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 .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on December 18, 2025 and wherein claims 1-6 and 11-16 being currently amended, claims 7-10 and 17-20 being cancelled, and claims 21-28 being new added.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-6, 11-16 and 21-28 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Double patenting rejection, Applicant acknowledge “the double patenting rejection and respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until other substantive examination is complete and agreement upon allowable claims is reached. Upon indication from the Examiner that the claims are allowable, a terminal disclaimer will be submitted if necessary”. Thus, the rejection under Double Patenting is maintained.
Applicant argue “there is no disclosure in Yi of in response to determination of the second link failure, determine whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on at least one of a first parameter or a second parameter ... wherein the second parameter is whether the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure.” (Remarks, Pages 11-13) has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Amendment Claim 1 recite “the processor is further configured to, in response to determination of the second link failure, determine whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on at least one of a first parameter or a second parameter”, which is considered to be Markush claim, See MPEP 803.02 and MPEP 2173.05. Therefore, examiner can select any one of alternatives for prior art rejection.
Yi discloses wireless device initial a RACH (random access channel) based BFR for second TRP, wherein second TRP BFR is serving as the second link recovery. See Fig. 26, paragraph [0415], “The wireless device may initiate a RACH based BFR if the second TRP is not in good quality as well when there are two TRPs associated with a PCell” and paragraph [0417], “The wireless device may perform a RACH-based BFR procedure (e.g., expect to receive a beam recovery response from a gNB via RACH procedure) based on the set of dedicated PRACH resources for the second TRP (TRP2) configured by the first TRP (TRP1)”.
Yi further discloses RACH based BFR procedure is configured from BS individually for each TRP, including the second TRP. See Fig. 26, paragraph [0423], “the base station may configure an independent BFR procedure for a TRP on a cell based on a RACH procedure by configuring a set of RACH resources for each TRP…the base station may configure a BFR procedure based on a SR-based BFR for a TRP in a cell. A base station may configure a mechanism for a BFR in a multi-TRP scenario (e.g., configure among options such as a BFR for all TRPs, a BFR only on a primary TRP, an independent BFR via a SR-based recovery, an independent BFR via a RACH-based recovery, etc.)”.
Yi further discloses BS configure BFR procedure when more than one beam failure
procedure at a given time. See Fig. 26, paragraph [0419], “When the wireless device may encounter more than one beam failure procedure at a given time (e.g., the wireless device is served by more than two TRPs, and two TRPs may fail in parallel), the wireless device may select a BFR procedure for a TRP with a lower TRP index (e.g., a lower CORESET group index, a lower TCI group index)”, wherein CORESET group index is configured from BS via DCI.
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, thus, Yi discloses determining whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on whether the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure.
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not
persuasive. Further, the new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the applicant amendment. The Office has thoroughly reviewed Applicants' arguments but firmly believes that the cited references to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 of Application No. 18/204391. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same subject matter and recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, 12, see the table below.
Application No. 18/204391
Application No. 18/197109
Claim 1. A user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising:
a processor and a receiver, configured to receive a first target signal set;
determine a first target link failure according to a measurement performed on the first target signal set; and
the processor and a transceiver, configured to in response to determining the first target link failure, start a first target link recovery procedure
wherein when the first target signal set comprises a second signal set, the first target link recovery procedure is a second link recovery procedure;
wherein the first signal set and the second signal set respectively comprise at least one reference signal associated with a first cell, at least one reference signal belongs to one of the first signal set or the second signal set; wherein both the first link recovery procedure and the second link recovery procedure comprise a random access procedure on a same cell.
Claim 1. A user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising:
a receiver and a processor, configured to receive a first signal set and a second signal set;
the processor is configured to determine a first link failure based on a measurement of the first signal set;
the processor is further configured to, in response to the determination of the first link failure, performing a first link recovery procedure; the processor is further configured to determine a second link failure based on a measurement of the second signal set;
the processor is further configured to, in response to determination of the second link failure, determine whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on at least one of a first parameter or a second parameter, wherein the first parameter is a time of the first link recovery procedure relative to the determination of the second link failure, and wherein the second parameter is whether the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure.
wherein each of the first signal set and the second signal set respectively comprises at least one reference signal associated with a first cell, and there exists at least one reference signal that only belongs to one of the first signal set or the second signal set;
Claim 4. The UE according to claim 1, wherein determining THE first target link failure according to a measurement performed on the first target signal set comprises:
in response to a signal quality of each reference signal in the first target signal set being less than a first threshold,
reporting to a first-type indication used to update a counter; and determining the first target link failure according to the counter not being less than a value
Claim 2. The UE according to claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to
in as a response to a received quality of each reference signal in the first signal set being lower than a first threshold,
report to a higher layer first-type indication used for updating a first counter;
the processor is further configured to,
in response to a received quality of each reference signal in the second signal set being lower than a second threshold, report to the higher layer a second-type indication used for updating a second counter.
Claim 11 is analyzed and rejected according to the similar analysis as specified in claim 1.
Claim 12 is analyzed and rejected according to the similar analysis as specified in claim 2.
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.
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- 6, 11-16, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 20210320764 A1, hereinafter Gao) in view of Yi et al. (US 20200350972 A1, hereinafter Yi).
Claim 1: Gao teaches a user equipment (UE) configured for wireless communications (Fig. 1, element 130), comprising:
a receiver (Fig. 6, element 640, [0065], “The TX/RX 640 is for bidirectional communications. The TX/RX 640 has at least one antenna to facilitate communication”) and a processor (Fig. 6, element 610, [0065], “ the device 600 includes a processor 610, a memory 620 coupled to the processor 610, a suitable transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX) 640 coupled to the processor 610”), wherein: the receiver is configured to receive a first signal set and a second signal set (Fig. 2, elements 210, [0035], “the configuration may indicate which one of the TRPs 120 the PDCCHs come from”, [0042], “a higher layer parameter about beam failure detection resources (for example, known as “failureDectctionResource”) can be configured to the terminal device 130, which may indicate a set of beam failure detection RSs. In this case, the terminal device 130 may determine the set of RSs for beam failure detection based on the higher layer parameter”, [0051], “the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 (which may be referred to as “RS1” in the following text) and the other for the second TRP 120-2”);
wherein the first signal set and the second signal set respectively comprise at least one reference signal associated with a first cell, and there exists at least one reference signal that only belongs to one of the first signal set or the second signal set ([0051], “the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 RS1… and the other for the second TRP 120-2 RS2”, [0055], disclose first set of RS and second set of RS could have different numbers of RS. [0035], “the configuration may indicate which one of the TRPs 120 the PDCCHs come from”, if configuration indicate the PDCCH come from the first TRPs, then the first target link recovery procedure is a first link recovery procedure, otherwise, the first target link recovery procedure is a second link recovery procedure, [0035], “the first TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 may be included in a same serving cell provided by the network device 110. In addition, the first TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 may be associated with a same activated bandwidth part (BWP);
the processor is configured to determine a first link failure based on a measurement of the first signal set (Fig. 2, elements 220, [0052], “the terminal device 130 may determine first radio link quality associated with the first TRP 120-1 by measuring RS1 from the first TRP 120-1. In response to the first radio link quality being below a predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure
occurs in the first TRP 120-1. In some embodiments, the terminal device 130 may determine second radio link quality associated with the second TRP 120-2 by measuring RS2 from the second TRP 120-2. In response to the second radio link quality being below the predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure
occurs in the second TRP 120-2”);
the processor is further configured to, in response to the determination of the first link failure, performing a first link recovery procedure (Fig. 2, element 230, [0040], “In response to determining that a beam failure occurs in at least one of the first and second TRPs 120, at block 230, the terminal device 130 performs BFR for the first and second TRPs 120 at least based on the determined configuration for PDCCH transmission”, [0023], “a beam
failure may occur when the quality of beam pair(s) of an associated control channel falls low enough (for example, comparison with a predetermined threshold or time-out of an associated timer). A mechanism to recover from a beam failure may be triggered when the beam failure occurs. The beam failure recovery mechanism on terminal device side usually includes the following operations: beam failure detection, identification of a new candidate beam, transmission of a beam failure recovery request and monitoring a response for the beam failure recovery request from a network device”);
the processor is further configured to determine a second link failure based on a measurement of the second signal set (Fig. 2, elements 220, [0052], “the terminal device 130 may determine first radio link quality associated with the first TRP 120-1 by measuring RS1 from the first TRP 120-1. In response to the first radio link quality being below a predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure occurs in the first TRP 120-1. In some embodiments, the terminal device 130 may determine second radio link quality associated with the second TRP 120-2 by measuring RS2 from the second TRP 120-2. In response to the second radio
link quality being below the predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure occurs in the second TRP 120-2”);
However, Gao does not explicitly teach the processor is further configured to, in response to determination of the second link failure, determine whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on at least one of a first parameter or a second parameter, wherein the first parameter is a time of the first link recovery procedure relative to the determination of the second link failure, and wherein the second parameter is whether the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure.
Yi, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to, in response to determination of the second link failure, determine whether to trigger a second link recovery procedure based on at least one of a first parameter (Alternative) or a second parameter (Fig. 26, [0415], “The wireless device may initiate a RACH based BFR if the second TRP is not in good quality as well when there are two TRPs associated with a PCell”, [0417], “The wireless device may perform a RACH-based BFR procedure (e.g., expect to receive a beam recovery response from a gNB via RACH procedure) based on the set of dedicated PRACH resources for the second TRP (TRP2) configured by the first TRP (TRP1)”), wherein the first parameter is a time of the first link recovery procedure relative to the determination of the second link failure (alternative), and wherein the second parameter is whether the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure (Fig. 26, [0423], “the base station may configure an independent BFR procedure for a TRP on a cell based on a RACH procedure by configuring a set of RACH resources for each TRP…the base station may configure a BFR procedure based on a SR-based BFR for a TRP in a cell. A base station may configure a mechanism for a BFR in a multi-TRP scenario (e.g., configure among options such as a BFR for all TRPs, a BFR only on a primary TRP, an independent BFR via a SR-based recovery, an independent BFR via a RACH-based recovery, etc.)”, [0419], “When the wireless device may encounter more than one beam failure procedure at a given time (e.g., the wireless device is served by more than two TRPs, and two TRPs may fail in parallel), the wireless device may select a BFR procedure for a TRP with a lower TRP index (e.g., a lower CORESET group index, a lower TCI group index)”, wherein CORESET group index is configured from BS via DCI).
Gao and Yi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Gao and the features of adding parameters, e.g., link recovery time, second TRP trigging condition, random access procedure for each TRPs, etc., as taught by Yi, for the benefit for providing more effective, less latency, less overhead and more flexible control method, thus allowing quick beam link recovery under multi-TRPs system (paragraph [0362-368]).
Claim 11 is a method of claim1, is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 2: The combination for Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to in response to a received quality of each reference signal in the first signal set being lower than a first threshold (Gao, [0052], “In response to the first radio link quality being below a predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure occurs in the first TRP 120-1”), report to a higher layer a first-type indication used for updating a first counter (Yi, Fig. 21, [0388], “The base station may configure a first maximum counter to determine a BF for the first TRP, wherein the wireless device may declare the BF in response to poor link qualities may occur more than the first maximum counter …Based on a number of beam failure incidents become larger than the first maximum counter, the wireless device may declare a first BF of the first TRP”);
The processor is further configured to in response to a received quality of each reference signal in the second signal set being lower than a second threshold (Gao, [0052], “the terminal device 130 may determine second radio link quality associated with the second TRP 120-2 by measuring RS2 from the second TRP 120-2. In response to the second radio link quality being below the predetermined threshold, the terminal device 130 may determine that a beam failure occurs in the second TRP 120-2”), report to a higher layers a second-type indication used for updating a second counter (Yi, [0388], “The base station may configure a second maximum counter to determine a BF for the second TRP, wherein the wireless device may declare the BF in response to poor link qualities may occur more than the second maximum counter …Based on a number of beam failure incidents become larger than the first maximum counter, the wireless device may declare a first BF of the first TRP. Similarly, based on a beam management process, the wireless device may declare a second BF for the second TRP”).
Gao and Yi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Gao and the features of providing max counter from BS for link failure detection as taught by Yi, for the benefit for achieving more robust and accurate beam failure detection comparing with one-shot detection.
Claim 12 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 2.
Claim 3: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1,Yi additionally teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to, when a first condition is satisfied, refrain from triggering the second link recovery procedure; wherein the first condition comprises that the first link recovery procedure is started before the determination of the second link failure ([0375], “the base station may configure “primary TRP only beam failure
recovery’ option. The wireless device may perform a beam failure recovery procedure and a beam management procedure only for the first TRP”, [0377], “When a beam
failure occurs on the primary TRP, a base station may deactivate the second TRP
regardless of a beam status of the second TRP. The base station may reactivate
second TRP based on completing the beam recovery procedure”, Fig. 26, [0419], “When the wireless device may encounter more than one beam failure procedure at a given time (e.g., the wireless device is served by more than two TRPs, and two TRPs may fail in parallel), the wireless device may select a BFR procedure for a TRP with a lower TRP index (e.g., a lower CORESET group index, a lower TCI group index)”, wherein CORESET group index is configured from BS via DCI);
or, the first condition comprises that the first link recovery procedure is started before the action of determining a second link failure, and that the first link recovery procedure is not successfully completed before the determination of the second link failure (alternative).
The motivation for combining Gao and Yi regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
Claim 13 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 3.
Claim 4: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Yi additionally teach wherein: the processor is further configured to, when a second condition is satisfied, in response to the determination of the second link failure, trigger the second link recovery procedure; where the second condition comprises that the first link recovery procedure is successfully completed before the determination a second link failure ([0366], “a second
BFR of the second TRP may be triggered/transmitted/informed/indicated via the first
TRP when the first TRP has one or more valid beams… the wireless device may transmit the second BFR request and/or new candidate beam information of the second TRP via
a regular PUSCH, based on a beam of the one or more beams, of the first TRP, via a PUCCH, based on a beam of the one or more beams, of the first TRP”, wherein having good beams on first TRPs is reading as to the successful first link recovery procedure).
