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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1,5, 7-11, 15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 9-10, 11-12, and 19-20 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 for reference signal measurement reporting by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communications system, the 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);
based on classifying beam recovery as high priority, performing a random access channel (RACH) recovery process ([0039], lines 9-15, RACH performed).
Ryu does not teach based on detecting the beam failure, determining whether a data throughput of 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, classifying beam recovery as high priority; and
However, Deenoo teaches based on detecting the beam failure, determining whether a data throughput of 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, classifying beam recovery as high priority ([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).
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 detecting and classifying a beam failure as high priority to ensure that beam failure recovery is handled appropriately.
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 claim 10, Ryu and Deenoo teach all the features of claim 1,
Ryu does not explicitly teach classifying the beam recovery as high priority comprises determining that one or more criteria are satisfied, wherein the one or more criteria are associated with at least one of (i) reference signal received power (RSRP) values and uplink signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values associated with the plurality of reference signals, (ii) a millimeter wave frequency in which a UE operates, (iii) the data throughput and confidence associated with the plurality of beams, or (iv) mobility mode of the UE.
However, Deenoo teaches classifying the beam recovery as high priority comprises determining that one or more criteria are satisfied, wherein the one or more criteria are associated with at least one of (i) reference signal received power (RSRP) values and uplink signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values associated with the plurality of reference signals, (ii) a millimeter wave frequency in which a UE operates, (iii) the data throughput and confidence associated with the plurality of beams, or (iv) mobility mode of the UE ([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, [0194] ongoing procedures are canceled upon beam failure to perform beam recovery, implying that recovery is a high priority.).
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 classifying a beam failure as high priority with the method of Deenoo for comparing the throughput of a beam to a threshold value of in order to ensure that a beam meets the recovery requirements and to ensure that beam failure recovery is handled appropriately.
For claims [11, 12, 19, 20], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [1, 2, 9, 10] 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) 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 classifying the beam recovery as high priority comprises testing a millimeter wave frequency as being greater or less than 29 gigahertz.
However, Kang teaches wherein classifying the beam recovery as high priority comprises testing a millimeter wave frequency as being greater or less than 29 gigahertz ([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 classifying a beam failure as high priority 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 classifying the beam recovery as high priority comprises determining if a user equipment (UE) is moving or stationary.
However, Kang teaches wherein classifying the beam recovery as high priority 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 classification method of Ryu and Deenoo to determine 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 classifying the beam recovery as high priority causes the RACH recovery process to immediately initiate without waiting for a beam recovery timer to expire.
However, Kang teaches wherein classifying the beam recovery as high priority 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.
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 3-4 and 13-14 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 3 and 13:
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the closest prior art, Ryu and Deenoo teach “determining that a number of RACH attempts on a first module satisfies a threshold number of RACH attempts.”
Ryu and Deenoo do not teach “measuring a first temperature associated with a first antenna module; selecting the first antenna module based on the first temperature being below a threshold temperature; and performing RACH using a beam from the first antenna module.”
Claims 4 and 14 include the above-described allowable subject matter for being dependent on claims 3 and 13.
Conclusion
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