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 .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on May 11, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 3 and 6 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 3, 5,6 and 8 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6 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.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argue Khosh and Lee also fail to teach " wherein the number of symbols is a value obtained by adding an additional offset to a first offset value preconfigured by a network device or subtracting the additional offset from the first offset value, wherein the number of symbols is a value larger than the first offset value or a value smaller than the first offset value;" (Remarks, Pages 10-12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argue Khosh and Lee also fail to teach limitation (iv) because they fail to teach performing beam failure recovery procedure in a cell having a carrier frequency higher than 52.6 GHz (Remarks, Page) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwak.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recited “a processor configured to update a QCL based on a new beam,” in line 6. It is suggested that applicant replace “a new beam” with “the new beam”.
Claim 5 recited “wherein a number of candidate beams which are targets of search in the beam searching” in lines 2-3. It is suggested that applicant replace “the beam searching” with “a beam searching”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 20230300645 A1, hereinafter Kwak) in view of TSAI et al. (US 20220295589 A1, hereinafter TSAI) and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20200296697 A1, hereinafter Hwang).
Claim 1: Kwak teaches a terminal (Fig. 1A, element 102a/102b/102c/102d), comprising:
a transmitting unit (Fig.1B, elements 120, 118, [0036], The processor 118 may be coupled to the transceiver 120, which may be coupled to the transmit/receive element 122) configured to transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) in a beam failure recovery procedure (Fig. 6, [0081], disclose the WTRU may transmit a beam recovery request message via a physical random access channel PRACH to the serving cell);
and a receiving unit (Fig.1B, elements 120, 118, [0036], The processor 118 may be coupled to the transceiver 120, which may be coupled to the transmit/receive element 122) configured to start monitoring a PDCCH after transmission of the PRACH (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0082], disclose the network (e.g., a gNB) may transmit a recovery response to the WTRU after receiving the PRACH. And the WTRU monitoring PDCCH corresponding to the provided a CORESET and/or the search space set, the beam recovery procedure may be successful if the WTRU successfully receives the response, [0326], “Upon transmission of the BFR PRACH the WTRU will start monitoring the PDCCH/CORESET associated with the new beam for confirmation”);
wherein the beam failure recovery procedure is performed in a cell having a carrier frequency higher than 52.6 GHz ([0202], disclose the second resource set may be one or more uplink resources in a second frequency range (e.g., above 52.6 GHz), [0093], disclose the BFR method for higher frequencies (e.g., above 52.6 GHz) with increasing the number of monitoring beams and/or candidate beams to provide better reliability).
However, Kwak does not explicitly teach start monitoring a PDCCH starting from a slot that is a number of slots after transmission of the PRACH, wherein the number of slots is a value obtained by adding an additional offset to a first offset value preconfigured by a network device, wherein the number of slots is larger than the first offset value.
TSAI and Hwang, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches start monitoring a PDCCH starting from a slot that is a number of slots after transmission of the PRACH, wherein the number of slots is a value obtained by adding an additional offset (Hwang, [0202], disclose transmitting a PRACH and monitoring a PDCCH to receive an RAR within an RAR window, [0227], disclose an additional offset may be applied together with the restriction information according to a PDCCH monitoring occasion) to a first offset value preconfigured by a network device (TSAI , [0141], disclose If there a beam failure recovery BFR is transmitted on a dedicated PUCCH, then UE may monitor PDCCH at slot n+4 in a search space configured by CORESET, associated with link for corresponding beam recovery, wherein n+4 is reading as first offset value preconfigured by a network device. [0123], TABLE 4, disclose UE start to monitor PDCCH at configured slot n+ w for each link i, wherein n +w is reading as first offset value preconfigured by a network device), wherein the number of slots is larger than the first offset value (Hwang, [0227], an additional offset
may be applied together with the restriction information according to a PDCCH
monitoring occasion, the restriction information may be represented as the index of a symbol in which the PDCCH monitoring occasion starts in a slot ).
Kwak and TSAI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kwak with the features of using configurable slot to monitor PDCCH as taught by TSAI, for the benefit of allowing UE to support multiple contention-free PRACH transmission, via configurable start slot for beam failure recovery for each corresponding link (see paragraph [0123- 0125]).
Kwak and Hwang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kwak with the features of adding additional offset to monitor PDCCH as taught by Hwang, for the benefit of using the same offset configuration with different additional offset for all PDCCH monitoring occasions (see paragraph [0226-0228]).
Claim 6 is directed to the same method as in claim 1, is performed by base station, and is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and Kwak further teaches a base station apparatus (Fig. 1A, element 114a, 114b, [0023], “The communications systems 100 may also include a base station 114a and/or a base station 114b”).
Claim 5: Kwak teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein a number of candidate beams which are targets of search in the beam searching in the beam failure recovery procedure is larger than a second predetermined ([0078], “In an example of a BFR mechanism, a WTRU may detect beam failure(s) when all RSs of the set q0 becomes lower than a threshold”, Fig. 6, [0129], “ a number of failed BFD-RSs is larger than a threshold but less than a number of configured BFD-RSs, the WTRU may process a second procedure (e.g., partial beam-BFR). The threshold may be based on a predefined value, an RRC configured value by a gNB and/or a reported value by the WTRU”), or wherein the number of beams which are target of monitoring for detecting a trigger of the beam failure recovery procedure is larger than a third predetermined value (alternative).
Claims 3,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Kwak et al. (US 20230300645 A1, hereinafter Kwak), and in view of KHOSHNEVISAN et al. (US 20230156845 A1, hereinafter KHOSHNEVISAN), and further in view Jung et al. (US 20240236723 A1, hereinafter Jung).
Claim 3: Kwak teaches a terminal (Fig. 1A, element 102a/102b/102c/102d), comprising:
a transmitter (Fig.1B, elements 120, 118, [0036]) configured to report a new beam detected by beam searching to a base station apparatus in a beam failure recovery procedure (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0095], a beam reporting may be interchangeably referred to as a beam indication, new candidate beam reporting, and/or new candidate beam indication for beam failure recovery, [0081-0084], disclose the flow of new beam searching in BFR procedure, [0089-0090], disclose a WTRU may support a BFR MAC CE to report BFR and/or selected beams to the network after finding a new beam );
a receiver ((Fig.1B, elements 120, 118, [0036]) configured to receive a beam failure recovery response after the new beam is reported (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0082], disclose the network may transmit a recovery response to the WTRU after receiving the PRACH);
and a processor (Fig. 1B, element 118, [0036]),
wherein the beam failure recovery procedure is performed in a cell having a carrier frequency higher than 52.6 GHz ([0202], disclose the second resource set may be one or more uplink resources in a second frequency range (e.g., above 52.6 GHz), [0093], disclose the BFR method for higher frequencies (e.g., above 52.6 GHz) with increasing the number of monitoring beams and/or candidate beams to provide better reliability.).
However, Kwak does not explicitly teaches to update a QCL based on a new beam, starting from a symbol that is a number of symbols after reception of the beam failure recovery response,
wherein the number of symbols is a value obtained by adding an additional offset to a first offset value preconfigured by a network device or subtracting the additional offset from the first offset value, wherein the number of symbols is a value larger than the first offset value or a value smaller than the first offset value,
KHOSHNEVISAN and Jung, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches to update a QCL based on a new beam, starting from a symbol that is a number of symbols after reception of the beam failure recovery response, wherein the number of symbols is a value obtained by adding an additional offset (KHOSHNEVISAN, [0129], disclose the updated QCL relationship may correspond to the QCL configuration of the new candidate beam, the QCL assumptions for CORESET 0 may be updated after 28 symbols after the last symbol carrying PDCCH, [0157], disclose all CORESET beams on the failed may be reset to the new candidate beam after 28 symbols from the end of PDCCH. wherein QCL is update after 28 symbols after the last symbol of PDCCH, 28 is reading as additional offset) to a first offset value preconfigured by a network device (Jung, Fig. 21, Fig. 22, [0171], disclose A start symbol of the PDCCH monitoring occasion of the slot x is given as Monitoring-symbols-PDCCH-within-slot. A length in symbols of the PDCCH monitoring occasion may be given in CORESET in association with the search space, wherein x + a length in symbols is reading as a first offset value), or subtracting the additional offset from the first offset value (alternative), wherein the number of symbols is a value larger than the first offset value (Jung disclose configurable x + a length in symbols to indicate the position of the last symbol of PDCCH, KHOSHNEVISAN disclose updating QCL after 28 symbols after the last symbol of PDCCH, thus updating QCL after 28 + x + a length ) or a value smaller than the first offset value (alternative).
Kwak and KHOSHNEVISAN are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kwak with the features of updating QCL after receiving BFR response, as taught by KHOSHNEVISAN, for the benefit of allowing UE to update QCL correspond to the QCL configuration of the new candidate beam (para [0129-0130], [0142], [0185-0186]).
Kwak and Jung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kwak with the features of using configurable first offset for monitoring the PDCCH as taught by Jung, for calculating the last symbol of PDCCH according to parameters monitoringSymbolsWithinSlot and a length of the PDCCH monitoring occasion is well known in the field.
Claim 8: Kwak teaches the terminal according to claim 3, wherein the number of candidates beams which are targets of the search in the beam searching in the beam failure recovery procedure is larger than a predetermined value (Fig. 2, [0083], disclose a WTRU may be provided a beamFailureInstanceMaxCount for the BFR procedure from the network, the WTRU may count the number of beam failures by using a counter, the WTRU may report the beam failure(s) If the counter is equal to the threshold or larger than the threshold), or wherein the number of beams which are target of monitoring for detecting a trigger of the beam failure recovery procedure is larger than a predetermined value (alternative).
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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on 5712723980. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights