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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 24, 2025 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, Claims 13-16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 17, 22, 24 and 29 are amended. Claims 33-36 are added.
Claims 1-12, 17-25 and 28-36 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because new ground of rejection relies on the references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments
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 1-2, 7, 9-10, 17-20, 22, 24-25, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) and in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada).
For claim 1, Venugopal teaches a user equipment (UE) ([FIG. 9] and [Para. 0128], The device 905 may be an example of a UE) comprising: at least one memory ([FIG. 9] memory); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ([FIG. 9], processor), the at least one processor operable to: receive, from a network node, one or more downlink messages via a downlink communication beam ([Para. 0175], the UE may establish a connection with a base station via a downlink beam for transmissions from the base station to the UE. [FIG. 15] and [Para. 0178], the UE may monitor a second set of reference signals transmitted by the base station via one or more beams associated with the uplink beams. [Para. 0090] Base station transmits periodic reference signal for each set of reference signals using downlink beams); perform multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message via two or more paths to the network node ([FIG. 15] and [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. [Para. 0125], The UCI component may transmit the beam failure indication in a PUCCH transmission), the BFR message associated with a beam failure event associated with the downlink communication beam ([FIG. 15] and [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam).
Although teaching beamforming between the base station and UE, and reporting beam failure from the UE to the base station, Venugopal does not explicitly disclose perform multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message via two or more paths to the network node.
Kim is directed to providing electronic device for performing wireless communication, and operation method thereof. More specifically, Kim teaches perform multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message via two or more paths to the network node ([Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths, indicating RLF information is transmitted via a plurality of communication paths. [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212. [Para. 57], device 200 may include a transmission node. Device 210 may include a base station. [Examiner’s Note: Figure 2B shows that duplicated packets are transmitted from device 101 to device 210 directly in path and indirectly via device 200]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, so that duplicated packets are transmitted via a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs, as taught by Kim. The modification would have reduced packet loss and provided smooth wireless communication (Kim [Para. 12]).
Although teaching multiple transmissions of beam failure indication via two or more paths, Venugopal and Kim do not explicitly disclose the BFR message including an event identifier (ID) associated with a time of the beam failure event.
Awada is directed to providing enhanced beam management for high speed networks. More specifically, Awada teaches the BFR message including an event identifier (ID) associated with a time of the beam failure event ([Para. 0087], the at least second one of the plurality of relay nodes receives beam management assistance information from the first one of the plurality of relay nodes upon an occurrence of beam failure at the first one of the plurality of relay nodes. The at least second one of the plurality of relay nodes transmits the beam management assistance information to the serving network node. [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, and Kim, , so that the BFR message includes timestamp indicating the time of occurrence of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claim 2, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the BFR message further indicates one or more parameters associated with the beam failure event (Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0092], (4) The identification (ID) of the serving network node), the one or more parameters including one or more of a beam identifier associated with the downlink communication beam (Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0089], (1) A set X of serving resource indices (e.g. SSB/CSI-RS) for which the beam failure was detected [Examiner’s Note: Indices of SSB/CSI-RS are beam identifiers of the downlink beam]), a failure type associated with the beam failure event, or an indication of an interfering beam associated with the beam failure event.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal and Kim, so that the BFR message includes Indices of SSB/CSI-RS of the downlink beam, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claim 7, Venugopal, Kim and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor (Venugopal [FIG. 9] and [Para. 0128], The device 905 may be an example of a UE. Processor 940) is further operable to perform the multiple transmissions of the BFR message via: one or more direct communication paths from the UE to the network node of the two or more paths (Venugopal [Para. 0175], the UE may establish a connection with a base station via a downlink beam for transmissions from the base station to the UE and an uplink beam for transmissions from the UE to the base station. Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Kim [Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths. Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212); and one or more relay devices that are to relay the BFR message to the network node via another path of the two or more paths (Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212. Kim [Para. 57], device 200 may include a base station or transmission node. Device 210 may include a base station. [Examiner’s Note: Figure 2B shows that device 200 is the relay node that relays the duplicated packets from device 101 to device 210]), the one or more relay devices including one or more of a relay network node or a relay UE (Kim [Para. 57], device 200 may include a base station or transmission node).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, and Awada, so that duplicated packets are transmitted via a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs, as taught by Kim. The modification would have reduced packet loss and provided smooth wireless communication (Kim [Para. 12]).
For claims 9 and 24 are directed to method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1 and 17. Therefore, claims 9 and 24 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1 and 17.
For claims 10, 18 and 25 are directed to an apparatus and method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore, claims 10, 18 and 25 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 2.
For claim 17, Venugopal teaches a network node ([FIG. 1] and [Para. 0054], base stations 105) comprising: at least one memory ([Para. 0031], The apparatus may include memory); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ([Para. 0031], The apparatus may include a processor, memory in electronic communication with the processor and instructions stored in the memory. The instructions may be executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to establish, at a base station), the at least one processor operable to: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), one or more downlink messages via a downlink communication beam ([Para. 0175], the UE may establish a connection with a base station via a downlink beam for transmissions from the base station to the UE. [FIG. 15] and [Para. 0178], the UE may monitor a second set of reference signals transmitted by the base station via one or more beams associated with the uplink beams. [Para. 0090] Base station transmits periodic reference signal for each set of reference signals using downlink beams); and receive, from the UE via at least one path of two or more paths to the network node, at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message transmitted by the UE via the two or more paths ([FIG. 15] and [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. [Para. 0125], The UCI component may transmit the beam failure indication in a PUCCH transmission), the BRF message associated with a beam failure event associated with the downlink communication beam ([FIG. 15] and [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam).
Although teaching beamforming between the base station and UE, and reporting beam failure from the UE to the base station, Venugopal does not explicitly disclose and receive, from the UE via at least one path of two or more paths to the network node, at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message transmitted by the UE via the two or more paths.
Kim is directed to providing electronic device for performing wireless communication, and operation method thereof. More specifically, Kim teaches and receive, from the UE via at least one path of two or more paths to the network node ([Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths. [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212. [Para. 57], device 200 may include a transmission node. Device 210 may include a base station), at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a beam failure report (BFR) message transmitted by the UE via the two or more paths ([Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths, indicating RLF information is transmitted via a plurality of communication paths. [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212. [Para. 57], device 200 may include a transmission node. Device 210 may include a base station. [Examiner’s Note: Figure 2B shows that duplicated packets are transmitted from device 101 to device 210 directly in path and indirectly via device 200]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, so that duplicated packets are transmitted via a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs, as taught by Kim. The modification would have reduced packet loss and provided smooth wireless communication (Kim [Para. 12]).
Although teaching multiple transmissions of beam failure indication via two or more paths, Venugopal and Kim do not explicitly disclose the BFR message including an event identifier (ID) associated with a time of the beam failure event.
Awada is directed to providing enhanced beam management for high speed networks. More specifically, Awada teaches the BFR message including an event identifier (ID) associated with a time of the beam failure event ([Para. 0087], the at least second one of the plurality of relay nodes receives beam management assistance information from the first one of the plurality of relay nodes upon an occurrence of beam failure at the first one of the plurality of relay nodes. The at least second one of the plurality of relay nodes transmits the beam management assistance information to the serving network node. [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network node of Venugopal and Kim, so that the BFR message includes timestamp indicating the time of occurrence of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claim 19, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the network node of claim 17. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to transmit a response to the BFR message to the UE or to a relay device (Venugopal [Para. 0181], At 1535, the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam), and wherein the response indicates at least one operation to be performed by the UE associated with the beam failure event (Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam).
For claim 20, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the network node of claim 19. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to identify, associated with transmitting the response or with performance of the at least one operation by the UE (Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam), that the event ID is available for reuse in one or more other BFR messages (Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected. Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. [Examiner’s Note: After beam switch, this beam failure and recovery is complete, and thus the event ID of timestamp is available for reuse with another beam failure since it would not cause confusion]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network node of Venugopal and Kim, so that the beam failure report message includes the timestamp as event ID of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claim 22, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the network node of claim 17. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive the BFR message via one or more of: one or more direct communication paths from the UE to the network node of the two or more paths (Venugopal [Para. 0175], the UE may establish a connection with a base station via a downlink beam for transmissions from the base station to the UE and an uplink beam for transmissions from the UE to the base station. Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Kim [Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths. Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212); or one or more relay devices that are to relay the BFR message to the network node via another path of the two or more paths, the one or more relay devices including one or more of a relay network node or a relay UE.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network node of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that duplicated packets are transmitted via a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs, as taught by Kim. The modification would have reduced packet loss and provided smooth wireless communication (Kim [Para. 12]).
For claim 29 is directed to apparatus claims and it does not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 29 is also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 22.
For claim 31, Venugopal, Kim and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the two or more paths include a first path and a second path (Kim [Para. 165], operating an electronic device may include determining that a duplicated packet is transmitted through a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs in at least one communication path among a plurality of communication paths. Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202 and the second communication path 212), the first path comprising an uplink between the UE and the network node (Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the first communication path 202. Kim [Para. 57], Device 210 may include a base station), the second path comprising a sidelink between the UE and another UE (Kim [Para. 59] and [FIG. 2B], the electronic device 101 may transmit the same packet through the second communication path 212. Kim [Para. 57], device 200 may include a base station or transmission node [Examiner’s Note: Figure 2B shows that device 200 is the relay node that relays the duplicated packets from device 101 to device 210]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, and Awada, so that duplicated packets are transmitted via a plurality of communication paths when an RLF occurs, as taught by Kim. The modification would have reduced packet loss and provided smooth wireless communication (Kim [Para. 12]).
Claims 3-5, 11-12 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) and in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada), and further in view of Wang et al. (US20230199614A1, hereinafter Wang).
For claim 3, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive a response to the BFR message from the network node or from a relay device that is associated with a path of the two or more paths (Venugopal [Para. 0181], At 1535, the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam), and wherein the response indicates at least one operation to be performed by the UE associated with the beam failure event (Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam).
Although teaching receiving a response to the BRF message from the network node, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive a response to the BFR message from the network node or from a relay device that is associated with a path of the two or more paths.
Wang is directed to providing methods and apparatus of sidelink relay based data transmission with multiple paths. More specifically, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive a response to the BFR message from the network node or from a relay device that is associated with a path of the two or more paths ([Para. 0033], Multiple paths based data transmission may improve the transmission reliability. [Para. 0039], when the source UE (e.g, remote UE) experiences radio link failure at direct path, the data transmission on the failed path is suspended and the remote UE reports the failure status to the gNB via indirect path [Examiner’s Note: The multiple transmissions of data include link failure information]. [Para. 0054] and [FIG. 8A], Downlink data sourced from gNB 802 is delivered to remote UE 801 and to relay UE 803. [Para. 0055], relay UE 803 just delivers the data received to remote UE 801 over the PC5 interface [Examiner’s Note: Two paths for downlink transmission from the network node to the UE]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that multiple transmissions of a message through two paths from bast station are performed, as taught by Wang. The modification would have allowed the system to improve the transmission reliability if duplicated data packets from the source node can reach the destination node (Wang, [Para. 0033]).
For claim 4, Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Wang teach the UE of claim 3. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to identify, associated with receiving the response (Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam), that the event ID is available for reuse in one or more other BFR messages (Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected. Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. [Examiner’s Note: After beam switch, this beam failure and recovery is complete, and thus the event ID of timestamp is available for reuse with another beam failure since it would not cause confusion]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Wang, so that the beam failure report message includes the timestamp as event ID of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claim 5, Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Wang teach the UE of claim 3. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to: perform the at least one operation (Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam); and identify, associated with the performance of the at least one operation (Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam), that the event ID is available for reuse in one or more other BFR messages (Venugopal [Para. 0180], the UE may transmit a beam failure indication to the base station, via the uplink beam, that indicates the beam failure of the downlink beam. Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected. Venugopal [Para. 0181], the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam. Venugopal [Para. 0182], the UE may switch beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Wang, so that the beam failure report message includes the timestamp as event ID of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
For claims 11-12 are directed to method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 3-4. Therefore, claims 11-12 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 3-4.
For claim 32, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a response to the BFR message from the network node (Venugopal [FIG. 9] and [Para. 0128], The device 905 may be an example of a UE. Processor 940. Venugopal [Para. 0181], At 1535, the UE may receive, responsive to the beam failure indication, a beam switch command from the base station that indicates that the beamforming parameters associated with the downlink beam are to be switched to correspond to beamforming parameters of the uplink beam).
Although teaching receiving a response to the BRF message from the network node, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a response to the BFR message from the network node.
Wang is directed to providing methods and apparatus of sidelink relay based data transmission with multiple paths. More specifically, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further operable to receive at least one transmission of multiple transmissions of a response to the BFR message from the network node ([Para. 0033], Multiple paths based data transmission may improve the transmission reliability. [Para. 0039], when the source UE (e.g, remote UE) experiences radio link failure at direct path, the data transmission on the failed path is suspended and the remote UE reports the failure status to the gNB via indirect path [Examiner’s Note: The multiple transmissions of data include link failure information]. [Para. 0054] and [FIG. 8A], Downlink data sourced from gNB 802 is delivered to remote UE 801 and to relay UE 803. [Para. 0055], relay UE 803 just delivers the data received to remote UE 801 over the PC5 interface [Examiner’s Note: Two paths for downlink transmission from the network node to the UE]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that multiple transmissions of a message through two paths from bast station are performed, as taught by Wang. The modification would have allowed the system to improve the transmission reliability if duplicated data packets from the source node can reach the destination node (Wang, [Para. 0033]).
Claims 6, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada), and further in view of Yi (US20230262816A1, hereinafter Yi).
For claim 6, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. Although teaching beam failure recovery between the base station and UE, and reporting beam failure from the UE to the base station with timestamp as event identifier, the references do not explicitly disclose wherein the BFR message further includes an indication of a priority level associated with the beam failure event.
Yi is directed to providing method and apparatus for performing beam failure recovery procedure in wireless communication system. More specifically, Yi teaches wherein the BFR message further includes an indication of a priority level associated with the beam failure event ([Para. 0269], cells should be configured with cell priority and a BFR MAC CE should include beam failure recovery information in descending order of cell priority. [Para. 0272], If a beam failure is detected on a cell, the UE triggers a beam failure recovery (BFR). The BFR is triggered each time a beam failure is detected on a cell. [Para. 0273], UE generates a BFR MAC CE including information of Cell ID of beam failure detected cells and beam failure recovery information for each of beam failure detected cells).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that the BFR message includes indication of priority level associated with the beam failure event, as taught by Yi. The modification would have allowed the beam failure in an important cell to be recovered quickly (Yi, [Para. 0011 and 0268]).
For claims 21 and 28 are directed to an apparatus and method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 6. Therefore, claims 21 and 28 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 6.
Claims 8, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada), and further in view of Zheng et al (CN109347524A, hereinafter Zheng).
For claim 8, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. The references further teach wherein the event ID includes a counter value that is associated with the time of the beam failure event (Awada [Para. 0088], the beam management assistance information may contain at least one of the following information: Awada [Para. 0091], (3) The timestamp at which beam failure was detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal and Kim, so that the BFR message includes timestamp indicating the time of occurrence of the beam failure, as taught by Awada. The modification would have allowed the system to provide beam management in high speed and/or synchronous mobility scenario (Awada, [Para. 0058]).
Although teaching that timestamp is included in BFR as an event ID, the references do not explicitly disclose wherein the event ID includes a counter value that is associated with the time of the beam failure event.
