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
The Amendment filed 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,5, 7-8, 10-11, 15 and 17-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21 - 22 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “Specifically, amended claim 1 recites the features of ‘based at least on determining that the data throughput of the at least one beam satisfies the data throughput threshold, entering a high priority beam recovery mode’ and ‘based on entering the high priority beam recovery mode, performing a random access channel (RACH) recovery process independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value’.
Applicant submits that Deenoo, taken individually or in any combination with Ryu, does not disclose or render obvious these features. Deenoo describes a WTRU that ‘select[s] a candidate beam for beam recovery based on any one or more of the following criteria: beam quality, availability of measurement result, spatial isolation, availability of dedicated recovery resource, earliest occurring recovery resource, type of recovery resource, preconfigured/preferred candidate beam, and/or availability of configuration’, and ‘prioritize[s] a candidate beam in certain beam sets over others’ (See Deenoo at para. 0105 and 0108). Deenoo's selection of a candidate beam for beam recovery and prioritization of the candidate beam over other beams are different from ‘based at least on determining that the data throughput of the at least one beam satisfies the data throughput threshold, entering a high priority beam recovery mode’, as recited in amended claim 1. Nowhere does Deenoo's beam selection or prioritization include ‘entering a high priority beam recovery mode’.
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0108-0110] of Deenoo teach a candidate beam may be prioritized upon failure of a current beam, and paragraph [0194] teaches that ongoing procedures are canceled upon beam failure in order to perform beam recovery, implying that beam failure recovery is a high priority for the system. Paragraphs [0221-0222] and [FIG. 6] teach that once a beam failure is detected, the cell’s state is transitioned to beam failure recovery ongoing, showing that a high priority beam recovery mode is entered.
Therefore, Deenoo does read upon applicant’s claimed limitations of “based at least on determining that the data throughput of the at least one beam satisfies the data throughput threshold, entering a high priority beam recovery mode.”
Second Argument
Applicant argues “Furthermore, Deenoo describes a WTRU that ‘cancel[s] an ongoing RACH procedure (and consequently, higher layer procedure(s)) when a beam failure event occurs’ and ‘perform[s] a RACH procedure as part of beam recovery in the new beam’. (See Deenoo at para. 0194). Deenoo's cancellation of an ongoing RACH procedure for beam recovery in the newly selected and prioritized beam is different from ‘based on entering the high priority beam recovery mode, performing a random access channel (RACH) recovery process independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value’, as recited in amended claim 1 because Deenoo explicitly describes reliance on a radio link failure timer, stating that ‘the WTRU may start a timer, such as T312, and upon expiry of the timer, the WTRU may declare radio link failure’, (See Deenoo, e.g., para. 0112). Deenoo further describes a beam failure detection timer, stating ‘beam failure due to candidate beam not found, beam failure due to absence of beam recovery response, and/or beam failure due to beam recovery timer expiry’, (See Deenoo at para. 0217). Nowhere does Deenoo's cancellation of the ongoing RACH procedure include ‘performing a random access channel (RACH) recovery process independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value’.”
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0221-0222] and [FIG. 6] of Deenoo teach that once a beam failure is detected, the cell’s state is transitioned to beam failure recovery ongoing, showing that a high priority beam recovery mode is entered. No beam failure indication counter value or beam failure detection timer value is used to determine the transition to beam failure recovery and such actions may not depend on expiry of a BFR timer. At least paragraph [0102] teaches that a beam failure detection may include RLF being based on a transmission block error rate being above a preconfigured threshold and is not limited to being dependent on the expiry of any timers. Further, in paragraph [0217], Deenoo teaches “…nature of beam failure (e.g., beam failure due to candidate beam not found, beam failure due to absence of beam recovery response, and/or beam failure due to beam recovery timer expiry).” The use of “and/or” indicates that the nature of beam failure may be any of the given examples taken individually or in combination, thus teaching that beam failure is not dependent on the expiry of a beam failure recovery timer. Furthermore, a “beam failure detection timer” as is claimed in amended claim 1 is not the same as a “beam recovery timer” as is disclosed by Deenoo.
Therefore, Deenoo does read upon applicant’s claimed limitations of “performing a random access channel (RACH) recovery process independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 20220006505 A1), hereinafter Ryu, in view Deenoo et al. (US 20220322480 A1), hereinafter Deenoo.
