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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 21, and 30 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/19/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: the words “wherein the request identifies includes multiple candidate beams” should be changed to “wherein the request identifies multiple candidate beams”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19-23, 26, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190098520_A1_Kim in view of US_20190253949_A1_Park.
Regard claim 1, Kim discloses a method of wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: monitoring a first radio condition of the UE for beams of a primary cell and a second radio condition for beams of one or more secondary cells configured for the UE in carrier aggregation (Kim figures 7-8, paragraph 320, “Also, when a plurality of cells provide a communication service to the terminal using a carrier aggregation (CA) function, the beam management operation shown in FIG. 7 or 8 may be applied to each of a primary cell (PCell) and a secondary cell (SCell). The beam management operation of the terminal may be independently applied to each of the primary cell and the secondary cell”); requesting to configure a candidate beam of at least one candidate secondary cell of the one or more secondary cells as a new primary cell in response to the first radio condition not satisfying a first threshold and the second radio condition for the at least one candidate secondary cell satisfying a second threshold (Kim figure 8, paragraph 249, “…the terminal may perform a beam search and measurement operation (e.g., beam sweeping operation) to detect a beam that meets a radio link re-establishment condition.…” paragraph 311, “The terminal may transmit information requesting initiation of the beam switching operation to the base station…”, paragraph 322. the radio quality for the beam of the primary cell is less than or equal to a preset reference value, and the radio link quality for the beam of the secondary cell is equal to or greater than a reference value. And paragraph 327, “when the beam problem is detected in the primary cell, the terminal may perform the beam recovery operation before expiration of a timer for a beam recovery operation of a primary cell (e.g., TBR)…”; paragraph 329, “…the primary cell may perform a connection reconfiguration procedure or a handover procedure for changing the secondary cell to a new primary cell”,); and performing a handover to the new primary cell (Kim paragraph 329, “…the primary cell may perform a connection reconfiguration procedure or a handover procedure for changing the secondary cell to a new primary cell”, paragraph 330, “…a control message indicating that the secondary cell has been changed to a new primary cell…”), but does not disclose transmitting, before expiration of a beam failure recovery timer, a request for beam switching operation.
Park discloses transmitting, before expiration of a beam failure recovery timer, a request for beam switching operation (Park figure 18, the UE transmits beam failure recovery request in response to the beam failure before the expiration of the beam failure recovery timer; and paragraphs 203, 236, 257, 269 teaches carrier aggregation, and a base station may be configured as a Pcell or Scell).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Park’s the UE transmits beam failure recovery request in response to the beam failure before the expiration of the beam failure recovery timer in Kim’s system to minimize latency and quickly restores connectivity. This method for improving the system of Kim was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Park. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim and Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regard claim 2, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein the monitoring comprises performing a beam failure recovery procedure for the primary cell, wherein the UE is configured to monitor the second radio condition concurrently with the first radio condition during the beam failure recovery procedure (Kim figure 8, beam recovery step, and step S805, “Search/Measurement operation on beams including other beams”).
Regard claim 3, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein transmitting the request comprises transmitting a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (Kim paragraph 316, “The control message transmitted by the terminal to the primary cell for the beam problem detection operation or the beam recovery operation of the secondary cell may be a control field of a PHY layer control channel, a MAC control element, or an RRC message.”) including a reference signal identifier corresponding to the candidate beam of the at least one candidate secondary cell having a second radio condition that satisfies the second threshold (Kim paragraph 311, 316, an identifier indicating the beam).
Regard claim 6, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses further comprising receiving a configuration of the first threshold and the second threshold (Kim paragraph 193, “…the reference value… may be transmitted to the terminal through system information or a control message (e.g., control message including the Resource-Config information)”, paragraph 284, “…The base station may transmit the parameter (e.g., the preset reference value… to the terminal through system information or a control message.”).
Regard claim 9, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein performing the handover to the new primary cell comprises receiving a reconfiguration of one candidate secondary cell as the new primary cell (Kim paragraph 330, “…a control message indicating that the secondary cell has been changed to a new primary cell, or a control message for connection reconfiguration, which includes control information related to the change between the secondary cell and the primary cell, may be transmitted to the terminal.”).
Regard claim 10, Kim and Park disclose method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses wherein transmitting the request comprises transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) message (Kim paragraph 294, “Here, each of a report message including the measurement result and the control message requesting to perform the beam or radio link management operation, the beam switching operation, or the beam activation or inactivation operation according to the beam blockage may be a PHY layer control message, a MAC control message (e.g., MAC control PDU), or an RRC message…”) including a reference signal identifier corresponding to a candidate beam of the at least one candidate secondary cell having a second radio condition that satisfies the second threshold (Kim paragraph 311, “…identifier (e.g., index) of a reference signal having a mapping relationship with the beam…”).
Regard claim 11, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regard claim 12, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regard claim 14, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 12, and Kim further discloses wherein the MAC-CE includes a bit indicating the request to switch to the candidate beam of the at least one candidate secondary cell instead of failure of the candidate beam (Kim paragraph 311, “…The terminal may transmit information requesting initiation of the beam switching operation to the base station using a PUCCH or a MAC control message. Here, each of the PUCCH or the MAC control message may include a bit ( e.g., parameter) indicating the initiation of the beam switching operation…”).
Regard claim 16, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 11, and Kim further discloses further comprising configuring an indication to allow the UE to switch from the primary cell to the one or more secondary cells configured for the UE in carrier aggregation as the new primary cell (Kim paragraph 329, “…the primary cell may perform a connection reconfiguration procedure or a handover procedure for changing the secondary cell to a new primary cell”, paragraph 330, “…a control message indicating that the secondary cell has been changed to a new primary cell…”).
Regard claim 19, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Regard claim 20, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 10.
