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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 20-31 have been 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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 20, 24, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu et al (US Publication 2022/0006505 A1).
Regarding to claims 1 and 20, Ryu discloses a user equipment UE 350 (fig. 3) in a wireless communication system 100 (fig. 1), comprising: a transceiver 354; and a processor 359 coupled to the transceiver and configured to: perform communication with a device UE1 using a first beam 720 (fig. 7 page 10 paragraph 0097); detect t0 a beam failure of the first beam (fig. 10 page 11 paragraph 0110); transmit t3 a request signal (SL RACH preamble) including information related to a second beam to replace the first beam (page 12 paragraph 0112); receive t4 a response signal (scrambled PSCCH) corresponding to the request signal from the device (page 12 paragraph 0113); and perform t5 communication with the device using the second beam (page 12 paragraph 0113), wherein the request signal is transmitted through a resource (SSB) associated with the second beam (page 12 paragraph 0112) among resources allocated for a discovery signal or a discovery response signal (page 11 paragraph 0104).
Regarding to claims 5 and 24, Ryu discloses detecting the beam failure based on measurement of a signal (signal strength) transmitted from the device (page 11 paragraph 0110).
Regarding to claims 6 and 25, Ryu discloses receiving, from the device, a measurement report including a measurement result of a signal transmitted from the UE, and detecting the beam failure based on the measurement report (page 11 paragraph 0109).
Regarding to claim 28, Ryu discloses a user equipment UE 350 (fig. 3) in a wireless communication system 100 (fig. 1), comprising: a transceiver 354; and a processor 359 coupled to the transceiver and configured to: perform communication with a device UE2 using a first beam 720 (fig. 7 page 10 paragraph 0097); receive t3, from a device UE2, a request signal (SL RACH preamble) including information related to a second beam to replace the first beam (page 12 paragraph 0112); transmit t4, to the device, a response signal (scrambled PSCCH) corresponding to the request signal from the device (page 12 paragraph 0113); and perform t5 communication with the device using the second beam (page 12 paragraph 0113), wherein the request signal is transmitted through a resource (SSB) associated with the second beam (page 12 paragraph 0112) among resources allocated for a discovery signal or a discovery response signal (page 11 paragraph 0104).
Regarding to claim 29, Ryu discloses transmitting, to the device, a measurement report including a measurement result of a signal transmitted from the UE, and detecting the beam failure based on the measurement report (page 11 paragraph 0109).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Tsai et al (US Publication 2022/0399927 A1).
Regarding to claims 7, 8, 26, and 27, Ryu discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 20, except for detecting the beam failure based on a decoding failure of the data transmitted from the device (claims 7 and 26) or acknowledge (ACK)/negative-ACK (NACK) feedback for data transmitted to the device (claims 8 and 27). However, Tsai discloses a system and method for UE to detect beam failure based on a decoding failure of the data transmitted from the device or acknowledge (ACK)/negative-ACK (NACK) feedback for data transmitted to the device (fig. 2 page 3 paragraph 0061). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for the detection beam failure as taught by Tsai into Ryu’s system to confirm beam failure.
Regarding to claim 30, Ryu discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 28, except for transmit, to the device, acknowledge (ACK)/negative-ACK (NACK) feedback for data transmitted to the device. However, Tsai discloses a system and method for UE for transmit, to the device, or acknowledge (ACK)/negative-ACK (NACK) feedback for data transmitted to the device (fig. 2 page 3 paragraph 0061). Thus, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for the detection beam failure as taught by Tsai into Ryu’s system to confirm beam failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 21-23, and 31 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.
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 Duc T Duong whose telephone number is (571)272-3122. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9am-6pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/DUC T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights