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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 12-24 and 27-30) in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 28-30 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. Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration,” which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if “the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration” is intended to refer to “a network transmit beam refinement procedure communication” recited in claim 27, or if “the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration” is intended to refer to potentially different information. Claim 28 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration” as possibly being the same or different from “a network transmit beam refinement procedure communication.” Regarding claims 29-30, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 27-31, 38, and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (US 2020/0186229, Raghavan hereinafter). Regarding claims 12 and 31, Raghavan teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (Base station (BS); Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 12; [0157]), comprising: one or more memories (The BS may be comprised of memory; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 12; [0157]); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (The BS may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 12; [0157]), configured to cause the network node to: output for transmission a first reference signal using a first network transmit beam corresponding to a first carrier (As can be seen in at least paragraph [0067], the BS is described as transmitting reference signals multiple times in different directions, which may include a signal being transmitted according to different beamforming weight sets associated with different directions of transmission. At least paragraph [0052] also teaches that base stations may communicate with a user equipment (UE) using one or more carriers. The BS may thus be interpreted as outputting for transmission a first reference signal using a first network transmit beam corresponding to a first carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0067], [0172]); and output for transmission, based on a beam metric that satisfies a beam refinement condition, a network transmit beam refinement procedure communication that indicates a network transmit beam refinement procedure is to be performed (As can be seen in at least step 1525 of Fig. 15, the BS may transmit an indication of a beam selected for transmissions from the second wireless device (e.g., a UE) based on beam measurement reports. Such a beam indication may be interpreted as a network transmit beam refinement communication that indicates a network transmit beam refinement procedure is to be performed. Such beam indication based on measurement reports may also be interpreted as being transmitted based on a beam metric that satisfies a beam refinement condition. At least paragraph [0007] also describes the methods of Raghavan as methods for beam refinement; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0007], [0172]-[0174]), wherein the beam metric is associated with the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam, the second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier (The beam measurement reports comprise measurements for multiple beams and thus may be interpreted as including measurements for the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam. Multiple portions of Raghavan (e.g. paragraphs [0052] and [0080]) also discuss performing communication between a BS and a UE using multiple carriers. The beam measurement report may thus also be interpreted as comprising measurements for beams on more than one carrier and thus at least a second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier. The beam metric may thus be interpreted as being associated with the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam, the second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0080], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claims 27 and 38, Raghavan teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (User equipment (UE); Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 11; [0157]), comprising: one or more memories (The UE may be comprised of memory; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 11; [0157]); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (The UE may be comprised of a processor coupled to the memory; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 11; [0157]), configured to cause the UE to: obtain a first reference signal using a first network transmit beam corresponding to a first carrier (As can be seen in at least paragraph [0069], the UE is described as receiving reference signals from a base station that are multiple times in different directions, which may include a signal being transmitted according to different beamforming weight sets associated with different directions of transmission. At least paragraph [0052] also teaches that base stations may communicate with a UE using one or more carriers. The UE may thus be interpreted as obtaining a first reference signal using a first network transmit beam corresponding to a first carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0067], [0172]); and obtain, based on a beam metric that satisfies a beam refinement condition, a network transmit beam refinement procedure communication that indicates a network transmit beam refinement procedure is to be performed (As can be seen in at least step 1525 of Fig. 15, the UE may receive (i.e., obtain) an indication of a beam selected for transmissions based on beam measurement reports. Such a beam indication may be interpreted as a network transmit beam refinement communication that indicates a network transmit beam refinement procedure is to be performed. Such beam indication based on measurement reports may also be interpreted as being transmitted based on a beam metric that satisfies a beam refinement condition; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0172]-[0174]), wherein the beam metric is associated with the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam, the second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier (The beam measurement reports comprise measurements for multiple beams and thus may be interpreted as including measurements for the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam. Multiple portions of Raghavan (e.g. paragraphs [0052] and [0080]) also discuss performing communication between a BS and a UE using multiple carriers. The beam measurement report may thus also be interpreted as comprising measurements for beams on more than one carrier and thus at least a second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier. The beam metric may thus be interpreted as being associated with the first network transmit beam and a second network transmit beam, the second network transmit beam corresponding to a second carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0080], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 28, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 27. Raghavan further teaches the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration indicates a plurality of candidate network transmit beams, corresponding to the second carrier, associated with a beam sweeping operation (The beam measurement procedure may include the use of a beam sweeping order (e.g., the network beam refinement procedure configuration) for the measured beams, which may be interpreted as indicating a plurality of candidate network transmit beams associated with a beam sweeping operation. Multiple portions of Raghavan (e.g. paragraphs [0052] and [0080]) also discuss performing communication between a BS and a UE using multiple carriers, and thus a plurality of candidate network transmit beams may also be interpreted as corresponding to the second carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0080], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 29, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 28. Raghavan further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to perform the beam sweeping operation (Measurement of beams transmitted in a beam-sweeping manner may be interpreted as performing the beam sweeping operation; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0080], [0172]-[0174]), wherein the one or more processors, to perform the beam sweeping operation, are configured to obtain a plurality of reference signals, wherein each reference signal of the plurality of reference signals is associated with a respective candidate network transmit beam of the plurality of candidate network transmit beams corresponding to the second carrier (The BS is described as transmitting reference signals multiple times in different directions, which may include a signal being transmitted according to different beamforming weight sets associated with different directions of transmission. Measurement of each beam may be interpreted as obtaining a plurality of reference signals, wherein each reference signal of the plurality of reference signals is associated with a respective candidate network transmit beam of the plurality of candidate network transmit beams corresponding to the second carrier; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0067], [0080], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 30, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 29. Raghavan further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to obtain a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration associated with the network transmit beam refinement procedure (The beam measurement procedure may include the use of a beam sweeping order (e.g., a network beam refinement procedure configuration) for the measured beams. The UE may thus be interpreted as obtaining a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration associated with the network transmit beam refinement procedure; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0052], [0080], [0172]-[0174]), the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration comprising configuration information associated with the beam sweeping operation (A beam order for a beam sweeping operation may be interpreted as comprising configuration information associated with the beam sweeping operation; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 40, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 38. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfies the beam refinement condition further based on a frequency condition (Devices are described as potentially operating at mmW frequency ranges, e.g., 28 GHz, 40 GHz, 60 GHz, etc., and such operational frequencies of devices performing beam refinement may be interpreted as a frequency condition; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0042], [0062]-[0064], [0078], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 41, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 38. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfies the beam refinement condition further based on a beam direction condition (The receiving device (e.g., the UE) is described as trying multiple receive directions by receiving via different antenna subarrays, which may be referred to as “listening” according to different receive beams or receive directions. The beam sweep order is also described (see at least paragraph [0095]) as being defined by the type of beam, the beam width, and the beam direction of the beams. A beam refinement condition for beam selection may be interpreted as including the beam being transmitted in a direction that is capable of being received by the UE or in a direction in which the UE is “listening.” At least paragraph [0087] also discusses the importance of direction for beamforming in a mmW network; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0069], [0087], [0095], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 42, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 38. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfies the beam refinement condition further based on a beam width condition (Beam measurements are performed on a first set of beams having a first beam-width and a second set of beams having a second beam-width that is narrower than the first beam-width. The beam sweep order is also described (see at least paragraph [0095]) as being defined by the type of beam, the beam width, and the beam direction of the beams. Beam refinement based on measurements performed on such beams may be interpreted as a beam metric satisfying a beam refinement condition based on a beam width condition; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0095], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 43, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 38. Raghavan further teaches obtaining configuration information that indicates a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam (The beam measurement procedure may include the use of a beam sweeping order for the measured beams, which may be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam. The base station is also described as performing transmission of the second beams in the beam order, which may be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration having such a beam order. The base station may also define a number of best beams to be reported, which may also be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0043], [0172]-[0174]); and transmitting a measurement report associated with the first network transmit beam (As can be seen in at least steps 1510 and 1520 of Fig. 15, the UE may transmit a measurement report associated with the first network transmit beam; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0007], [0172]-[0174]), wherein obtaining the network transmit beam refinement procedure communication comprises obtaining the network transmit beam refinement procedure communication based on the measurement report (As can be seen in at least step 1525 of Fig. 15, the BS may transmit an indication of a beam selected for transmissions from the second wireless device (e.g., a UE) based on beam measurement reports; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0007], [0172]-[0174]).
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.
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) 13, 32-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2020/0186229, Raghavan hereinafter) in view of Ashari et al. (US 2024/0276238, Ashari hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 12. However, Raghavan does not specifically disclose the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam. Ashari teaches the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam (Beam refinement is described as being performed based on an angles of departure (AoDs) changing over time. Such AoDs changing over time may be interpreted as comprising an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam; Ashari; Figs. 6-9; [0123]-[0125], [0128]-[0130], [0134]-[0136]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ashari regarding beam refinement with the teachings as in Raghavan regarding beam refinement. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by reducing beam failure rate and reducing overhead (Ashari; [0005]-[0007]). Regarding claim 32, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 31. However, Raghavan does not specifically disclose the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam. Ashari teaches the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam (Beam refinement is described as being performed based on an angles of departure (AoDs) changing over time. Such AoDs changing over time may be interpreted as comprising an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam; Ashari; Figs. 6-9; [0123]-[0125], [0128]-[0130], [0134]-[0136]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ashari regarding beam refinement with the teachings as in Raghavan regarding beam refinement. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by reducing beam failure rate and reducing overhead (Ashari; [0005]-[0007]). Regarding claim 33, Raghavan and Ashari teach the limitations of claim 32. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfies the beam refinement condition based further on a frequency condition being satisfied (Devices are described as potentially operating at mmW frequency ranges, e.g., 28 GHz, 40 GHz, 60 GHz, etc., and such operational frequencies of devices performing beam refinement may be interpreted as a frequency condition; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0042], [0062]-[0064], [0078], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 34, Raghavan and Ashari teach the limitations of claim 32. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfying the beam refinement condition is further based on a beam direction condition being satisfied (The receiving device (e.g., the UE) is described as trying multiple receive directions by receiving via different antenna subarrays, which may be referred to as “listening” according to different receive beams or receive directions. The beam sweep order is also described (see at least paragraph [0095]) as being defined by the type of beam, the beam width, and the beam direction of the beams. A beam refinement condition for beam selection may be interpreted as including the beam being transmitted in a direction that is capable of being received by the UE or in a direction in which the UE is “listening.” At least paragraph [0087] also discusses the importance of direction for beamforming in a mmW network; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0069], [0087], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 35, Raghavan and Ashari teach the limitations of claim 32. Raghavan further teaches the beam metric satisfying the beam refinement condition is further based on a beam width condition being satisfied (Beam measurements are performed on a first set of beams having a first beam-width and a second set of beams having a second beam-width that is narrower than the first beam-width. The beam sweep order is also described (see at least paragraph [0095]) as being defined by the type of beam, the beam width, and the beam direction of the beams. Beam refinement based on measurements performed on such beams may be interpreted as a beam metric satisfying a beam refinement condition based on a beam width condition; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0095], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 36, Raghavan and Ashari teach the limitations of claim 32. Raghavan further teaches transmitting configuration information indicating a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam (The beam measurement procedure may include the use of a beam sweeping order for the measured beams, which may be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam. The base station is also described as performing transmission of the second beams in the beam order, which may be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration having such a beam order. The base station may also define a number of best beams to be reported, which may also be interpreted as indicating a measurement reporting configuration associated with the first network transmit beam; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0043], [0172]-[0174]); and receiving a measurement report associated with the first network transmit beam (As can be seen in at least steps 1510 and 1520 of Fig. 15, the BS may receive a measurement report associated with the first network transmit beam; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0007], [0172]-[0174]), wherein transmitting the network transmit beam refinement procedure communication comprises transmitting the network transmit beam refinement procedure communication based on the measurement report (As can be seen in at least step 1525 of Fig. 15, the BS may transmit an indication of a beam selected for transmissions from the second wireless device (e.g., a UE) based on beam measurement reports; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0007], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 37, Raghavan and Ashari teach the limitations of claim 32. Raghavan further teaches transmitting a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration associated with the network transmit beam refinement procedure, the network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration comprising configuration information associated with a beam sweeping operation (The beam measurement procedure may include the use of a beam sweeping order for the measured beams, which may be interpreted as a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration comprising configuration information associated with a beam sweeping operation. The base station is also described as performing transmission of the second beams in the beam order, which may be interpreted as indicating a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration comprising configuration information associated with a beam sweeping operation. The base station may also define a number of best beams to be reported, which may also be interpreted as indicating a network transmit beam refinement procedure configuration comprising configuration information associated with a beam sweeping operation; Raghavan; Figs. 1 and 13-15; [0043], [0172]-[0174]). Regarding claim 39, Raghavan teaches the limitations of claim 38. However, Raghavan does not specifically disclose the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam. Ashari teaches the beam metric comprises an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam (Beam refinement is described as being performed based on an angles of departure (AoDs) changing over time. Such AoDs changing over time may be interpreted as comprising an angle divergence value equal to a difference between a first angle of departure (AoD) associated with the first network transmit beam and a second AoD associated with the second network transmit beam; Ashari; Figs. 6-9; [0123]-[0125], [0128]-[0130], [0134]-[0136]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ashari regarding beam refinement with the teachings as in Raghavan regarding beam refinement. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by reducing beam failure rate and reducing overhead (Ashari; [0005]-[0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-24 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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474