For claim 1,
Ryu teaches a method comprising:
measuring a plurality of reference signal metric values of a plurality of reference signals associated with a plurality of beams from a base station (Fig. 12 and [0007], lines 3-6, measuring multiple reference signals and multiple beams);
determining that a greatest reference signal metric value among the plurality of reference signal metric values is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold ([0170], a threshold may mean less than or equal to a given threshold, [0039], determining a reference value from a candidate list is less than or equal to a threshold, [0134], the highest RSRP is chosen from a list of RSRPs);
based on the determining, detecting a beam failure ([0110], lines 1-7, detecting beam failure based on determination);
Ryu does not teach based on detecting the beam failure, determining whether a data throughput of data transmitted using at least one beam of the plurality of beams satisfies a data throughput threshold;
based at least on determining that the data throughput of the at least one beam satisfies the data throughput threshold, entering a high priority beam recovery mode; and
based on entering the high priority beam recovery mode independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value.
However, Deenoo teaches based on detecting the beam failure, determining whether a data throughput of data transmitted using at least one beam of the plurality of beams satisfies a data throughput threshold ([0003], [0100], and [0105] beam failure is detected, a candidate beam for recovery is selected based on having a data throughput metric that is indicated to be above a threshold);
based at least on determining that the data throughput of the at least one beam satisfies the data throughput threshold, entering a high priority beam recovery mode; ([0108-0110] a candidate beam may be prioritized upon failure of a current beam, and [0194] ongoing procedures are canceled upon beam failure to perform beam recovery, implying that recovery is a high priority. [0221-0222] and [FIG. 6] once a beam failure is detected, the cell’s state is transitioned to beam failure recovery ongoing, showing that a high priority beam recovery mode is entered); and
based on entering the high priority beam recovery mode independent of a beam failure indication counter value or a beam failure detection timer value ([0221-0222] and [FIG. 6] once a beam failure is detected, the cell’s state is transitioned to beam failure recovery ongoing, showing that a high priority beam recovery mode is entered. No beam failure indication counter value or beam failure detection timer value is used to determine the transition to beam failure recovery and such actions may not depend on expiry of a BFR timer);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu for beam failure detection with the method of Deenoo for entering a high priority beam failure recovery mode based on a detected beam failure and performing RACH independent of a beam failure indication counter value or beam failure detection timer value to ensure that beam failure recovery is swiftly and reduce downtime of the system.
For claim 2, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu further teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 wherein the RACH recovery process comprises:
determining that a number of RACH attempts with a first beam satisfies a threshold number of RACH attempts ([0103], lines 9-12, number of RACH attempts based on a threshold);
latching to a second beam in a same antenna module as the first beam (Fig. 10 and [0111], lines 1-6, switching to second beam); and
performing RACH using the second beam (Fig. 10 and [0112], lines 1-3, performing RACH with second beam).
For claim 9, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu further teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 wherein a UE is operating in Evolved-Universal Terrestrial Radio Access-New Radio (EN-DC) ([0042], lines 5-6, operating in 5G NR).
For claims [11, 12, 19], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [1, 2, 9] respectively, as shown above, with the additional limitation requiring the actions be performed by a processor (Fig. 3 and [0152], line 1, includes at least one processor).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu and Deenoo, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20220159540 A1), hereinafter Park.
For claim 3, Ryu and Deenoo teach claim 1.
Ryu further teaches wherein the RACH recovery process comprises:
determining that a number of RACH attempts on a first module satisfies a threshold number of RACH attempts ([0103], lines 9-12, number of RACH attempts based on a threshold);
Ryu and Deenoo do not explicitly teach, however Park teaches measuring a first temperature associated with a first antenna module ([0096] temperature of the first antenna module is measured);
selecting the first antenna module based on the first temperature being below a threshold temperature ([FIG. 17], [0096], and [0207-0212] communication is conducted using the first antenna module and is stopped once the first antenna module temperature is measured and found to be overheated due to surpassing a given threshold temperature. This implies that the first antenna module was selected for initial communication because it’s measured temperature was not in a state of being overheated initially.); and
performing RACH using a beam from the first antenna module ([FIG. 17], [at least 0209-0210] RACH is performed using first beam from first antenna module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu and Deenoo for entering a high priority beam recovery mode with the method of Park for measuring the temperature of an antenna module and using the measured antenna module to perform RACH to ensure that the antenna module is not overheated so a beam meets the recovery requirements and to ensure that beam failure recovery is handled appropriately.
For claim 4, Ryu and Deenoo and Park teach claim 3.
Park further teaches measuring a second temperature associated with a second antenna module ([Abstract] temperature of second antenna module can be measured. If the first antenna module is determined to be overheated, the second antenna module can be used for communication. This implies that the second antenna module would have its temperature measured and would be found to have a temperature below the overheated threshold in order for the system to use it for communication after stopping communication using a first antenna module due to it being overheated.);
selecting the second antenna module based on the second temperature being below the threshold temperature; and ([FIG. 17], [0207-0212], ([Abstract] temperature of second antenna module can be measured. If the first antenna module is determined to be overheated, the second antenna module can be used for communication. This implies that the second antenna module would have its temperature measured and would be found to have a temperature below the overheated threshold in order for the system to use it for communication after stopping communication using a first antenna module due to it being overheated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the process of measuring the temperature of a first antenna module and using the first antenna module for communication while it is not overheated could be performed on any number of antenna modules.); and
performing RACH using a beam from the second antenna module. ([FIG. 17], [0203] RACH is performed using a beam from the second antenna module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu, Deenoo, and Park for measuring the temperature of a first antenna module and using the measured antenna module to perform RACH with the method of Park for measuring the temperature of a second antenna module and using the measured antenna module to perform RACH to ensure that the antenna module is not overheated so a beam meets the recovery requirements and to ensure that beam failure recovery is handled appropriately.
For claims [13, 14], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [3, 4] respectively.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu and Deenoo, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 20220353891 A1), hereinafter Kang.
For claim 5, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu and Deenoo do not teach wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode
However, Kang teaches wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode ([0116], lines 1-4, use of millimeter wave, and [0376], lines 1-5, frequency range in gigahertz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu and Deenoo for entering the high priority beam recovery mode with the method of Kang for testing millimeter wave frequency to ensure that beam failure recovery is supported.
For claim 7, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu and Deenoo do not teach wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode comprises determining if a user equipment (UE) is moving or stationary.
However, Kang teaches wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode comprises determining if a user equipment (UE) is moving or stationary ([0256], lines 3-13, beam failure determined due to movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu and Deenoo for entering the high priority beam recovery mode with the method of Kang for determining a beam recovery is high priority based on whether a UE is moving or stationary.
For claim 8, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu and Deenoo do not teach wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode causes the RACH recovery process to immediately initiate without waiting for a beam recovery timer to expire.
However, Kang teaches wherein entering the high priority beam recovery mode causes the RACH recovery process to immediately initiate without waiting for a beam recovery timer to expire ([0278], lines 1-7, beam failure recovery not based on timer expiration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the classification method of Ryu and Deenoo to cause a RACH recovery process to initiate without waiting for a beam recovery timer to expire to expedite the beam recovery procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Ryu and Deenoo for entering the high priority beam recovery mode with the method of Kang for causing a RACH recovery process to initiate without waiting for a beam recovery timer to expire to expedite the beam recovery procedure.
For claims [15, 17-18], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [5, 7-8] respectively, as shown above, with the additional limitation requiring the actions be performed by a processor (Kang et al (US 20220353891 A1): Fig. 20 and [0022], lines 1-4, including one or more processors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, and 20-22 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of Dependent Claims 10 and 20:
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the closest prior art of record, Ryu and Deenoo, teach “entering the high priority beam recovery mode comprises determining that … wherein the plurality of criteria are associated with … (iii) the data throughput and confidence associated with the plurality of beams….”
Ryu and Deenoo do not teach “…a plurality of criteria are satisfied in sequence, wherein the plurality of criteria are associated with in which a UE operates, … and (iv) mobility mode of the UE.”
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the closest prior art of record, Ryu and Cirik et al. (US 20200100311 A1), hereinafter Cirik, teach “wherein, based on entering the high priority beam recovery mode, performing the RACH recovery process comprises: in response to classifying the beam recovery as high priority: flushing a current value of a beam failure recovery timer; determining that (i) a beam failure recovery configuration is configured for an active uplink bandwidth part (BWP)… starting the beam failure recovery timer; and initiating the RACH recovery process.”
Ryu and Cirik do not teach “…and that (ii) the beam failure recovery timer is not already running; setting a value of the beam failure recovery timer to a smaller value than the current value;”
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights