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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b) is now withdrawn.
Regarding applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C section 103 rejection based on Lee (WO 2020/041421 A1) in view of Sahin et al (US 2021/0068079 A1), examiner has further clarified Lee (WO 2020/041421 A1).
Here, applicant submits, Lee and Sahin do not disclose or suggest “generate a set of candidate beams that includes, at each of the one or more beam levels, one or more beams for which the estimated application layer throughput satisfies and application throughput requirement”.
Here, Lee has been clarified to disclose select (see [0129], “beam management” which principally includes beam selection based on various parameters), from the set of candidate beams (see [0129] “beam management” which dynamically configures, monitors, and maintains the best beam pair links and includes beam selection as a key process), a serving beam (see [0129], see “beam management” which incudes beam selection for selecting serving beams) for which the estimated application layer throughput satisfies the application layer (see [0097], “Minimum reception requirements using the assumption of four Rx RF chains may be set for several NR operating bands. Specialized types of NR devices, such as those intended for V2X type of applications, may be expected to only use two Rx RF chains”) throughput requirement with a
fewest number of antenna elements (see [0096], “Minimum performance requirements for RF sensitivity assume that a WTRU is equipped with a minimum number of Rx antenna ports.”).
Lee does not specifically disclose however Sahin discloses identify that one or more thresholds are satisfied by at least one of: a motion state of the UE (see threshold and motion state [0028]), or (see the above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Sahin. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 12, 18-19, 23 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/041421 A1) in view of Sahin et al (US 2021/0068079 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 23 & 27; Lee discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, a method, non-transitory computer readable medium and apparatus comprising:
a memory one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory one or more memories, configured to:
identify that one or more thresholds are satisfied by at least one of:
a length of a discontinuous reception (DRX) ON duration of the UE (see DRX on duration time interval [0282]); estimate, based at least in part on the one or more thresholds being satisfied, for each beam at one or more beam levels on one or more antenna panels, an application
layer throughput (see [0037], “quality of service (QoS) requirements, such as differing throughput requirements, latency requirements, error tolerance requirements, reliability requirements, data throughput requirements, mobility requirements,”) based at least in part on a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement (see RSRP [0161], inter alia), wherein the one or more beam levels ((see [0243], “the number of beams to measure for L1 -RSRP is larger than a threshold”) are each associated with a number of antenna elements) (see minimum allowed number of antennas [0268]);
generate a set of candidate beams that includes (see supported beam group or maximum number of beams, [0146]), at each of the one or more beam
levels (see [0129] “beam management (e.g. CRI/RSRP, SSBRI/RSRP”), one or more beams (see beam identification [0129]) for which the respective estimated application layer throughput (see various applications such as VOIP , voice, data, applications identified with different throughput requirements [0037]) satisfies an application layer throughput requirement (see throughput level [0160]); and
select (see [0129], “beam management” which principally includes beam selection based on various parameters), from the set of candidate beams (see [0129] “beam management” which dynamically configures, monitors, and maintains the best beam pair links and includes beam selection as a key process), a serving beam (see [0129], see “beam management” which incudes beam selection for selecting serving beams) for which the estimated application layer throughput satisfies the application layer (see [0097], “Minimum reception requirements using the assumption of four Rx RF chains may be set for several NR operating bands. Specialized types of NR devices, such as those intended for V2X type of applications, may be expected to only use two Rx RF chains”) throughput requirement with a
fewest number of antenna elements (see [0096], “Minimum performance requirements for RF sensitivity assume that a WTRU is equipped with a minimum number of Rx antenna ports.”).
Lee does not specifically disclose however Sahin discloses identify that one or more thresholds are satisfied by at least one of: a motion state of the UE (see threshold and motion state [0028]), or (see the above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Lee with that of Sahin. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 7 & 18, Lee in view of Sahin discloses the UE of claim 1 and method of claim 12, wherein the application layer throughput requirement is a first application layer throughput requirement, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify an adjusted application layer throughput requirement based at least in part on an observed application layer throughput associated with the selected serving beam (see [0173], “a WTRU may activate a default radio performance state if the RSRP of its serving cell is lower than a threshold. Such threshold may be signaled by MAC or RRC. Conversely, the WTRU may activate a non-default radio performance state if the RSRP of its serving cell is higher than a threshold. ”); and
switch the serving beam based at least in part on the adjusted application layer throughput requirement (see [0173], “a WTRU may activate a default radio performance state if the RSRP of its serving cell is lower than a threshold. Such threshold may be signaled by MAC or RRC. Conversely, the WTRU may activate a non-default radio performance state if the RSRP of its serving cell is higher than a threshold. ”).
Regarding 8 and 19, Lee in view of Sahin discloses the UE of claim 7 & 18, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the first application layer throughput requirement based at least in part on an application layer of the UE (see throughput requirements of application, [0037] and see various application layer [0097]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-17, 20-22, 24-26, 28-30 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