Zheng is directed to providing synchronous beam selection device in ad-hoc network and directional antenna ad-hoc network. More specifically, Zheng teaches wherein the event ID includes a counter value that is associated with the time of the beam failure event ([Page 2. Step (2)], The node sends a signaling frame .... The signaling frame includes ... a timestamp field. The value of the timestamp field is the local time counter value of the local node).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that the local time counter value of the local node is used for timestamp, as taught by Zheng. The modification would have allowed wireless devices to select intra-synchronous beams without external synchronization (Zheng [Page 1. First paragraph under Summary of the invention]).
For claims 23 and 30 are directed to an apparatus and method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 8. Therefore, claims 23 and 30 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 8.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada), and further in view of Jia et al. (US20230353224A1, hereinafter Jia).
For claim 33, Venugopal, Kim, and Awada teach the UE of claim 1. Although teaching beam failure recovery between the base station and UE, and reporting beam failure in multiple transmissions from the UE to the base station with timestamp as event identifier, the references do not explicitly disclose wherein the BFR message further indicates one or more of a failure type associated with the beam failure event or an interfering beam associated with the beam failure event.
Jia is directed to providing method and apparatus for generating and reporting beam failure information. More specifically, Jia teaches the BFR message further indicates one or more of a failure type associated with the beam failure event or an interfering beam associated with the beam failure event ([Para. 0173], R bit and AC field in the beam failure recovery MAC CE are used to indicate a type in which beam failure is detected. [Para. 0174], R bit and AC field of the Rel-16 BFR MAC CE may be used to indicate a type of a BFD).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that the BRF message indicates the type of beam failure, as taught by Jia. The modification would have avoided avoid wasting resources (Jia [Para. 0036]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada) and Jia et al. (US20230353224A1, hereinafter Jia), and further in view of Haustein et al. (US20230189382A1, hereinafter Haustein).
For claim 34, Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Jia teach the UE of claim 33. The references further teach wherein the BFR message includes a bit having a value indicating that the failure type is one of a self-interference (SI) failure type or a cross-link interference (CLI) failure type (Jia [Para. 0173], R bit and AC field in the beam failure recovery MAC CE are used to indicate a type in which beam failure is detected. Jia [Para. 0174], R bit and AC field of the Rel-16 BFR MAC CE may be used to indicate a type of a BFD).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, and Awada, so that the BRF message indicates the type of beam failure, as taught by Jia. The modification would have avoided avoid wasting resources (Jia [Para. 0036]).
Although teaching BFR message indicates type of beam failure, Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Jia do not explicitly disclose wherein the BFR message includes a bit having a value indicating that the failure type is one of a self-interference (SI) failure type or a cross-link interference (CLI) failure type.
Haustein is directed to providing devices for measuring and/or reporting in a wireless communication network. More specifically, Haustein teaches wherein the BFR message includes a bit having a value indicating that the failure type is one of a self-interference (SI) failure type or a cross-link interference (CLI) failure type ([Para. 0324], embodiments provide for solutions that will track and measure the appropriate parameters to determine the root cause of beam failure. [Para. 0699], The UE in accordance with embodiments may report the interference measurement results and the associated type of interference, wherein the type of interference may include at least one of the following: [Para. 0702], CLI of the UEs from the other BS. [Para. 0703], CLI of UEs from own BS. [Para. 0704], Self-interference (SI)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless device of Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Jia, so that the measurement report includes the type of interference, as taught by Haustein. The modification would have allowed the wireless network to determine root causes that degrade communication, thereby, obtained a high reliability of the wireless communication (Haustein [Para. 0075]).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US20200228183A1, hereinafter Venugopal) in view of Kim et al. (WO2024106808A1, hereinafter Kim), and Awada et al (US20220408275A1, hereinafter Awada), and further in view of Li et al. (US20250343591A1, hereinafter Li) and Xu et al. (WO2021248397A1, hereinafter Xu).
For claim 35, Venugopal, Kim and Awada teach the method of claim 24. Although teaching beam failure recovery between the base station and UE, and reporting beam failure in multiple transmissions from the UE to the base station with timestamp as event identifier, the references do not explicitly disclose wherein the beam failure event is associated with interference from a second UE.
Li is directed to providing method, device and computer readable medium for communications. More specifically, Li teaches wherein the beam failure event is associated with interference from a second UE ([Para. 0080] Considering the BF event may be caused by cross-link interference (CLI), the BFR request or BF report transmitted by the first terminal device may carry additional indication information. The additional indication information may indicate that the BF event is caused by the CLI, which may be also referred to as a CLI-caused BF event).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Venugopal, Kim and Awada, so that the BFR request indicates that beam failure event is caused by the cross-link interference, as taught by Li. The modification would have allowed the BFR procedure may be performed purposefully in case of the Beam Failure (BF) being caused by CLI mainly (Li [Para. 0037]).
Although teaching BFR message indicating CLI, Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Li do not explicitly disclose and further comprising transmitting, in accordance with receiving the BFR message, an indication of reconfiguration of one or more resources associated with the second UE.
Xu is directed to providing cross-link interference measurement over multiple beams. More specifically, Xu teaches and further comprising transmitting, in accordance with receiving the BFR message ([Para. 0110] and [FIG. 2], the victim UE 215 may notify a serving base station 205 (e.g., 205-b) of potential interference), an indication of reconfiguration of one or more resources associated with the second UE ([Para. 0111] and [FIG. 2], the victim UE 215 may notify a serving base station 205 (e.g., 205-b) of potential interference. The serving base station 205 may then configure resources for measuring one or more metrics of the CLI 240 and transmit a message to the victim UE 215-b indicating the resources. The victim UE 215 may then perform a measurement of one or more metrics of the CLI 240. The one or more metrics may include a reference signal receive power (RSRP). Such reference signals may include sounding reference signals (SRSs). The aggressor UE 215 may transmit a first set of sounding reference signals (SRSs) to enable a victim UE 215 to measure an RSRP on the SRSs for determining the strength of CLI 240 [Examiner’s Note: The aggressor UE is the second UE. That the aggressor UE transmits SRS indicates that the serving base station configures SRS with aggressor UE]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Li, so that receiving notification from the victim UE, the serving base station configures SRS with the aggressor UE, as taught by Xu. The modification would have allowed the base station to use the reported CLI for multiple receive beams to improve communication quality (Xu [Para. 0121]).
For claim 36, Venugopal, Kim, Awada, Li and Xu teach the method of claim 35. The references further teach wherein the interference includes cross-link interference (CLI) associated with the second UE (Li [Para. 0080] Considering the BF event may be caused by cross-link interference (CLI), the BFR request or BF report transmitted by the first terminal device may carry additional indication information. The additional indication information may indicate that the BF event is caused by the CLI, which may be also referred to as a CLI-caused BF event).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Xu, so that the BFR request indicates that beam failure event is caused by the cross-link interference, as taught by Li. The modification would have allowed the BFR procedure may be performed purposefully in case of the Beam Failure (BF) being caused by CLI mainly (Li [Para. 0037]).
The references further teach and wherein the one or more resources associated with the second UE include sounding reference signal (SRS) resources associated with the second UE (Xu [Para. 0110] and [FIG. 2], The serving base station 205 may then configure resources for measuring one or more metrics of the CLI 240 and transmit a message to the victim UE 215-b indicating the resources. The victim UE 215 may then perform a measurement of one or more metrics of the CLI 240. The one or more metrics may include a reference signal receive power (RSRP). Such reference signals may include sounding reference signals (SRSs). The aggressor UE 215 may transmit a first set of sounding reference signals (SRSs) to enable a victim UE 215 to measure an RSRP on the SRSs for determining the strength of CLI 240 [Examiner’s Note: The aggressor UE is the second UE. That the aggressor UE transmits SRS indicates that the serving base station configures SRS with aggressor UE]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Venugopal, Kim, Awada and Li, so that the serving base station configures SRS with the aggressor UE, as taught by Xu. The modification would have allowed the base station to use the reported CLI for multiple receive beams to improve communication quality (Xu [Para. 0121]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHU LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-5186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, REBECCA E SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417