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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the first written description issue, the applicant has cited snippets of 5 different paragraphs that are not directly sequential. The cited portions of paragraph 67 and 69 discuss monitoring but not in the context of any “detecting reference signal resource set”. Paragraphs 76, 80, and 85 reference a “detecting RS resource set” but they do not provide a description of what monitoring would comprise in a context of a “detecting RS resource set”. The applicant has not attempted to explain what the monitoring of a CORESET in a serving cell using the QCL-RS of the PDCCH in the CORESET has to do with “monitoring a detecting reference signal resource set of P detecting reference signal sets”. Regarding the second written description issue, neither the applicant’s explanation nor the cited paragraphs show how the invention determines a corresponding relationship, as claimed. As to the fifth issue, the cited paragraphs do not show where the support for the language claim amendment came from and the applicant did not otherwise provide an explanation for the 11/17/2025 claim amendment of claims 11 and 22. Regarding the prior art, the applicant’s arguments regarding Zhou not determining the claimed corresponding relationship are persuasive. This limitation was not found to be suggested by the other prior art, as it is best understood by the Examiner, however it is not indicated as allowable because this Office Action presents rejections based on lack of written description for the claim terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 15-18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
monitoring a detecting reference signal resource set of P detecting reference signal resource sets;
Claim 15 features the following limitation:
monitor a detecting reference signal resource set of P detecting reference signal resource sets;
The applicant did not disclose that a “detecting” reference signal resource set, that is monitored, is part of a set of “P” detecting reference signal resource sets. Paragraph 5-10 reference monitoring a “detecting reference signal resource set” but they do not reference that it is of multiple detecting reference signal resource sets. Paragraphs 5-10 do not provide any context describing how the “detecting reference signal resource set” is monitored or what beam failure is discovered.
Paragraph 48 states the following:
[0048] In some implementation, the UE determines a relationship between a PUCCH resource and a candidate RS resource when they are associated with a common index. In some implementations, a common index includes a CORESET pool index, detecting an RS resource set index among multiple detecting RS set of one BWP, or other index associated with a beam failure parameter. In some implementations, the index corresponds to a beam failure index. The beam failure parameter includes at least one of detecting an RS resource set, a candidate RS resource set, a mapping between candidate RS resources and PRACH resource, a search space set for beam failure, a parameter of PRACH resource used for beam failure request, an RSRP threshold, a beam failure recovery timer, a beam failure detection timer, the maximum number of instance counter, a PUCCH resource set whose parameter is received according to the new selected RS resource, a CORESET pool whose parameter is received according to the new selected RS resource, a PDSCH, and an SPS-PDSCH.
There is no description of how “detecting an RS resource set index” in paragraph 48 corresponds to the monitored “detecting reference signal resource set” of paragraphs 5-10. There is no explicit description or suggestion that the phrase “multiple detecting RS set of one BWP”, where RS is a “reference signal” corresponds to “P detecting reference signal resource sets”. The Examiner notes that the second sentence is not a complete sentence as it does not state what is doing the “detecting” and the subject matter of the second sentence does not relate to any other subject matter referenced in paragraph 48.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 1 features the following limitations:
monitoring a detecting reference signal resource set of P detecting reference signal resource sets;
reporting a beam failure index, the beam failure index determined based on the monitoring,
Claim 15 features the following limitations:
monitor a detecting reference signal resource set of P detecting reference signal resource sets;
reporting a beam failure index, the beam failure index determined based on the monitoring,
The applicant has not disclosed any relationship between monitoring a “detecting” reference signal resource set and determining a beam failure index. Paragraph 7 references monitoring a detecting RS resource set to determine a beam failure and reporting a beam failure index that can correspond to a detecting RS resource set but does not establish any relationship between the determined “beam failure” and the reported “beam failure index” in paragraph 7.
Written Description Issue #3
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
determining a corresponding relationship between the P detecting reference signal resource sets and P candidate reference signal resource sets, wherein P is an integer larger than 1, and the P detecting reference signal resource sets and the P candidate reference signal resource sets correspond to a same bandwidth part (BWP):
Claim 15 features the following limitation:
determine a corresponding relationship between the P detecting reference signal resource sets and P candidate reference signal resource sets, wherein P is an integer larger than 1, and the P detecting reference signal resource sets and the P candidate reference signal resource sets correspond to a same bandwidth part (BWP);
The applicant did not disclose a step of determining a corresponding relationship between P detecting reference signal resource sets and P candidate reference signal resource sets.
