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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela et al. (US 2021/0242922) (Hereafter, Koskela ‘922) in view of Koskela et al. (US 2021/0320710) (Hereafter, Koskela ‘710), and further in view of Koskela et al. (US 2022/0039077) (Hereafter, Koskela ‘077), and further in view of Deenoo et al. (US 2020/0274657).
Regarding claim 1, Koskela ‘922 discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Koskela ‘922, Fig. 1; paragraph [0061], processor, transceivers, transmitter, receiver) and configured to cause the UE to:
determine a beam failure detection resource combination for detecting beam failure of multiple transmissions of Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), wherein the beam failure detection resource combination comprises a plurality of beam failure detection resources, wherein the beam failure resource combination is determined implicitly from resources with a same TCI state as one of multiple activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, these reference signals correspond to downlink beams used to transmit PDCCH; paragraph [0071], when the UE 110 is not explicitly configured with a BFD-RS list, the UE determines the BFD-RS resources implicitly based on the configured/indicated/activated PDCCH-TCI states per CORESET, i.e., the downlink reference signals (CSI-RS, SS/PBCH block) that are spatially quasi-co-located (QCL'd) with PDCCH beams used for transmitting PDCCH; UE may determine the RS for radio link monitoring implicitly based on the TCI states for PDCCH; paragraphs [0078], UE configured with a set of BFD-RS determined based on activated PDCCH-TCI states, each CORESET may be associated with one or more PDCCH TCI states);
receive signals from at least one of the beam failure detection resources (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070]-[0071], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, QCL’d with beams used for transmitting PDCCH);
determine a link quality based on measurements of the signals received from the at least one of the beam failure detection resources (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070]-[0071], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, QCL’d with beams used for transmitting PDCCH; paragraph [0105], beam failure detection based on measurements of reference signals), and a PDCCH with multiple transmissions using one or more Transmission Configuration Indication (TCI) states (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0078], UE configured with a set of BFD-RS determined based on activated PDCCH-TCI states, each CORESET may be associated with one or more PDCCH TCI states); and
generate a beam failure evaluation report based on the link quality (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0088], UE sends an indication of the beam failure toward the base station).
Koskela ‘922 does not explicitly disclose that the multiple PDCCH transmissions are on the different beams using different transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states, and that the link quality is determined based on a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions.
Koskela ‘710 discloses determine a link quality based a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH (Koskela ‘710, paragraph [0009], radio link condition of each BFD-RS determined by estimating hypothetical PDCCH BLER using a configured threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine link quality based on measurements and a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH, in the invention of Koskela ‘922. The motivation to combine the references would have been to determine the link quality in accordance with well known methods in the art.
The combination of Koskela ‘922 and Koskela ‘710 does not explicitly disclose that the multiple PDCCH transmissions are on the different beams using different transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states, and that a link quality threshold is based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions.
Koskela ‘077 discloses detecting beam failure of multiple transmissions of Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) transmitted over different beams using different transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states (Koskela, ‘077, BFD-RSs correspond by spatial QCL to beams used for PDCCH; paragraph [0057], determine BFD-RS resources based on activated PDCCH TCI states, i.e. the RSs are spatially QCL’d with PDCCH beams).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to detect beam failure of multiple transmissions of PDCCH transmitted over different beams using different TCI states, in the invention of Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710. The motivation to combine the references would have been to efficiently determine beam failure for multiple PDCCH beams.
Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Koskela ‘077 does not explicitly disclose a link quality threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions.
Deenoo discloses determine a link quality based on a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions (Deenoo, paragraph [0134], evaluate hypothetical PDCCH quality derived from RLM-RS resource group and corresponding BLER thresholds; paragraph [0169], configuration of hypothetical PDCCH includes an aggregation level; paragraph [0212], WTRU monitors PDCCH candidates in a higher aggregation level; paragraph [0215], WTRU aggregation level of the hypothetical PDCCH may be switched to a higher level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to derive a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions based on a group of reference signals having an aggregation level, as in Deenoo, in the invention of Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Koskela ‘077. The motivation to combine the references would have been to evaluate the quality of a PDCCH with multiple beams.
Regarding claim 2, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a configuration signaling, and determine the beam failure detection resource combination based on the configuration signaling (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070]-[0071], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, QCL’d with beams used for transmitting PDCCH).
Regarding claim 3, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beam failure detection resources comprise Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) resources, and/or Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) resources (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070]-[0071], downlink reference signals are CSI-RS or SS/PBCH Block).
Regarding claim 5, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein each one of the beam failure detection resources corresponds to a newest TCI state for each CORESET that is used for the multiple transmissions of PDCCH (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0133], UE determines the set of q0 based on last TCI states for PDCCH monitoring that UE has decoded).
Regarding claim 6, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the beam failure detection resources correspond to last used TCI states for the multiple transmissions of PDCCH (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0133], UE determines the set of q0 based on last TCI states for PDCCH monitoring that UE has decoded).
Regarding claim 7, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to determine a hypothetical PDCCH transmission parameter list comprising a number of PDCCH transmissions for a DCI and/or a TCI state switching pattern of the PDCCH transmissions (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0074], monitoring pattern for monitoring a CORESET).
Regarding claim 8, Koskela ‘922 discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive further receives a signaling indicating a hypothetical PDCCH transmission scheme for the multiple transmissions of PDCCH (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0074], monitoring pattern for monitoring a CORESET).
Regarding claim 10, Koskela ‘922 discloses a base station, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Koskela ‘922, Fig. 1; paragraph [0061], processor, transceivers, transmitter, receiver) and configured to cause the base station to:
transmit signals over a beam failure detection resource combination for detecting beam failure of multiple transmissions of Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), wherein the beam failure detection resource combination comprises a plurality of beam failure detection resources and the beam failure detection resources and the beam failure detection resource combination is determined implicitly from resources with a same TCI state as one of multiple activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, these reference signals correspond to downlink beams used to transmit PDCCH; paragraph [0071], when the UE 110 is not explicitly configured with a BFD-RS list, the UE determines the BFD-RS resources implicitly based on the configured/indicated/activated PDCCH-TCI states per CORESET, i.e., the downlink reference signals (CSI-RS, SS/PBCH block) that are spatially quasi-co-located (QCL'd) with PDCCH beams used for transmitting PDCCH; UE may determine the RS for radio link monitoring implicitly based on the TCI states for PDCCH; paragraphs [0078], UE configured with a set of BFD-RS determined based on activated PDCCH-TCI states, each CORESET may be associated with one or more PDCCH TCI states);
receive a beam failure report that is generated based on a link quality and a threshold, wherein the link quality is determined based on measurements of signals received from the plurality of beam failure detection resources (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0070]-[0071], network configures the UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link for beam failure detection, QCL’d with beams used for transmitting PDCCH; paragraphs [0088], UE sends an indication of the beam failure toward the base station; paragraph [0105], beam failure detection based on measurements of reference signals), and a PDCCH with multiple transmissions (Koskela ‘922, paragraphs [0078], UE configured with a set of BFD-RS determined based on activated PDCCH-TCI states, each CORESET may be associated with one or more PDCCH TCI states).
Koskela ‘922 does not explicitly disclose that the link quality is determined based on a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions.
Koskela ‘710 discloses determine a link quality based a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH (Koskela ‘710, paragraph [0009], radio link condition of each BFD-RS determined by estimating hypothetical PDCCH BLER using a configured threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine link quality based on measurements and a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH, in the invention of Koskela ‘922. The motivation to combine the references would have been to determine the link quality in accordance with well known methods in the art.
Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710 does not explicitly disclose that the multiple PDCCH transmissions are on the different beams using different transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states.
Koskela ‘077 discloses detecting beam failure of multiple transmissions of Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) transmitted over different beams using different transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states (Koskela, ‘077, BFD-RSs correspond by spatial QCL to beams used for PDCCH; paragraph [0057], determine BFD-RS resources based on activated PDCCH TCI states, i.e. the RSs are spatially QCL’d with PDCCH beams).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to detect beam failure of multiple transmissions of PDCCH transmitted over different beams using different TCI states, in the invention of Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710. The motivation to combine the references would have been to efficiently determine beam failure for multiple PDCCH beams.
Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Koskela ‘077 does not explicitly disclose a link quality threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions.
Deenoo discloses determine a link quality based on a threshold based on a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions (Deenoo, paragraph [0134], evaluate hypothetical PDCCH quality derived from RLM-RS resource group and corresponding BLER thresholds; paragraph [0169], configuration of hypothetical PDCCH includes an aggregation level; paragraph [0212], WTRU monitors PDCCH candidates in a higher aggregation level; paragraph [0215], WTRU aggregation level of the hypothetical PDCCH may be switched to a higher level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to derive a hypothetical PDCCH with multiple transmissions based on a group of reference signals having an aggregation level, as in Deenoo, in the invention of Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Koskela ‘077. The motivation to combine the references would have been to evaluate the quality of a PDCCH with multiple beams.
Claim 11 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 12 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected under substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela et al. (US 2021/0242922) in view of Koskela et al. (US 2021/0320710), and further in view of Deenoo et al. (US 2020/0274657), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0053314).
Regarding claim 9, Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Deenoo discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710, and further in view of Deenoo does not explicitly disclose, but Zhou discloses that the UE is caused to transmit a capability report indicating whether beam failure detection with hypothesis of multiple PDCCH transmissions is supported (Zhou, paragraph [0061], wireless device may send its capabilities information; paragraph [0141], wireless device indicates its capability regarding beam selection, determining that RSRP of multiple beams is lower than a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit a capability report, in the invention of Koskela ‘922 in view of Koskela ‘710. The motivation to combine the references would have been for a network to know whether a wireless device supports beam failure detection with multiple PDCCH transmissions in order for the base station to configure such beam failure detection.
Claim 14 is interpreted and rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koskela (US 20220039077) discloses a network device may configure a terminal device with a set of reference signals (RSs) for monitoring the quality of the link. This set of RSs may be referred as Q0 or beam failure detection RS (BFD-RS). Typically, BFD-RS(s) are configured to be spatially QCL'd (short for ‘QCL-TypeD’, see below) with PDCCH demodulation reference signal (DMRS). That is, these RSs correspond to downlink beams used for PDCCH. Downlink beams are identified by RS, either synchronization signal (SS)/physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block index (time location index) or channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) resource (set) index.
Koskela (US 20220110166) discloses that a Network configures UE with a set of reference signals for monitoring the quality of the link. This set may be referred to as q0 or Beam Failure Detection Reference Signal (BFD-RS). Typically, BFD-RS(s) are configured to be spatially Quasi Co-Located (QCL'd) with PDCCH Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS). I.e. the BFD-RSs correspond to downlink beams used to transmit PDCCH. Downlink Beams are identified by reference signal, either SS/PBCH block (time location) index or CSI-RS resource index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LOUIS LINDENBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Un Cho can be reached at (571) 272-7919. 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.
/ALAN L LINDENBAUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights