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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 13-16, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Koskela et al. (2023/0164607), hereinafter Koskela in view of Xue et al. (WO 2020048438), hereinafter Xue.
Re. Claims 1 and 27, Koskela teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: at least one transceiver (Fig. 6a), one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to (¶0003 - an apparatus that may include at least one processor and at least one memory comprising computer program code. The at least one memory and computer program code may be configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to determine that at least one reporting configuration needs to be activated): receive, via the at least one transceiver, a configuration for reporting beam management (BM) related information (¶0005 - receiving, from the network, at least one activation of beam management reporting configuration or at least one configuration for beam management reporting); and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a BM report in accordance with the configuration, the BM report includes capability information indicating a BM related capability of the apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 ¶0005 – performing beam management reporting according to the activated at least one beam management reporting configuration, & ¶0024 - Beam acquisition, measurements and reporting refers to procedures for providing a gNB with knowledge about feasible DL and UL beams for the UE. Examiner interprets the above cited figures and ¶0024 as a non-exhaustive list to show that the reference adequately discloses that the information being sent in the report is capability information for a BM related capability of the apparatus itself).
However, Koskela does not expressly teach where the BM related capability of the apparatus indicates a maximum number of sounding reference signal (SRS) ports supported by the apparatus.
Yet, Xue explicitly teaches where the BM related capability of the apparatus indicates a maximum number of sounding reference signal (SRS) ports supported by the apparatus (Pg. 3, Line 16 - the radio frequency capability includes at least one of the following: uplink beam management, supported maximum number of sounding reference signals SRS, SRS transmit antenna switching, or each carrier. Pg. 17, Line 5- the first radio frequency parameter reported by the terminal indicates that the terminal supports a maximum of 4 SRSs, and the network device may only be configured to the terminal with 2 SRSs, indicating that the terminal supports a maximum number of SRSs of 2 when sending signals using the first antenna capability. Examiner regards the argument differentiating the signal and port and includes both the original excerpt from the advisory action alongside this newly presented citation to illustrate that Xue discloses both the SRS signal and the maximum number of antenna set to send said signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xue to the teaching of Koskela. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data in the capability message as Xue provides a capability message that indicates a maximum number of SRS ports (Pg. 17, Line 5, Xue). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 14, Koskela teaches apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: at least one transceiver (Fig. 6a); one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (¶0003 - an apparatus that may include at least one processor and at least one memory comprising computer program code. The at least one memory and computer program code may be configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to determine that at least one reporting configuration needs to be activated): transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a configuration for reporting beam management (BM) related information (¶0003 - provide, to a network, an indication to activate the at least one reporting configuration); and receive, via the at least one transceiver, a BM report in accordance with the configuration, wherein the BM report includes capability information indicating a BM related capability of the apparatus (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, ¶0008 - signal the determined at least one beam management reporting configuration to the at least one user equipment, & ¶0024 - Beam acquisition, measurements and reporting refers to procedures for providing a gNB with knowledge about feasible DL and UL beams for the UE. Examiner interprets the above cited figures and ¶0024 as a non-exhaustive list to show that the reference adequately discloses that the information being received in the report is capability information for a BM related capability of the apparatus that sent the information).
However, Koskela does not expressly teach where the BM related capability of the apparatus indicates a maximum number of sounding reference signal (SRS) ports supported by the apparatus.
Yet, Xue explicitly teaches where the BM related capability of the apparatus indicates a maximum number of sounding reference signal (SRS) ports supported by the apparatus (Pg. 3, Line 16 - the radio frequency capability includes at least one of the following: uplink beam management, supported maximum number of sounding reference signals SRS, SRS transmit antenna switching, or each carrier. Pg. 17, Line 5- the first radio frequency parameter reported by the terminal indicates that the terminal supports a maximum of 4 SRSs, and the network device may only be configured to the terminal with 2 SRSs, indicating that the terminal supports a maximum number of SRSs of 2 when sending signals using the first antenna capability. Examiner regards the argument differentiating the signal and port and includes both the original excerpt from the advisory action alongside this newly presented citation to illustrate that Xue discloses both the SRS signal and the maximum number of antenna set to send said signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xue to the teaching of Koskela. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data in the capability message as Xue provides a capability message that indicates a maximum number of SRS ports (Pg. 17, Line 5, Xue). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 2 and 15, Koskela and Xue teach Claims 1 and 14.
Koskela further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicates at least one report quantity for indicating the BM related capability of the apparatus (¶0038 - the activation conditions that are evaluated may be based on the configured reporting quantity e.g. SSB-RSRP or CSI-RS-RSRP).
Re. Claims 3 and 16, Koskela and Xue teach Claims 2 and 15.
Koskela further teaches wherein the at least one report quantity indicates a number of transmission configuration indicator (TCI) supported by the apparatus (¶0043 - when reporting configurations are activated based on trigger conditions (such as cell/signal quality), the UE may further consider additional condition, which of the settings are activated based on serving cell conditions. For example, the serving cell conditions may include one of: active TCI state for PDCCH/PDSCH, active TCI state for PDCCH/PDSCH for the lowest/highest control resource set (CORESET) ID, and/or the QCL source RS (CSI-RS/SSB). Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Re. Claims 5 and 18, Koskela and Xue teach claims 1 and 14.
However, Koskela does not expressly teach wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a number of supported uplink transmission layers supported by the apparatus.
Yet, Xue explicitly teaches wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a number of supported uplink transmission layers supported by the apparatus (Pg. 3 Line 8 - the antenna capability parameters include any of the following: the number of antenna ports, the maximum number of layers, the maximum number of radio frequency links, or the maximum number of antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xue to the teaching of Koskela. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data in the capability message as Xue provides a number of uplink transmission layers supported by the apparatus (Xue, Pg. 3 Line 8). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 13 and 26, Koskela and Xue teach Claims 1 and 14.
Koskela further teaches further comprising wherein the apparatus is configured as a user equipment (UE) (¶0094 - apparatus 20 may include or represent a UE).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Hakola et al. (WO 2022254088 A1), hereinafter Hakola.
Re. Claims 4 and 17, Koskela and Xue teach claims 2 and 15.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the at least one report quantity comprises a capability set index.
Yet, Hakola explicitly teaches wherein the at least one report quantity comprises a capability set index (Abstract - The equipment facilitates a dynamic association between reference signals (RSs) configured for beam management measurements and reporting for downlink (DL) and/or uplink (UL) beam selection, and semi- statically configured capability indices of a capability set of at least one functionality).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Hakola to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by improving the storage of the capability message in the capability set as Hakola provides a report that contains a capability set (Hakola, Abstract). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Matsumura et al (WO 2021220856 A1), hereinafter Matsumura 1.
Re. Claims 6 and 19, Koskela and Xue teach claims 1 and 14.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM report also includes an indication of one or more time-domain BM reporting behaviors associated with the BM related capability of the apparatus.
Yet, Matsumura 1 explicitly teaches wherein the BM report also includes an indication of one or more time-domain BM reporting behaviors associated with the BM related capability of the apparatus (Pg. 24 Line 17 - The wireless frame may be composed of one or more periods (frames) in the time domain. Each of the one or more periods (frames) constituting the wireless frame may be referred to as a subframe. Further, the subframe may be composed of one or more slots in the time domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Matsumura 1 to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be as Matsumura 1 provides an indication of one or more time domain reporting behaviors associated with the BM capability (Matsumura 1, Pg. 24 Line 17). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 7 and 20, Koskela, Xue, and Matsumura teach claims 6 and 19.
Additionally, Koskela further teaches wherein the one or more time-domain reporting behaviors comprise at least one of: periodic reporting, semi-persistent reporting, or aperiodic reporting (¶0037 - a UE may be configured with periodic UL grant to use MAC CE based reporting).
Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Jang et al. (WO 2021107575 A1), hereinafter Jang.
Re. Claims 8 and 21, Koskela and Xue teach claims 1 and 14.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a capability of the apparatus to support updating beam failure detection (BFD) reference signal (RS) indications via at least one of medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) OR downlink control information (DCI) signaling
Yet, Jang explicitly teaches wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a capability of the apparatus to support updating beam failure detection (BFD) reference signal (RS) indications (Pg. 22 Line 31 - In order to calculate the virtual PDCCH reception BLER of the UE, a reference signal (RS) set for BFD is required, which will be described later as a BFD RS set) via at least one of medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) OR downlink control information (DCI) signaling (Pg. 33 Line 38 - the terminal may perform activation of the new BFD RS from the base station through downlink MAC-CE reception. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jang to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be as Jang provides beam failure detection indications transmitted in MAC-CE (Jang, Pg. 22 Line 31). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 9 and 22, Koskela, Xue, and Jang teach claims 8 and 21.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM report indicates a number of candidate BFD RSs, from a pool of candidate BDF RSs that may be down selected via the MAC CE or the DCI signaling.
Yet, Jang explicitly teaches wherein the BM report indicates a number of candidate BFD RSs, from a pool of candidate BFD RSs (Pg. 22 Line 34 - The BFD RS set may be configured through higher layer signaling of the base station), that may be down selected via the MAC CE OR the DCI signaling (Pg. 33 Line 38 - the terminal may perform activation of the new BFD RS from the base station through downlink MAC-CE reception. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jang to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data in the capability message as Jang provides a number of reference signals pertaining to beam failure detection from a pool with indication transmitted in MAC-CE in the BM report (Jang, Pg. 22 Line 31). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Matsumura et al. (CN 112673581 A), hereinafter Matsumura 2.
Re. Claims 10 and 23, Koskela and Xue teach Claims 1 and 14.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a capability of the apparatus to support beam resetting for multiple channels or reference signals (RSs) applicable to a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) before a beam failure recovery (BFR) is triggered.
Yet, Matsumura 2 explicitly teaches wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a capability of the apparatus to support beam resetting for multiple channels OR reference signals (RSs) applicable to a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) before a beam failure recovery (BFR) is triggered (Fig. 5A, & Pg. 13 Line 10 - the UE may monitor the PDCCH based on at least one of the beam/link/TCI/spatial relationship and the like before PBF detection (effective from before PBF detection), and receive at least one of information on resetting of the TCI state and an activation signal of the TCI state on the PDCCH. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Matsumura 2 to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be in order to improve overall efficiency of the transmission as Matsumura 2 provides a capability to support beam resetting for multiple channels before BFR is triggered (Matsumura 2, Pg. 13 Line 10). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Turtinen et al. (CN 115668794 A), hereinafter Turtinen.
Re. Claims 11 and 24, Koskela and Xue teach Claims 1 and 14.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM report indicates a number of component carriers (CCs) of a band configured with a secondary cell (SCell) BFR if a special cell (SpCell) BFR is configured in the band.
Yet, Turtinen explicitly teaches wherein the BM report indicates a number of component carriers (CCs) of a band configured with a secondary cell (SCell) BFR if a special cell (SpCell) BFR is configured in the band (Pg. 5 Line 10 - In the CA mode, multiple Component Carriers (CCs) operated by the gNB 120 may be aggregated into a wider frequency band on the UE110 to achieve higher data rates. Fig. 1 shows a primary CC (PCC) 11 serving a primary cell (PCell) and a secondary CC (SCC) 12 serving a secondary cell (SCell). Pg. 5 Line 34 - The PCell of the MCG and the PSCell of the SCG may also be referred to as special cells (spcells)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Turtinen to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data in the BM report as Turtinen provides a number of CCs configured with SCell if a SpCell is configured (Turtinen, Pg. 13 Line 10). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Xue and Liu et al. (2025/0105977), hereinafter Liu.
Re. Claims 12 and 25, Koskela and Xue teach claims 1 and 14.
However, the combination of Koskela and Xue does not expressly teach wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a number of component carrier (CC) lists supported by the apparatus, wherein all CCs in a CC list share a same transmission configuration indicator (TCI) update or activation.
Yet, Liu expressly teaches wherein the BM related capability of the apparatus comprises a number of component carrier (CC) lists supported by the apparatus (¶0008 - receiving a configuration of one or more CC lists), wherein all CCs in a CC list share a same transmission configuration indicator (TCI) update or activation (¶0008 - determining, for the CC list, application time of the common TCI state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Liu to the teaching of Koskela and Xue. The motivation for such would be in order to improve efficiency by including more preliminary data as Liu provides a list of CCs wherein all CCs share a TCI state (Liu, ¶0008). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/16/2026 with respect to claims 1-27 have been considered but are not persuasive. In the advisory action, filed 02/05/2026, Examiner provided citations from Xue to supplement Koskela, which Examiner argued disclosed “the BM related capability of the apparatus indicates a maximum number of sounding reference signal (SRS) ports supported by the apparatus. Applicant respectfully disagreed and pointed to the difference between a SRS signal and port. In response, Examiner has provided a new citation from Xue Pg. 17, Line 5 (the first radio frequency parameter reported by the terminal indicates that the terminal supports a maximum of 4 SRSs, and the network device may only be configured to the terminal with 2 SRSs, indicating that the terminal supports a maximum number of SRSs of 2 when sending signals using the first antenna capability) in order to illustrate that Xue discloses both the SRS signal and the maximum number of antenna set to send said signal. As such, Examiner upholds that in light of the presented disclosure of Koskela in view of Xue, the independent claims 1, 14, and 27, as well as all claims depending therein are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Subsequently, the arguments put forth by Applicant regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. While the new grounds does depend on Koskela, the inclusion of Xue cures the deficiencies of the disclosure and are obvious to combine in view of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Since the previous 102 rejections have been now amended to 103 rejections, the argument put forth regarding Koskela’s deficiencies is rendered moot as they have been cured by Xue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuk et al. (2023/0246697) - ¶0025-0037.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475