Regard claim 21, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Kim further discloses an apparatus for wireless communication for a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Kim figure 2, paragraph 59).
Regard claim 22, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regard claim 23, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regard claim 26, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regard claim 29, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Regard claim 30, Kim and Park disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Kim further discloses an apparatus for wireless communication for a base station, comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Kim figure 2, paragraph 59).
Claim(s) 4, 13, 24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190098520_A1_Kim in view of US_20190253949_A1_Park and US_20200383167_A1_Sengupta.
Regard claim 4, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 3, but do not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the request comprises transmitting the MAC-CE on an uplink grant for the primary cell or for one of the one or more secondary cells.
Sengupta discloses transmitting the MAC-CE on an uplink grant for the primary cell or for one of the one or more secondary cells (Sengupta paragraph 191, “… transmitting the BFR MAC CE over a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) of the SCell using an available uplink grant.”, paragraph 193, …and transmitting the BFR MAC CE over the PUSCH of the SCell according to the uplink grant included in the DCI”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sengupta’s transmitting the MAC CE over the PUSCH of the SCell according to the uplink grant in Kim and Park’s system to avoid causing excessive interference or disrupting other transmissions in the network. This method for improving the system of Kim and Park was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sengupta. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, Park and Sengupta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regard claim 13, Kim, Park and Sengupta disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regard claim 24, Kim, Park and Sengupta disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regard claim 31, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, and Kim further discloses determines multiple candidate beams of multiple secondary cells that are suitable for the new primary cell (Kim paragraph 316, “The control message transmitted by the terminal… a measurement result of a candidate beam… the terminal may transmit a control message requesting inactivation of the secondary cell in which the beam problem is detected to the primary cell.”, paragraph 329, “…the primary cell may perform a connection reconfiguration procedure or a handover procedure for changing the secondary cell to a new primary cell”, paragraph 330, “…a control message indicating that the secondary cell has been changed to a new primary cell…”), but do not disclose wherein the request identifies includes multiple candidate beams.
Sengupta discloses wherein the request identifies includes multiple candidate beams (Sengupta paragraph 60, “… the UE 102 transmitting a BFR request (BFRQ) to a serving AN 108 and identifying new beams on which it can continue Tx/Rx (e.g., "BFR procedure Step 2")”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sengupta’s the BFR request identifying new beams on which it can continue Tx/Rx in Kim and Park’s system to reduce overhead signalling. This method for improving the system of Kim and Park was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sengupta. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, Park and Sengupta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 31.
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190098520_A1_Kim in view of US_20190253949_A1_Park and US_20230136259_A1_Sirotkin.
Regard claim 5, Kim and park disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting an indication of a capability of the UE to switch from the primary cell to the one or more secondary cells configured for the UE in carrier aggregation as the new primary cell.
Sirotkin discloses transmitting an indication of a capability of the UE to switch from the primary cell to the one or more secondary cells configured for the UE in carrier aggregation as the new primary cell (Sirotkin paragraph 56, “…a request for a handover event from a UE, wherein the request includes at least (i) request for access to a primary cell group and (ii) data indicating capabilities of the UE (410), determining, by the first base station and based on the UE capabilities, that the UE is capable of maintaining communication with a secondary cell group of a base station during handover of the UE to the primary cell group of the first base station (420)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sengupta’s the handover request includes data indicating capabilities of the UE in Kim’s system to let the system handle the handover properly. This method for improving the system of Kim was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sengupta. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim and Sengupta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regard claim 15, Kim and Sirotkin disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regard claim 25, Kim and Sirotkin disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190098520_A1_Kim in view of US_20190253949_A1_Park and US_20180213452_A1_Kim (Hereinafter, called “Kim-52”).
Regard claim 7, Kim and park disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein transmitting the request is further in response to the second radio condition of the candidate beam of the at least one candidate secondary cell being greater than the first radio condition of a best beam of the primary cell by at least a third threshold.
Kim-52 discloses wherein transmitting the request is further in response to the second radio condition of the candidate beam of the at least one candidate secondary cell being greater than the first radio condition of a best beam of the primary cell by at least a third threshold (Kim-52 paragraph 561, “If the eNB receives an event corresponding to the handover from a measurement report value of the UE, e.g., the signal strength from the target cell becomes better than the signal strength from the source cell over a threshold value, and in this case, Phase 2 is set to change the roles of the PCell (Cell1) and the PUCCH SCell (Cell3) each other (4f-35)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim-52’s triggering handover event when the signal strength from the target cell becomes better than the signal strength from the source cell over a threshold value in Kim and park’s system to avoid unnecessary handover. This method for improving the system of Kim and park was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kim-52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, park and Kim-52 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regard claim 17, Kim, Park and Kim-52 disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regard claim 27, Kim, Park and Kim-52 disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 18, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190098520_A1_Kim in view of US_20190253949_A1_Park and US_20230217329_A1_Wallentin.
Regard claim 8, Kim and Park disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein transmitting the request is further in response to values for configured measurement objects corresponding to neighbor cells not satisfying a fourth threshold for a handover to a neighbor cell.
Wallentin discloses wherein transmitting the request is further in response to values for configured measurement objects corresponding to neighbor cells not satisfying a fourth threshold for a handover to a neighbor cell (Wallentin paragraph 414, “measured signal level and/or quality for a neighbor cell, carrier, or RBT is above or below a third measurement threshold”, and paragraph 418).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Wallentin’s the handover is also based on the measured signal level and/or quality for a neighbor cell, carrier, or RBT is above or below a third measurement threshold in Kim and Park’s system to determine which cell the UE should be handed over to. This method for improving the system of Kim and Park was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wallentin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim, Park and Wallentin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regard claim 18, Kim, Park and Wallentin disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regard claim 28, Kim, Park and Wallentin disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471