The motivation for combining Gao and Yi regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 4.
Claim 14 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 4.
Claim 5: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Yi additionally teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to, when a third condition is satisfied, start the second link recovery procedure; wherein the third condition comprises that the first link recovery procedure is started after the determination of the second link failure ([0366], “A RACH-based BFR may be triggered by the wireless device in detecting a first BFR on the first TRP and a second BFR on the second TRP. The RACH-based BFR may be triggered when both TRPs may not have beams with good signal quality”. Wherein starting the first and second BFR after detecting BF on both first and second links , “no beams with good quality on both TRPs” is reading as failures on both first and second link. [0419], “When the wireless device may encounter more than one beam failure procedure at a given time (e.g., the wireless device is served by more than two TRPs, and two TRPs may fail in parallel), the wireless device may select a BFR procedure for a TRP with a lower TRP index (e.g., a lower CORESET group index, a lower TCI group index)”, wherein CORESET group index is configured from BS via DCI);
Or the processor is further configured to, when the third condition 1s satisfied, starts the second link recovery procedure; wherein the third condition comprises that the first link recovery procedure is started after the determination of the second link failure; when the third condition and a fourth condition are both satisfied, in response to triggering the first link recovery procedure, the processor is further configured to terminate the second link recovery procedure; wherein the fourth condition comprises that the second link recovery procedure is started and not successfully completed before the determination of the first link failure (alternative).
The motivation for combining Gao and Yi regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 5.
Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 5.
Claim 6: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1,Yi additionally teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to, when a fifth condition is satisfied, in response to the determination of the second link failure, trigger the second link recovery procedure; and the processor is further configured to, when the fifth condition is unsatisfied, refrain from triggering a second link recovery procedure; where the fifth condition comprises that the second link recovery procedure comprises a random access procedure ([0375], “the base station may configure ‘primary TRP only beam failure recovery’ option. The wireless device may perform a beam failure recovery procedure and a beam management procedure only for the first TRP”, Wherein the second BFR will be ignored if enabling “primary TRP only beam failure recovery” even the second BFR us configured with RACH procedure. [0423], “the base station may configure an independent BFR procedure for a TRP on a cell based on a RACH procedure by configuring a set of RACH resources for each TRP … the base station may configure a BFR procedure based on a SR-based BFR for a TRP in a cell. A base station may configure a mechanism for a BFR in a multi-TRP scenario (e.g., configure among options such as a BFR for all TRPs, a BFR only on a primary TRP, an independent BFR via a SR-based recovery, an independent BFR via a RACH-based recovery, etc.)”.).
The motivation for combining Gao and Yi regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 6.
Claim 16 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 6.
Claim 21: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Gao additionally teaches wherein the first signal set comprises a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) ([0033], “beam failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB)”) or a synchronization signal physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block ([0058], “one or more CORESETs may be configured for both of the TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 … CORESET #0 is a CORESET configured by PBCH … the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 (for example, RS1) and the other for the second TRP 120-2”, [0033], “beam failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB)”).
Claim 25 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 21.
Claim 22: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Gao additionally teaches wherein the second signal set comprises a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) ([0033], “beam failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB)”) or a synchronization signal physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block (([0058], “one or more CORESETs may be configured for both of the TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 … CORESET #0 is a CORESET configured by PBCH … the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 (for example, RS1) and the other for the second TRP 120-2”, [0033], “beam failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB)”).
Claim 26 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 22.
Claim 23: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Gao additionally teaches wherein the first signal set is configured via a failure detection resources information element ([0033], “this reference signal may also be referred to as “beam failure detection RS” or “RS for beam failure detection”. Examples of the beam failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB), or a combination thereof”, [0058], “one or more CORESETs may be configured for both of the TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 … CORESET #0 is a CORESET configured by PBCH … the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 (for example, RS1) and the other for the second TRP 120-2”).
Claim 27 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 23.
Claim 24: The combination of Gao and Yi teaches the UE according to claim 1, Gao additionally teaches wherein the second signal set is configured via a failure detection resources information element ([0033], “this reference signal may also be referred to as “beam failure detection RS” or “RS for beam failure detection”. Examples of the beam
failure detection RS may include but not limited to periodic Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS), synchronization signal block (SSB), or a combination thereof”, [0058], “one or more CORESETs may be configured for both of the TRP 120-1 and the second TRP 120-2 … CORESET #0 is a CORESET configured by PBCH … the set of RSs for beam failure detection may include two RSs, one for the first TRP 120-1 (for example, RS1) and the other for the second TRP 120-2”).
Claim 28 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 24.
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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472