Paragraphs 75 and 76 state the following:
[0075] In another implementation, the two beam failure detecting reference signal resource sets correspond one beam failure PRACH configuration. In some implementations, there are three beam failure detecting processes. In some implementations, the first detecting RS resource set is associated with the first beam failure parameter set. In some implementations, the second detecting RS resource set is associated with the second beam failure parameter set. In some implementations, the third detecting RS resource set is the union set of the first detecting RS resource set and the second detecting RS resource set. In some implementations, when the UE detects beam failure based on the first detecting RS resource set or the second detecting RS resource set, the UE reports beam failure detection in MAC-CE. Alternatively, in some implementations, the UE reports beam failure detection and selected candidate RS resource index in MAC-CE. In some implementations, if the UE detects an RS resource based on the third detecting RS resource set, the UE transmits a PRACH using parameter corresponding to the selected RS resource index.
[0076] For example, the first detected RS resource set is {RS1, RS2} and the second detected RS resource set is {RS3,RS4}, and the third detected RS resource is RS1,RS2,RS3,RS4}. Thus, when the quality for all RS resources in the j detecting RS resource set, j=1,2,3, the UE records an instance for the detecting RS resource set j. If the UE detects beam failure based on the third detecting RS resource set, the UE transmits the PRACH using a parameter corresponding to the selected RS resource selected from a union set of the first candidate RS resource set and the second candidate RS resource set. If the UE detects beam failure based on the j detecting RS resource set,j=1 or 2, the UE reports the beam failure detection and candidate RS resource in the MAC-CE.
In paragraph 75, the applicant references a “selected candidate RS resource index” as being something reported in the MAC-CE. This would mean the “selected candidate RS resource index” is a subset of the “detecting RS resource set” that is reported because it is subject to failure. There is no suggestion in paragraph 75 of the claimed “determining a corresponding relationship”. In paragraph 76, the applicant use the term “first candidate RS resource set” to cover “the first detected resource set” and the “second candidate RS resource set” to cover “the second detected RS resource set”. Therefore, the applicant appears to have disclosed that the “detecting RS resource set” and the “candidate RS resource set” are interchangeable terms and not terms that would have a “corresponding relationship” to be determined.
Paragraph 88 states that “two candidate RS resource sets are also named two candidate RS resource sets” which is a statement that does not convey any meaning. Paragraph 88 then states that “one detecting RS resource set are thus associated with two candidate RS resource sets” which suggests there is no corresponding relationship between P detecting RS resource sets and P candidate resource sets. Paragraph 89 references transmitting PRACH corresponding to a single candidate RS resource. Paragraph 89 ends with the pointless and redundant statement that “A beam failure index of a candidate reference signal resource is the beam value index of the candidate reference signal resource set”.
Further there is no disclosure that any detecting reference signal resource set and candidate reference signal resource set correspond to the same bandwidth part, as claimed. There is no disclosure that any “P detecting RS resource sets” and “P candidate RS resource sets” that have a “corresponding relationship” correspond to a “same BWP”.
Written Description Issue #4
Claims 11 and 22 were amended on 11/17/2025 to include the following limitation:
determining, according to the selected candidate reference signal resource, a parameter associated with a set of channels, wherein the set of channels comprises one or more control resource sets (CORESETs),
The applicant did not disclose determining a parameter associated with one or more control resource sets according to a selected reference signal resource. The Examiner could not find any support for this amendment in the originally filed disclosure.
Written Description Issue #5
Claim 23 covers the following:
determining, according to the selected candidate reference signal resource, a parameter associated with a set of channels,
This limitation has literal support in paragraph 6 but the specification does not provide any description of what the “parameter” is how the parameter is determined. According to section 2161.01(I) if the applicant claims a function without disclosing how the function is performed or the result of the function is received, the claims may lack written description support. In this case, the Examiner cannot find any description of what the parameter comprises or how it is determined.
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 1-9, 11, 15-18, and 22-24 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.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: it is not clear what the relationship is between the single beam failure index of claims 1 and 15 and the multiple “respective” beam failure indexes referenced in claims 3 and 17. The applicant is defining the plurality of entries in terms of these “respective” beam failure indexes which are not otherwise defined by the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the applicant does not define a step of creating or otherwise determining the beam failure information that is included in the MAC-CE.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 only establishes a single beam failure index. The “corresponding beam failure index of a corresponding service cell index” implies there are multiple beam failure indexes that each correspond to a service cell index. It is not clear what the relationship is between the single beam failure index established in claim 1 and the multiple beam failure indexes referred to in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the beam failure index of the serving cell index of the entry" in in the final two alternative limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites that each entry is “associated with… a beam failure index” but this does not establish a specific beam failure index of the serving cell index, as claimed. Claim 1 establishes only a single beam failure index.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The final wherein clause of claim 11 attempt to further define the step of determining a parameter associated with a set of channels as a quasi-co-located reference signal. A signal is not method of determining.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the beam failure index of the serving cell index of the entry" in in the final two alternative limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites that each entry is “associated… with a beam failure index” but this does not establish a specific beam failure index of the serving cell index, as claimed. Claim 15 establishes only a single beam failure index.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights