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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims are patentable because Takeda does not teach “receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling comprising first information related to a beam failure recovery (BFR).” However, as discussed in the claim rejections below, the combination of Takeda and Zhou teach that limitation. In particular, Zhou teaches the aspect of the limitation that one of the PUCCH resources is for BFR (Zhou, paragraph [0397]-[0399], trigger a first SR in response to BFR procedure and a second SR based on a configuration associated with a logical channel; paragraph [0400], cancel the first request and keep the second SR), while both references disclose that one of the PUCCH resources is for SR (Takeda, paragraph [0052], UCI may include a scheduling request (SR)) (Zhou, paragraph [0397]-[0399], trigger a first SR in response to BFR procedure and a second SR based on a configuration associated with a logical channel).
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because Takeda does not show a collision between the PUCCH resource for the BFR for the SCell and the PUCCH for SR. However, as discussed in the claim rejections below, the combination of Takeda and Zhou teach that limitation. In particular, Zhou teaches the aspect of the limitation that one of the PUCCH resources is for BFR, while both references disclose that one of the PUCCH resources is for SR. Further, as discussed in the claim rejections, the Examiner looks to the primary reference, Takeda, for the disclosure of a collision (Takeda, paragraph [0075], when short PUCCH and long PUCCH collide, short PUCCH may be transmitted and the long PUCCH may be dropped; paragraph [0130], when different PUCCHs overlap, a PUCCH to be dropped may be selected based on the configured priority).
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because Takeda teaches a collision between PUCCHs for HARQ-ACK, which is different from a collision between a PUCCH resource for BFR and a PUCCH resource for SR. However, as discussed in the claim rejections below, the combination of Takeda and Zhou teach that limitation. In particular, Zhou teaches the aspect of the limitation that one of the PUCCH resources is for BFR, while both references disclose that one of the PUCCH resources is for SR.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are patentable because Zhou teaches that a triggering condition for deciding whether to cancel or retain the two types of transmissions is DCI reception rather than collision. However, as discussed in the claim rejections, the Examiner looks to the primary reference, Takeda, for the disclosure of a collision.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 2020/0288458) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0306875).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses a terminal apparatus comprising a processor (Takeda, Fig. 17; paragraph [0239], user terminal includes a processor) configured to:
receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling comprising first information related to a beam information (Takeda, paragraph [0050], configuring a PUCCH used for specific UCI type; paragraph [0052], UCI may include beam related information such as Beam Index; paragraph [0059], configuration information indicating PUCCH resources is configured to the UE by RRC signaling; paragraph [0138], timing of the PUCCH can be configured by RRC or indicated by DCI) for a Secondary Cell (SCell) (Takeda, paragraph [0066], PCell may be associated with a certain PUCCH, e.g. long PUCCH, and SCell may be associated with another PUCCH, e.g. short PUCCH); and
when a 1st PUCCH resource and a 2nd PUCCH resource overlap, transmit on the first PUCCH resource and refrain from transmitting on the second PUCCH resource (Takeda, paragraph [0075], when short PUCCH and long PUCCH collide, short PUCCH may be transmitted and the long PUCCH may be dropped; paragraph [0130], when different PUCCHs overlap, a PUCCH to be dropped may be selected based on the configured priority),
wherein the first PUCCH resource is configured for transmitting the beam information (Takeda, paragraph [0052], UCI may include beam related information) for the SCell (Secondary Cell) (Takeda, paragraph [0066], PCell may be associated with a certain PUCCH, e.g. long PUCCH, and SCell may be associated with another PUCCH, e.g. short PUCCH), and
the second PUCCH resource is configured for transmitting a scheduling request (SR) (Scheduling Request) (Takeda, paragraph [0052], UCI may include a scheduling request (SR)).
Takeda does not explicitly disclose that a beam failure recovery is transmitted on a PUCCH resource.
Zhou discloses receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling comprising first information related to a beam failure recovery (BFR) (Zhou, Fig. 17; paragraph [0338], FIG. 17 shows example of the BFR procedure of a cell ( e.g., PCell or SCell). A wireless device may receive one or more RRC messages comprising BFR parameters 1701) for a Secondary Cell (SCell) (Zhou, paragraph [0397], configuration parameters of a SCell); and
when a 1st PUCCH resource and a 2nd PUCCH resource, transmit on the first PUCCH resource and refrain from transmitting on the second PUCCH resource (Zhou, paragraph [0397]-[0399], trigger a first SR in response to BFR procedure and a second SR based on a configuration associated with a logical channel; paragraph [0400], cancel the first request and keep the second SR),
wherein the first PUCCH resource is configured for transmitting a beam failure recovery (BFR) (Zhou, paragraph [0397]-[0399], trigger a first SR in response to BFR procedure and a second SR based on a configuration associated with a logical channel) for a SCell (Secondary Cell) (Zhou, paragraph [0397], configuration parameters of a SCell), and
the second PUCCH resource is configured for transmitting a (Scheduling Request) SR (Zhou, paragraph [0397]-[0399], trigger a first SR in response to BFR procedure and a second SR based on a configuration associated with a logical channel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a 1st PUCCH resource to be used for transmitting a beam failure recovery, in the invention of Takeda. The motivation to combine the references would have been to perform a beam failure recovery procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Takeda discloses the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the first PUCCH resource is shared by component carriers (Takeda, Fig. 5, PCell and SCell use same PUCCH resource for UCI )(Zhou, paragraph [0203], SCell may form together with a PCell, SCell may or may not have an uplink carrier; paragraph [0325], BFR-PUCCH for transmitting beam failure recovery request).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a 1st PUCCH resource to be used for transmitting a beam failure recovery, in the invention of Takeda. The motivation to combine the references would have been to perform a beam failure recovery procedure.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 1-2, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al. (US 20210058998) discloses In this collision case, there are SR and BFR-PUCCH to be transmitted in the same OFDM symbol and there might be two different options. The first option is to transmit the SR PUCCH and the BFR-PUCCH simultaneously. For example, the PUCCH can have two bit fields, the first bit field bit-field 1 is used for BFR and the second bit field bit-field 2 is used for SR.
Zhang et al. (US 20190394757) discloses PUCCHs corresponding to multiple downlink resources are mapped to the same one logical PUCCH resource; and if a conflict occurs, the conflict may be avoided by means of base station resource scheduling, for example, a time division is performed for the multiple conflicting PUCCH resources
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LOUIS LINDENBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Un Cho can be reached at (571) 272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN L LINDENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413