all of the devices (base stations, UEs, etc.) can utilize transceivers which would be coupled to the processor since they are in the same device).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Luo teaches correlating a beam change to the second beam at the UE with a corresponding beam change at the network node (a UE receives information associated with a base station and performs a beam management procedure. The management procedure includes identifying a beam corresponding to the base station beam; Paragraph 95. When beam switching occurs later in Paragraph 106, these beams are considered correlated/corresponding to the various nodes (base station and UE)).
Regarding claim 5, Luo teaches a correlation between the second beam at the UE and corresponding beam change at the network node is based on an observation of communication between the UE and network to estimate a channel matrix between the UE and network node (a UE receives information associated with a base station and performs a beam management procedure. The management procedure includes identifying a beam corresponding to the base station beam; Paragraph 95. When beam switching occurs later in Paragraph 106, these beams are considered correlated/corresponding to the various nodes (base station and UE). Further yet, the beam change occurs based on received sensor information (observed communication between UE and network node); Paragraph 106. The estimation of a channel matrix between the UE and network node is viewed as intended use of the observation information, but is not positively defined as a step occurring. Paragraph 91 teaches determining various beamforming weight sets which is viewed as the matrix as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Luo teaches using machine learning for the correlation (Paragraph 107 teaches that the UE can analyze information using machine-learning techniques to determine if there will be blockage).
Regarding claim 7, Luo teaches the ML uses prior observations of communication between the UE and network node to predict the blockage condition (the UE may receive an image of the base station and environment associated with the base station and analyze to predict the potential blockage. Sometimes an established beam is already there with the base station and the UE analyzes the information using ML to determine if objects around a base station may cause blockage; Paragraph 107. Thus, one can see there are prior communications between the UE and base stations which are used (i.e. prior observations)).
Regarding claim 8, Luo teaches the ML optimizations are performed at the UE (Paragraph 107 teaches that the UE can analyze information using machine-learning techniques to determine if there will be blockage. The UE is the one doing the analyzing and predicting of blockages thus viewed as associated with the optimizations).
Regarding claim 10, Luo teaches the corresponding beam at the network node is determined based on correlating a beam change to the second beam at the UE with a corresponding beam change at the network node (a UE receives information associated with a base station and performs a beam management procedure. The management procedure includes identifying a beam corresponding to the base station beam; Paragraph 95. When beam switching occurs later in Paragraph 106, these beams are considered correlated/corresponding to the various nodes (base station and UE)).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Luo teaches scheduling a beam change to the second beam based on predicted blockage (in response to predicting a blockage, the UE can notify the base station that a beam is going to be blocked so the base station can switch the beam to a secondary beam prior to failure; Paragraph 106. Thus one can see the beam change is scheduled based on predicated blockage).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Luo teaches switch to the second beam in response to transmitting the beam switch indication (in response to predicting a blockage, the UE can notify the base station that a beam is going to be blocked so the base station can switch the beam to a secondary beam prior to failure; Paragraph 106. Thus after the beam switch notification form the UE, the base station changes the beam. Paragraph 100 teaches the system utilizes acknowledgements with respect to beam switching, thus the nodes utilize ack/nack and thus would be monitoring the system. As the claim does not require an actual ACK/NACK to be sent and/or received, the claims stand properly rejected. The Examiner suggests positively reciting the reception/transmission of an ACK/NACK and not just broadly monitoring as claimed).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Luo teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
Communicate with a UE using a first beam (the UE can predict potential blockage of a beam corresponding to a base station; Paragraphs 106 and 107, see also Figures 1-3 which shows UEs communicating with a base station (first beam));
Obtain a beam switch indication indicating a schedule change in a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state mapped from the first beam to a second beam in response to the predicted blockage condition (in response to predicting a blockage, the UE can notify the base station that a beam is going to be blocked so the base station can switch the beam to a secondary beam prior to failure; Paragraph 106. Further, Paragraphs 108-109 teach the use of TCI state information which is used for communications from the base station to the UE. Thus one can see the notification sent to the base station would cause a change in TCI states mapped to the beams based on the blockage as claimed); and
Wherein the indication indicates a beam at the network node that corresponds with the second beam of the UE (the UE notifies the base station of a beam that is going to be blocked and the base station can switch to a secondary beam that is used to communicate with the UE; Paragraph 106. Thus the second beam is seen as corresponding with the UE because that is the beam used to switch and communicate with the UE on).
Luo does not expressly disclose that the beam switch indication includes a request for the change; however, Pan teaches the WTRU can perform partial beam failure detection and declare a partial beam failure if certain conditions are not met (i.e. blockage prediction). In response to this, the WTRU sends a beam switch request (i.e. beam switch indication including a request for a change; Paragraph 97 ).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include the UE sending a beam switch indication based on the UE detecting an issue as taught by Pan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on conditions not being met, the UE can request a beam change from the base station as taught by Pan; Paragraph 97.
While the prior art discusses a UE moves and beams can be blocked, the prior art does not expressly disclose the block is predicted based on the actual user blocking the beam via a predicted movement which includes the movement of a hand or finger of the user relative to the UE. Brunel teaches determining potential blockage of beams caused by the head, hands, and/or fingers of a user; column 19 Lines 1-6. Further, the blockage can be predicted based on the anticipated obstruction of movements by the UE such as finger swipe movements; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include predicated a blockage based on a users movements wherein the user is the one blocking the beam as taught by Brunel.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can predict/anticipate obstructions from user movements and correct for it as taught by Brunel; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Brunel teaches that based on the orientation of the mobile device; blockage events can occur; Column 19 lines 51-61. The prior art does not expressly disclose that it is the initiation of an application that causes the movement. Chen teaches a User taps an icon (606) on the screen (i.e. starting an application). The user then changes the screen from the portrait to landscape orientation (i.e. predicted movement); Paragraphs 165-166. The switching of the orientation of the device is thus in response to the starting of an application. When combined with the teachings of Brunel (which discloses a users fingers, hands, etc can cause blockage) one can see the starting of an application causes the orientation to change (which in turn would mean the users hands/fingers are moving) which is tied to potential blockage/movement.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include predicting movement based on the starting of an application as taught by Chen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the user experience is not affected based on the application they are using as taught by Chen; Paragraph 3, see also paragraphs 165-167.
Regarding claim 21, Luo teaches a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Paragraphs 131 and 140 state the receiver and transmitter of Figures 4 and 5 can be a transceiver module. 720 of Figure 7, 1120 of Figure 11, and other areas show all of the devices (base stations, UEs, etc.) can utilize transceivers which would be coupled to the processor since they are in the same device).
Regarding claims 23 and 29, Luo teaches a correlation between the second beam at the UE and corresponding beam change at the network node corresponding to the second beam at the UE (a UE receives information associated with a base station and performs a beam management procedure. The management procedure includes identifying a beam corresponding to the base station beam; Paragraph 95. When beam switching occurs later in Paragraph 106, these beams are considered correlated/corresponding to the various nodes (base station and UE). Further yet, the beam change occurs based on received sensor information (observed communication between UE and network node); Paragraph 106.
Regarding claim 32, while the prior art discusses a UE moves and beams can be blocked, the prior art does not expressly disclose the block is based on the physical movements of a hand or finger of the user relative to the UE. Brunel teaches determining potential blockage of beams caused by the head, hands, and/or fingers of a user; column 19 Lines 1-6. Further, the blockage can be predicted based on the anticipated obstruction of movements by the UE such as finger swipe movements; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include predicated a blockage based on a users hand/finger movement wherein the user is the one blocking the beam as taught by Brunel.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can predict/anticipate obstructions from user movements and correct for it as taught by Brunel; Column 21 Lines 6-11.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Pan in view of Brunel in view of Chen in view of Shen et al. “Shen” US 2022/0385342
Regarding claim 9, while Luo teaches a base station can perform the blockage predication (paragraph 111) as well as the use of ML/AI in general; Luo does not expressly disclose a base station using ML; however, Shen teaches a base station can use artificial intelligence or machine learning in order to determining beam switching; Paragraphs 82 and 198.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include a second network node (base station) utilizing AI/ML for optimization as taught by Shen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can perform beam switching based on network parameters by way of ML/AI as taught by Shen; Paragraphs 82 and 198.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view Pan in view of Brunelin view of Chen in view of Bai et al. “Bai” US 2020/0280360.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Luo and Pan teach the beam switch includes a request to switch beams as taught above; however, Luo does not disclose this is with respect to a predicted time scale. Bai teaches beam switching with respect to a predicted time scale of the start of blockage (Paragraph 72 teaches when a beam failure occurs (i.e. start of blockage) there is a predicted time period for which a beam pair link will remain active. Thus one can see there is a predicted time scale with respect to beam switching/start of blockage (failure)).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include a predicted time scale as taught by Bai.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system has knowledge as to the time of the availability of beam pair links after a failure has occurred as taught by Bai; Paragraph 72.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Luo and Pan teach the beam switch includes a request to switch beams as taught above; however, Luo does not disclose this is with respect to a predicted time scale. Bai teaches beam switching with respect to a predicted time scale of the start of blockage (Paragraph 72 teaches when a beam failure occurs (i.e. start of blockage) there is a predicted time period for which a beam pair link will remain active. Thus one can see there is a predicted time scale with respect to beam switching/start of blockage (failure)).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include a predicted time scale as taught by Bai.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system has knowledge as to the time of the availability of beam pair links after a failure has occurred as taught by Bai; Paragraph 72.
Claim(s) 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Pan in view of Brunel in view of Chen in view of Yu et al. “Yu” US 2017/0302341.
Regarding claims 24 and 30, Luo teaches sending ack messaging; however, Luo does not disclose a base station outputting an ACK with respect to beam switching. Yu teaches that with respect to beam change indications, a base station can send an ACK to the terminal; Paragraph 205.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Luo to include a base station sending ACK in response to beam switching indications received from a UE to acknowledge the beam switching as taught by Yu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station and UE can communicate on an appropriate beam as taught by Yu/ Paragraphs 112, 132, and 205.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the predicted movement includes the predicted movement of a hand or finger of the user relative to the UE in response to an initiation of an application on the UE. Applicant argues Brunel does not teach the movement of the hand or finger is not based on the initiation of an application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brunel was not relied upon for the discussion of the initiation of an application. As shown in the rejection, Brunel teaches that based on the orientation of the mobile device; blockage events can occur; Column 19 lines 51-61. Chen was further relied upon to disclose a user taps an icon (606) on the screen (i.e. starting an application). The user then changes the screen from the portrait to landscape orientation (i.e. predicted movement); Paragraphs 165-166. The switching of the orientation of the device is thus in response to the starting of an application. When combined with the teachings of Brunel (which discloses a user’s fingers, hands, etc can cause blockage) one can see the starting of an application causes the orientation to change (which in turn would mean the users hands/fingers are moving) which is tied to potential blockage/movement. Thus, one can see the combination of Brunel and Chen properly disclose the claim limitation.
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights