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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/4/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”, with respect to claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”, with respect to claims 5-9, 11, 22-26, and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5-9, 11, 22-26, and 28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”, with respect to claim 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is understood what is claimed, but that is not the issue here. It is noted that “means for performing respective beam refinement procedures…” and “means for performing measurements…” are computer-implemented as described in the specification and are specialized functions which must be implemented in a special purpose computer. The Examiner could not find within the specification sufficient algorithm(s) to implement the means for limitations and it appears that the specification merely repeats what is claimed. MPEP 2181(II)(B) recites in part “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function…The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer…An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.”…Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor…Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph…In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “bank computer”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., “access control manager”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function” and MPEP 2181(IV) recites in part “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness”. Applicant states ¶ 32-99, ¶ 149-170, figs. 8-11, figs. 4-7, and ¶ 109-148 provide structure for the means plus function limitations. A review of these portions of the specification indicate that “means for performing respective beam refinement procedures…” and “means for performing measurements…” are computed-implemented with apparently insufficient algorithm(s) for performing the claimed means plus function limitations. Thus, in view of the MPEP sections above, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 29. It would be helpful if Applicant provide excerpt(s) of the specification that show algorithm(s) for “means for performing respective beam refinement procedures…” and “means for performing measurements…”.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claim(s) claims 1, 18 and 29-30 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.
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “35 U.S.C. § 103”, with respect to claims 16-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For at least the rejection shown below for claims 1 and 16-17, claims 16-17 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “means for performing respective beam refinement procedures…” and “means for performing measurements…” of claim 29 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses that the above means for limitations are computer implemented (see e.g., ¶ 196-197 of the published specification). A review of the specification does not provide sufficient algorithm(s) to implement the above means for limitations and it appears that the specification merely repeats what is claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 16-18, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200383097 by Laghate et al. (hereinafter Laghate) (IDS filed 8/23/24) in view of US 20160330643 by Sahin et al. (hereinafter Sahin) and in further view of US 20240283523 by Katla et al. (hereinafter Katla).
Regarding claim 18, Laghate teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (¶ 136, FIG. 9 is a diagram 900 illustrating an example of a hardware implementation for an apparatus 802′; ¶ 85. a UE (e.g.,…apparatus…802′), comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 9, processor 904);
memory coupled to the at least one processor (fig. 9, shows memory 906; ¶ 137, a processor 904 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 906);
and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to (¶ 137, processor 904 is responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer-readable medium/memory 906. The software, when executed by the processor 904, causes the processing system 914 to perform the various functions described supra for any particular apparatus):
perform respective beam refinement procedures for a first set of directional beams and a second set of directional beams (¶ 149, reference to an element in the singular is not intended to mean “one and only one” unless specifically so stated, but rather “one or more.”; ¶ 96, UE 404 may select the beam (in view of ¶ 149, this would indicate select one or more beams and so there could be two selections) to be refined around. For example, the UE 404 may select the beam 412a around which to refine, which may correspond to Level 2. Therefore, the UE 404 may determine to include, in the subset 514 of beams, at least one of the beams 414a-b; ¶ 90, indication of whether a beam on which at least one reference signal is received is to be refined around, as well as an indication of the uppermost allowable beam level to be used for refinement (e.g., whether the subset of beams is to include…“child” beam(s)); ¶ 69, beam 412b may be a current serving beam; ¶ 95, UE may select a current serving beam to refine around; ¶ 91, UE may select…(2) the beam that is to be refined around. When the UE selects the type of directional beam set, the UE may determine the whether to include, in the subset of beams, beam(s) of a higher level (e.g., “child” beam(s))); ¶ 58, one or more transmit or receive beams…414a-d, which may be directional beams used for beamformed communication. Examiner correspond beams 414a-b to the first set of directional beams and 414c-d to the second set of directional beams),
the first set of directional beams corresponding to a first set of synchronization signal blocks of a serving cell and the second set of directional beams corresponding to a second set of synchronization signal blocks of the serving cell (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 66, one or more of the beams 410a-b, 412a-b, 414a-d. At least one of the beams may be a serving beam for the base station 502),
perform measurements of the first set of synchronization signal blocks and the second set of synchronization signal blocks (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein a first power metric for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second power metric for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the measurements (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR));
and transmit a message indicating channel state feedback comprising the first power metric or both the first power metric and the second power metric (¶ 83, UE 404 may be configured to report measurements associated with beams to the base station 502. Accordingly, the UE 404 may transmit, to the base station 502, a measurement report 522 when the UE 404 is configured for measurement reporting. The measurement report 522 may indicate one or more values (e.g., SNR(s), RSRP(s), etc.) measured for one or more of the beams scanned in the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein the channel state feedback comprises both the first power metric and the second power metric based at least in part on the first refinement status and the second refinement status (given non-patentable weight since this wherein clause further limits a non-chosen alternative (“or both the first power metric and the second power metric”) in the transmit limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laghate’s teachings with Laghate’s one or more different embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is improving beamformed communication by a UE (Laghate ¶ 56).
Although Laghate teaches the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE, Laghate does not explicitly disclose a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
Sahin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE (¶ 93, directional transmission…necessitates efficient beamforming and beam pairing between transmit and receive nodes...The paired beams correspond to refined beams…and obtained as a result of beamforming and beam refinement procedures at the Tx and Rx nodes; ¶ 162, Tx-Rx beams; fig. 12, shows Tx beams and Rx beams; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out; ¶ 94, nodes in the network that have already performed…beam refining procedures; ¶ 99, A node (…WTRU); ¶ 70, The UE may be a WTRU as described herein). By modifying Laghate’s teachings of the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE with Sahin’s teachings of a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE, the modification results in a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laghate’s teachings with Sahin’s above teachings. The motivation is maximizing signal power and link reliability (Sahin ¶ 93).
Although the combination teaches the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams and suggests the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (Laghate ¶ 149; ¶ 96; ¶ 90; ¶ 69; ¶ 95; ¶ 91; ¶ 58; Sahin ¶ 93; ¶ 162; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out. The phrase “when” “beam refinement procedures” “were carried out” (which is past tense) implies/suggest that beam refinement procedure completed/concluded (not in progress anymore), either successfully or failed), the combination does not explicitly disclose the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
Katla in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (¶ 159, gNB receives beam refinement feedback from the WTRU…if the BRN indicates a successful beam refinement…If at step 1025, the BRN indicates a failed beam refinement). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams with Katla’s teachings of a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful, the modification results in the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
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 combination with Katla’s above teachings. The motivation is identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency (Katla ¶ 97). Known work in one field of endeavor (Katla prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Laghate prior art) based on design incentives (identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recite similar limitations of claim 18 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first power metric comprises a first reference signal received power and the second power metric comprises a second reference signal received power (Laghate ¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) ; ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d).
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 combination with Laghate’s one or more different embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is improving beamformed communication by a UE (Laghate ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of synchronization signal blocks comprises a set of serving synchronization signal blocks and the second set of synchronization signal blocks comprises a set of neighboring synchronization signal blocks (Laghate ¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 66, one or more of the beams 410a-b, 412a-b, 414a-d. At least one of the beams may be a serving beam for the base station 502; fig. 4, shows beams 414a-b and beams 414c-d are neighbors to each other).
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 combination with Laghate’s one or more different embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is improving beamformed communication by a UE (Laghate ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 29, Laghate teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (¶ 136, FIG. 9 is a diagram 900 illustrating an example of a hardware implementation for an apparatus 802′; ¶ 85. a UE (e.g.,…apparatus…802′), comprising:
means for (fig. 9, processor 904; ¶ 137, processor 904 is responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer-readable medium/memory 906. The software, when executed by the processor 904, causes the processing system 914 to perform the various functions described supra for any particular apparatus) performing respective beam refinement procedures for a first set of directional beams and a second set of directional beams (¶ 149, reference to an element in the singular is not intended to mean “one and only one” unless specifically so stated, but rather “one or more.”; ¶ 96, UE 404 may select the beam (in view of ¶ 149, this would indicate select one or more beams and so there could be two selections) to be refined around. For example, the UE 404 may select the beam 412a around which to refine, which may correspond to Level 2. Therefore, the UE 404 may determine to include, in the subset 514 of beams, at least one of the beams 414a-b; ¶ 90, indication of whether a beam on which at least one reference signal is received is to be refined around, as well as an indication of the uppermost allowable beam level to be used for refinement (e.g., whether the subset of beams is to include…“child” beam(s)); ¶ 69, beam 412b may be a current serving beam; ¶ 95, UE may select a current serving beam to refine around; ¶ 91, UE may select…(2) the beam that is to be refined around. When the UE selects the type of directional beam set, the UE may determine the whether to include, in the subset of beams, beam(s) of a higher level (e.g., “child” beam(s))); ¶ 58, one or more transmit or receive beams…414a-d, which may be directional beams used for beamformed communication. Examiner correspond beams 414a-b to the first set of directional beams and 414c-d to the second set of directional beams),
the first set of directional beams corresponding to a first set of synchronization signal blocks of a serving cell and the second set of directional beams corresponding to a second set of synchronization signal blocks of the serving cell (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 66, one or more of the beams 410a-b, 412a-b, 414a-d. At least one of the beams may be a serving beam for the base station 502),
means for (fig. 9; ¶ 137) performing measurements of the first set of synchronization signal blocks and the second set of synchronization signal blocks (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein a first power metric for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second power metric for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the measurements (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR));
and means for (fig. 9; ¶ 137) transmitting a message indicating channel state feedback comprising the first power metric or both the first power metric and the second power metric (¶ 83, UE 404 may be configured to report measurements associated with beams to the base station 502. Accordingly, the UE 404 may transmit, to the base station 502, a measurement report 522 when the UE 404 is configured for measurement reporting. The measurement report 522 may indicate one or more values (e.g., SNR(s), RSRP(s), etc.) measured for one or more of the beams scanned in the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein the channel state feedback comprises both the first power metric and the second power metric based at least in part on the first refinement status and the second refinement status (given non-patentable weight since this wherein clause further limits a non-chosen alternative (“or both the first power metric and the second power metric”) in the transmit limitation).
Although Laghate teaches the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE, Laghate does not explicitly disclose a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
Sahin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE (¶ 93, directional transmission…necessitates efficient beamforming and beam pairing between transmit and receive nodes...The paired beams correspond to refined beams…and obtained as a result of beamforming and beam refinement procedures at the Tx and Rx nodes; ¶ 162, Tx-Rx beams; fig. 12, shows Tx beams and Rx beams; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out; ¶ 94, nodes in the network that have already performed…beam refining procedures; ¶ 99, A node (…WTRU); ¶ 70, The UE may be a WTRU as described herein). By modifying Laghate’s teachings of the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE with Sahin’s teachings of a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE, the modification results in a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laghate’s teachings with Sahin’s above teachings. The motivation is maximizing signal power and link reliability (Sahin ¶ 93).
Although the combination teaches the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams and suggests the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (Laghate ¶ 149; ¶ 96; ¶ 90; ¶ 69; ¶ 95; ¶ 91; ¶ 58; Sahin ¶ 93; ¶ 162; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out. The phrase “when” “beam refinement procedures” “were carried out” (which is past tense) implies/suggest that beam refinement procedure completed/concluded (not in progress anymore), either successfully or failed), the combination does not explicitly disclose the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
Katla in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (¶ 159, gNB receives beam refinement feedback from the WTRU…if the BRN indicates a successful beam refinement…If at step 1025, the BRN indicates a failed beam refinement). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams with Katla’s teachings of a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful, the modification results in the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
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 combination with Katla’s above teachings. The motivation is identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency (Katla ¶ 97). Known work in one field of endeavor (Katla prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Laghate prior art) based on design incentives (identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Laghate teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to (¶ 136, FIG. 9 is a diagram 900 illustrating an example of a hardware implementation for an apparatus 802′; ¶ 85. a UE (e.g.,…apparatus…802′; ¶ 137, processor 904 is responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer-readable medium/memory 906. The software, when executed by the processor 904, causes the processing system 914 to perform the various functions described supra for any particular apparatus):
perform respective beam refinement procedures for a first set of directional beams and a second set of directional beams (¶ 149, reference to an element in the singular is not intended to mean “one and only one” unless specifically so stated, but rather “one or more.”; ¶ 96, UE 404 may select the beam (in view of ¶ 149, this would indicate select one or more beams and so there could be two selections) to be refined around. For example, the UE 404 may select the beam 412a around which to refine, which may correspond to Level 2. Therefore, the UE 404 may determine to include, in the subset 514 of beams, at least one of the beams 414a-b; ¶ 90, indication of whether a beam on which at least one reference signal is received is to be refined around, as well as an indication of the uppermost allowable beam level to be used for refinement (e.g., whether the subset of beams is to include…“child” beam(s)); ¶ 69, beam 412b may be a current serving beam; ¶ 95, UE may select a current serving beam to refine around; ¶ 91, UE may select…(2) the beam that is to be refined around. When the UE selects the type of directional beam set, the UE may determine the whether to include, in the subset of beams, beam(s) of a higher level (e.g., “child” beam(s))); ¶ 58, one or more transmit or receive beams…414a-d, which may be directional beams used for beamformed communication. Examiner correspond beams 414a-b to the first set of directional beams and 414c-d to the second set of directional beams),
the first set of directional beams corresponding to a first set of synchronization signal blocks of a serving cell and the second set of directional beams corresponding to a second set of synchronization signal blocks of the serving cell (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 66, one or more of the beams 410a-b, 412a-b, 414a-d. At least one of the beams may be a serving beam for the base station 502),
perform measurements of the first set of synchronization signal blocks and the second set of synchronization signal blocks (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein a first power metric for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second power metric for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the measurements (¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams. Examples of measurements indicative of channel quality may include SNR, RSRP, reference signal receive quality (RSRQ), reference signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR));
and transmit a message indicating channel state feedback comprising the first power metric or both the first power metric and the second power metric (¶ 83, UE 404 may be configured to report measurements associated with beams to the base station 502. Accordingly, the UE 404 may transmit, to the base station 502, a measurement report 522 when the UE 404 is configured for measurement reporting. The measurement report 522 may indicate one or more values (e.g., SNR(s), RSRP(s), etc.) measured for one or more of the beams scanned in the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 81, base station 502 may transmit, to the UE 404, reference signals 518. Such reference signals 518 may be SSBs…which may be periodically transmitted by the base station 502. The UE 404 may receive the periodic reference signals on each beam of the subset 514 of beams, and the UE 404 may measure a value indicative of channel quality for each beam of the subset 514 of beams; ¶ 75, subset 514 of the set of beams…412a-b, 414a-d),
wherein the channel state feedback comprises both the first power metric and the second power metric based at least in part on the first refinement status and the second refinement status (given non-patentable weight since this wherein clause further limits a non-chosen alternative (“or both the first power metric and the second power metric”) in the transmit limitation).
Although Laghate teaches the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE, Laghate does not explicitly disclose a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
Sahin in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE (¶ 93, directional transmission…necessitates efficient beamforming and beam pairing between transmit and receive nodes...The paired beams correspond to refined beams…and obtained as a result of beamforming and beam refinement procedures at the Tx and Rx nodes; ¶ 162, Tx-Rx beams; fig. 12, shows Tx beams and Rx beams; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out; ¶ 94, nodes in the network that have already performed…beam refining procedures; ¶ 99, A node (…WTRU); ¶ 70, The UE may be a WTRU as described herein). By modifying Laghate’s teachings of the first set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), the second set of synchronization signal blocks (which as shown above are carried on beam(s)), and the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE with Sahin’s teachings of a refinement status for a set of directional beams are based at least in part on a respective beam refinement procedure at a UE, the modification results in a first refinement status for the first set of synchronization signal blocks and a second refinement status for the second set of synchronization signal blocks are based at least in part on the respective beam refinement procedures at the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laghate’s teachings with Sahin’s above teachings. The motivation is maximizing signal power and link reliability (Sahin ¶ 93).
Although the combination teaches the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams and suggests the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (Laghate ¶ 149; ¶ 96; ¶ 90; ¶ 69; ¶ 95; ¶ 91; ¶ 58; Sahin ¶ 93; ¶ 162; ¶ 99, beam refinement status corresponding to the other node(s)…The status may identify when…beam refinement procedures with the corresponding nodes were carried out. The phrase “when” “beam refinement procedures” “were carried out” (which is past tense) implies/suggest that beam refinement procedure completed/concluded (not in progress anymore), either successfully or failed), the combination does not explicitly disclose the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
Katla in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful (¶ 159, gNB receives beam refinement feedback from the WTRU…if the BRN indicates a successful beam refinement…If at step 1025, the BRN indicates a failed beam refinement). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the first refinement status and the second refinement status, the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams with Katla’s teachings of a refinement status indicate whether a beam refinement procedure is in progress, failed, timed out, or successful, the modification results in the first refinement status and the second refinement status indicate whether the respective beam refinement procedures for the first set of directional beams and the second set of directional beams are in progress, failed, timed out, or successful.
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 combination with Katla’s above teachings. The motivation is identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency (Katla ¶ 97). Known work in one field of endeavor (Katla prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Laghate prior art) based on design incentives (identifying an optimal beam pair with low latency) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 and 19-28 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights