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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This is in response to the amendment filed on 08/19/2025. Claims 1 -13, 22-26 and 31-42 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means for estimating a throughput requirement associated with a communication between the apparatus and a network node;
means for selecting a beam level, of multiple candidate beam levels capable of satisfying the throughput requirement, that is associated with a lowest power consumption;
means for communicating with the network node using the beam level.
in claims 37.
And,
means for determining the multiple candidate beam levels, in claim 41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of specification shows (e.g., para. [0054, 0055] of Application Publication) that:
“means for estimating a throughput requirement associated with a communication between the apparatus and a network node” can be a processor.
“means for selecting a beam level, of multiple candidate beam levels capable of satisfying the throughput requirement, that is associated with a lowest power consumption” can be a processor.
“means for communicating with the network node using the beam level” can be an antenna.
in claims 37.
And,
“means for determining the multiple candidate beam levels” can be a processor, in claim 41.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 22, 23, 25, 31, 35, 37, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mo et al. [US20220159684A1, hereinafter MO].
Regarding claim 1, MO discloses:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Fig. 3, UE 116), comprising:
memory; (Fig. 3, MEMORY 360) and
one or more processors (Fig. 3, PROCESSOR 340), coupled to the memory, configured to:
estimate a throughput requirement associated with a communication between the UE and a network node (Fig. 9, gNB 109); ([0164] In certain embodiments, UE 116 decides the number of UL and DL chains by jointly taking into account multiple factors. In operation 1905, UE 116 first checks one or more of, a temperature of UE 116, a signal strength, a battery level, or an MPE. For example, UE 116 checks where one or more of: the temperature is high; the signal strength is high, such as compared to the requirement for data rate; the battery level is low; or … .)
{Examiner Note 1: Based on [0164], UE check the data rate requirement, which implies that the UE has performed an estimation of the required data rate.}
{Examine Note 2: As Paragraph [0164] addresses UL and DL chains and related parameter, it is relevant to the communication link between a UE and a network node.}
select a beam level ([0155] number of chains), of multiple candidate beam levels ([0155] “chains”) capable of satisfying the throughput requirement ([0155] In certain embodiments, UE 116 determines the number of chains based on the signal strength/quality. If the signal strength/quality is above a threshold or sufficient to support the required data rate, UE 116 can activate less number of chains. The signal strength/quality can be decided from RSRP/RSRQ/SNR/SINR, and so forth. If the signal strength/quality drops below the threshold or insufficient to support the required data rate, UE 116 activates more and more chains until the signal strength/quality is above the threshold or the data rate requirement is met), that is associated with a lowest power consumption; and ([0153] In the third option, UE 116 reduces the number of chains according to the power consumption. … [0112] In certain embodiments, to reduce the power consumption and control a temperature of UE 116, UE 116 can choose to reduce the number of activated antenna elements, that is, N.sub.DL (N.sub.UL). … [0117] In certain embodiments, UE 116 is configured to select a sub-chain beam codebook from multiple sub-chain beam codebooks, the selection based on at least one of: an inter-chain beam correspondence requirement; temperature; power savings; signal strength/quality; maximum permissible exposure (MPE); or precoding matrix index (PMI) feedback.)
{Examiner Note 3: Based on MO [0112], the UE selects the number of activated antenna elements in a manner that reduces power consumption. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the UE selects the number of active antenna elements so as to minimize power usage, corresponding to the configuration with the lowest power consumption.};
- wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select the beam level based at least in part on an estimated duty cycle associated with the beam level ( First, MO discloses that The power consumption also increases with the number of active antenna elements with the equation P.sub.tot=P.sub.base+γ.sub.DLN.sub.DLP.sub.ant,RX+γ.sub.ULN.sub.ULP.sub.ant,TX (See ¶ 0108); And discloses that γ.sub.DL,γ.sub.UL(0≤γ.sub.DL+γ.sub.UL≤1) is the duty cycle for the downlink reception and uplink transmission (¶ 0108). From the above explination and formula, MO teaches that the UE selects the number of active antenna elements (i.e., beam level) to manage power and thermal constraints, and that the power consumption calculation explicitly includes the duty cycle of the beam. Also, MO further describes procedures for “antenna duty cycle reduction” (see Figs. 20–21 and ¶s 0166-0170), where the UE selects sub-chain beams (i.e., lower beam levels) during periods of lower activity, or for beam measurement, to reduce average power (and hence, the duty cycle of higher-power beams)
communicate with the network node using the beam level. (Fig. 9, [0116] “The UE 116 can transmit on the UL using a sub-chain beam to save the uplink transmission power of the UE 116 and to control the temperature of the UE 116.”)
Regarding claim 5, MO discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, MO also discloses:
- wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the multiple candidate beam levels. ([0005] The UE also includes a processor coupled to the transceiver. The processor is configured to: identify a full-chain beam for a downlink reception based on a beam sweeping; determine a number of activated chains for an uplink transmission; and determine a sub-chain uplink transmission beam. … [0161] In certain embodiments, UE 116 determines the number of chains based on the requirement of the upper layer requirement. If the upper layer has strict requirement on the data rate or latency, for example, UE 116 is steaming, or displaying, a live video, the full-chain beams could be used.
Regarding claim 11, MO discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, MO also discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to estimate a corresponding power consumption associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. ([0153] In the third option, UE 116 reduces the number of chains according to the power consumption. … [0112] In certain embodiments, to reduce the power consumption and control a temperature of UE 116, UE 116 can choose to reduce the number of activated antenna elements, that is, N.sub.DL (N.sub.UL). … [0117] In certain embodiments, UE 116 is configured to select a sub-chain beam codebook from multiple sub-chain beam codebooks, the selection based on at least one of: an inter-chain beam correspondence requirement; temperature; power savings; signal strength/quality; maximum permissible exposure (MPE); or precoding matrix index (PMI) feedback.)
{Examiner Note: Based on MO [0112], the UE selects the number of activated antenna elements in a manner that reduces power consumption. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the UE measures or estimates of the power consumption of each activated antenna.}
Regarding claim 22, 23, 25, the limitation of claim 22, 23, 25 are directed to method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1, 5, 11. Therefore claims 22, 23, 25 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claims 1, 5, 11.
Regarding claim 31,35, the limitations of claims 31, 35 are substantially correspond to claims 1,5 except for a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to performing the steps of claim 1,5. Although a UE inherently has a non-transitory computer-readable medium, MO also discloses a UE a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0009], “A non-transitory computer readable medium”) storing a set of instructions ([0009], “sets of instructions,”) for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to performing the steps of claim 1,5. Therefore, claims 31, 35 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claims 1, 5.
Regarding claim 37, MO discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 3, UE 116), comprising:
means for estimating a throughput requirement (Fig. 3, PROCESSOR 340), associated with a communication between the apparatus and a network node (Fig. 9, gNB 109); ([0164] In certain embodiments, UE 116 decides the number of UL and DL chains by jointly taking into account multiple factors. In operation 1905, UE 116 first checks one or more of, a temperature of UE 116, a signal strength, a battery level, or an MPE. For example, UE 116 checks where one or more of: the temperature is high; the signal strength is high, such as compared to the requirement for data rate; the battery level is low; or … .)
{Examiner Note 1: Based on [0164], UE check the data rate requirement, which implies that the UE has performed an estimation of the required data rate.}
{Examine Note 2: As Paragraph [0164] addresses UL and DL chains and related parameter, it is relevant to the communication link between a UE and a network node.}
Means (Fig. 3, PROCESSOR 340), for selecting a beam level ([0155] number of chains), of multiple candidate beam levels ([0155] “chains”) capable of satisfying the throughput requirement ([0155] In certain embodiments, UE 116 determines the number of chains based on the signal strength/quality. If the signal strength/quality is above a threshold or sufficient to support the required data rate, UE 116 can activate less number of chains. The signal strength/quality can be decided from RSRP/RSRQ/SNR/SINR, and so forth. If the signal strength/quality drops below the threshold or insufficient to support the required data rate, UE 116 activates more and more chains until the signal strength/quality is above the threshold or the data rate requirement is met), that is associated with a lowest power consumption; and ([0153] In the third option, UE 116 reduces the number of chains according to the power consumption. … [0112] In certain embodiments, to reduce the power consumption and control a temperature of UE 116, UE 116 can choose to reduce the number of activated antenna elements, that is, N.sub.DL (N.sub.UL). … [0117] In certain embodiments, UE 116 is configured to select a sub-chain beam codebook from multiple sub-chain beam codebooks, the selection based on at least one of: an inter-chain beam correspondence requirement; temperature; power savings; signal strength/quality; maximum permissible exposure (MPE); or precoding matrix index (PMI) feedback.)
{Examiner Note 3: Based on MO [0112], the UE selects the number of activated antenna elements in a manner that reduces power consumption. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the UE selects the number of active antenna elements so as to minimize power usage, corresponding to the configuration with the lowest power consumption.}
means for communicating with the network node using the beam level. (Fig. 3, antenna 305), (Fig. 9, [0116] “The UE 116 can transmit on the UL using a sub-chain beam to save the uplink transmission power of the UE 116 and to control the temperature of the UE 116.”)
Regarding claim 41, MO discloses all limitations of claim 37 as discussed above, MO also discloses:
further comprising means (Fig. 3, PROCESSOR 340), for determining the multiple candidate beam levels. ([0005] The UE also includes a processor coupled to the transceiver. The processor is configured to: identify a full-chain beam for a downlink reception based on a beam sweeping; determine a number of activated chains for an uplink transmission; and determine a sub-chain uplink transmission beam. … [0161] In certain embodiments, UE 116 determines the number of chains based on the requirement of the upper layer requirement. If the upper layer has strict requirement on the data rate or latency, for example, UE 116 is steaming, or displaying, a live video, the full-chain beams could be used.)
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.
Claim(s) 2, 32, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of El-Najjar et al. [US20150030091A1, hereinafter EI-NAJJAR].
Regarding claim 2, MO discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on a size of a data buffer associated with an uplink transmission
However, EI-NAJJAR discloses:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on a size of a data buffer associated with an uplink transmission. ([0058] As seen at block 520, a throughput demand for the remote wireless device is compared to a forward link capacity or reverse link capacity, or both. In some embodiments, the throughput demand is determined by evaluating a forward link buffer corresponding to the remote wireless device, or by receiving and evaluating a buffer status report from the remote wireless device, or both. The forward link capacity or reverse link capacity may be determined based on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) applicable to the relevant subframe or subframes, in some embodiments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of EI-NAJJAR to provide estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on a size of a data buffer associated with an uplink transmission. The modification enables spatial processing of the transmitted and received signals. (EI-NAJJAR, [0036])
Regarding claim 32, 38 the limitations of claims 32, 38 are substantially correspond to claim 2 and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore claims 32, 38 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 33, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. [US20160050246A1, hereinafter LIAO].
Regarding claim 3, 33, 39 MO discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an indication from an upper layer associated with the UE.
However, LIAO discloses:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an indication from an upper layer associated with the UE. ([0027] In Example 2, a method for receiving DASH (dynamic streaming over HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol)) data in a client device over a network, comprises: receiving a media presentation description (MPD) from an HTTP server, wherein the MPD contains uniform resource identifiers (URIs) for a media presentation made up of a plurality of ordered media segments, and wherein, for each of the ordered media segments, the MPD contains URIs for the same media content at different bitrates, referred to as representations, and includes for each representation a bitrate; and, downloading selected representations for playback at designated playback times from the HTTP server using the URIs in the MPD, wherein representations received before their designated playback times are stored in a buffer; generating quality measures related to the quality of experience (QoE) that results when representations are played; and selecting representations for downloading as a function of the amount of data currently stored in the buffer, the bitrates and quality measures of the representations, and an estimated currently available throughput capacity.)
{Examiner Note 1: As indicated in [0027], a client device (UE) receives DASH (dynamic streaming over HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol)) data which include bitrate.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of LIAO to provide estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an indication from an upper layer associated with the UE. The modification maintains a better trade-off between buffer levels and quality fluctuations. (LIAO, abstract)
Regarding claim 33, 39 the limitations of claims 33, 39 are substantially correspond to claim 3 and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 3. Therefore claims 33, 39 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 34, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. [US20200382169A1, hereinafter ZHAO].
regarding claim 4, MO discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an average throughput associated with a number of downlink communications.
However, ZHAO discloses:
wherein estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an average throughput associated with a number of downlink communications. ([0005] … where the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the scheduler to: acquire uplink channel information for the channels, and determine the downlink channel information using the acquired uplink channel information; where the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the scheduler to order the plurality of receive antenna elements based on at least one of the determined channel strengths, latency priority, spectral efficiency, average throughput of the plurality of receive antenna elements over a threshold period of time, or normalized throughput of the plurality of receive antenna elements over the threshold period of time; or normalized throughput of the plurality of receive antenna elements over the threshold period of time; where the computer-executable instructions, when executed, further cause the scheduler to determine a downlink channel precoder for the selected receive antenna elements; )
{Examiner Note 1: According to [0005], the throughput is determined based on downlink communication.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of ZHAO to provide estimating the throughput requirement is based at least in part on an average throughput associated with a number of downlink communications. The modification provides spectral efficiency. (ZHAO, [0005])
Regarding claim 34, 40 the limitations of claims 34, 40 are substantially correspond to claim 4 and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 4. Therefore claims 34, 40 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 36, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chen et al. [US20190319686A1, hereinafter CHEN].
Regarding claim 6, MO discloses all limitations of claim 5 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding spectral efficiency requirement associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels.
However, CHEN discloses:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding spectral efficiency requirement associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. ([0183] In order to overcome the larger path loss of such high frequency ranges, beamforming with directional antenna gain is envisioned as a key enabling technique for meeting the spectrum efficiency and coverage requirements at higher frequencies.)
{Examiner Note: Beamforming using directional antennas requires determining beam candidates. According to [0183], this is done to meet spectrum efficiency requirements.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of CHEN to provide determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding spectral efficiency requirement associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. The modification provides for improved connectivity. (CHEN, [0078])
Regarding claim 36, 42 the limitations of claims 36, 42 are substantially correspond to claim 6 and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 6. Therefore claims 36, 42 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Scott et al. [US20230387979A1, hereinafter SCOTT].
Regarding claim 7, MO discloses all limitations of claim 5 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a bandwidth associated with the communication.
However, SCOTT discloses:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a bandwidth associated with the communication. ([0120] The selection process for the local antennas 2106 may be based on one or more of bandwidth supported by the digital link 2112, best antenna performance, or a combination thereof. In an example of the antenna selection process based on supported bandwidth, the digital link 2112 may be able to support a maximum 200 MHz of raw data. And the remote active antenna 2104 may select two local antennas 2106 each supporting 50 MHz and one local antenna 2106 supporting 100 MHz.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of SCOTT to provide determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a bandwidth associated with the communication. The modification provides for high reliability communication and/or power and performance optimization. (SCOTT, [0031])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO and SCOTT as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Qiao et al. [US20230142792A1, hereinafter QIAO].
Regarding claim 8, MO and SCOTT disclose all limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, but the references do not disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the network node, an indication of the bandwidth.
However, QIAO discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the network node, an indication of the bandwidth. ([0011] In a possible implementation, that the terminal receives a bandwidth part BWP indication field includes: When the terminal receives the first indication information, a preset condition for satellite beam switching is met.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO and SCOTT to incorporate the teaching of QIAO to provide the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the network node, an indication of the bandwidth. The modification resolves an ID indication problem caused by an increase in a quantity of BWPs in an NTN network. (QIAO, [0070])
Claim(s) 9, 10, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of NAKAMURA et al. [US20200014511A1, hereinafter NAKAMURA].
regarding claim 9, MO discloses all limitations of claim 5 as discussed above, but MO does not disclose:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding estimation of a duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels.
However, NAKAMURA discloses:
wherein determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding estimation of a duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. ([0139] Refer to FIG. 9. Note that a beam formed by the base station may be hereinafter referred to as a “base station beam,” and a beam formed by the terminal may be hereinafter referred to as a “terminal beam.” … [0142] The terminal measures reception quality of the BRS of each beam transmitted from the base station, and selects a base station beam having the best reception quality. In the configuration in which the terminal is also equipped with a multi-element antenna to form beams as illustrated in FIG. 9, the terminal beams are switched to scan the beams in every BRS transmission cycle of the base station beams as illustrated in FIG. 11, in order to perform beam selection among combinations of the base station beams and the terminal beams. … [0141] A procedure of selecting a combination of beams of the base station and the terminal will be described in sequence. The base station periodically transmits a downlink reference signal specific to each beam (beam specific RS (BRS)) in all beam directions formed by the base station, such that the terminal can measure reception quality of each base station beam in order for the terminal to select a base station beam appropriate for communication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of NAKAMURA to provide determining the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding estimation of a duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. The modification enhances spatial separation and thereby increases channel capacity. (NAKAMURA, [0050])
Regarding claim 24 the limitations of claims 24 are substantially correspond to claim 9 and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 9. Therefore claims 24 are also rejected for similar reason set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, MO and NAKAMURA disclose all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above, NAKAMURA also discloses:
wherein the corresponding estimation of the duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding past duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. ( [0222] When the dynamic BRS beam selection operation is ON, as illustrated in FIG. 35, in Step ST3501, the base station notifies the terminal of information about dynamic BRS beam selection operation ON, through broadcast information. … [0225] FIG. 37 and FIG. 38 (continued at the position of the border line BL37) illustrate an example of a case where the movement speed of the terminal is low and a case where the movement speed of the terminal is high. FIG. 3 and FIG. 38 illustrate an example in which the base station has eight beam radiation directions, and the terminal has four beam radiation directions. In a ease of the low-speed movement, a movement distance, of the terminal per BRS cycle is small, and therefore there is no problem in performing all beam selection of the terminal, using a plurality of BRS transmission cycles. )
{Examiner Note: Fig. 37 illustrates an example where beam selection at the terminal is performed during low-speed movement. In this example, the selection of Beam #1 and then Beam #2 occurs within a single BRS transmission cycle. In other words, when selecting Beam #2, the selection is based on the previous BRS cycle that was transmitted earlier.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MO to incorporate the teaching of NAKAMURA to provide the corresponding estimation of the duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels is based at least in part on a corresponding past duty cycle of the network node associated with each of the multiple candidate beam levels. The modification enhances spatial separation and thereby increases channel capacity. (NAKAMURA, [0050])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12, 13, 26 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The applicant argues that MO fails to teaches or suggest a " wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select the beam level based at least in part on an estimated duty cycle associated with the beam level" as recited in Applicant's claim 1. The applicant argued that MO only teaches selection based on signal strength/quality, not duty cycle .
In response. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. First, MO discloses that The power consumption also increases with the number of active antenna elements with the equation P.sub.tot=P.sub.base+γ.sub.DLN.sub.DLP.sub.ant,RX+γ.sub.ULN.sub.ULP.sub.ant,TX (See ¶ 0108); And discloses that γ.sub.DL,γ.sub.UL(0≤γ.sub.DL+γ.sub.UL≤1) is the duty cycle for the downlink reception and uplink transmission (¶ 0108). From the above explanations and formula, MO teaches that the UE selects the number of active antenna elements (i.e., beam level) to manage power and thermal constraints, and that the power consumption calculation explicitly includes the duty cycle of the beam. Thus, MO discloses that the UE determines, for each possible number of active antenna elements (beam level), the associated power consumption, which is a function of both the number of elements and the duty cycle. Also, MO further describes procedures for “antenna duty cycle reduction” (see Figs. 20–21 and ¶s 0166-0170), where the UE selects sub-chain beams (i.e., lower beam levels) during periods of lower activity, or for beam measurement, to reduce average power (and hence, the duty cycle of higher-power beams). Therefore, Li clearly discloses processors (controller) interfaces with MLC NVM (VMM). Thus, MO meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights