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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims priority from provisional application 63369390 (filed 07/26/2022).
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 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, 7, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. (US 20190123864 A1, hereinafter ZHANG), in view of NAGARAJA et al. (US 20180103407 A1, hereinafter NAGARAJA).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches a method, comprising (in general, see fig. 18A-B and corresponding paragraphs 127-141):
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a minimum broadcast reference signal (RS) from a network node (see at least para. 128, “...at 1804, the node 1802
unicasts a respective RS configuration to each of the UEs. Alternatively, at 1806, the node 1802 can broadcast an RS configuration to the UEs...”);
performing, by the processor, basic downlink (DL) measurement based on the minimum broadcast RS (see at least para. 129, “...at 1818, one or more UEs may monitor, for example, a CSI measurement, a beamforming measurement, an RRM measurement, or an interference measurement. At 1820, UEs may collect respective measurements...”);
transmitting, by the processor, a request to the network node to trigger an on- demand RS in a case that a triggering is fulfilled (see at least para. 128, “...At 1810, in accordance with the illustrated embodiment, the UE2 triggers an event, such as beam changing for example. In response to the event, at 1812, the UE2 sends an on-demand request to the node 1802. The request may include a request for a new RS configuration...”);
receiving, by the processor, the on-demand RS from the network node after a period of time subsequent to transmission of the request without waiting for a response from the network node (see at least para. 128, “...At 1816, the new RS configuration is sent to the UE2, in response to the on-demand request...”);
and
performing, by the processor, additional DL or uplink (UL) measurement based on the on-demand RS (see at least para. 129, “...at 1818, one or more UEs may monitor, for example, a CSI measurement, a beamforming measurement, an RRM measurement, or an interference measurement...”).
ZHANG does not specifically teach triggering condition is fulfilled.
NAGARAJA teaches triggering condition is fulfilled (in general, see fig. 10 and corresponding paragraphs 96-115; in particular, see at least para. 113 in view of para. 104, “...a BS may configure a UE with event triggers, which include the reference beams that the UE may use to determine if the trigger condition is met. The BS may configure the UE during a connected mode using an on-demand RS...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate NAGARAJA into ZHANG for improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches the triggering condition indicates at least one of the following: a signal quality of a serving cell is less than or equal to a first threshold; and a mobility of the apparatus is greater than a second threshold. (NAGARAJA, see at least para. 105-106, “...One example of the relative change may be based on the best and worst (highest and lowest) signal quality measurement within a set of reference beams being greater than a threshold value...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate NAGARAJA into ZHANG for improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches the basic DL measurement is performed for at least one of the following: an initial cell search; a time or frequency synchronization; a beam management; a radio link monitoring (RLM); and a radio resource management (RRM) (ZHANG, see at least para. 129, “...at 1818, one or more UEs may monitor, for example, a CSI measurement, a beamforming measurement, an RRM measurement, or an interference measurement. At 1820, UEs may collect respective measurements...”);
and
wherein the additional DL or UL measurement is performed for at least one of the following: a link or beam recovery; a handover procedure; and a radio resource management (RRM). (ZHANG, see at least para. 129, “...at 1818, one or more UEs may monitor, for example, a CSI measurement, a beamforming measurement, an RRM measurement, or an interference measurement. At 1820, UEs may collect respective measurements...”)
Regarding claim 7, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches each of the minimum broadcast RS and the on-demand RS comprises at least one of the following: a cell identification (ID); and a beam index. (NAGARAJA, see at least para. 101-102, “...The reference beams may be based on a beam identification. A BS may indicate or configure a UE with one or more beam IDs which may be used as reference beams by the UE...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate NAGARAJA into ZHANG for improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, and 7, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (ZHANG, see at least fig. 53B), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of MANOLAKOS et al. (US 20220029763 A1, hereinafter MANOLAKOS).
Regarding claim 5, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches
receiving, by the processor, configuration of time and frequency resources for the on-demand RS from the network node (ZHANG, see at least para. 128 along with para. 133, “...Each level may have different configurations, such as, for example, different periodicities or different allocations in time and frequency domain with different durations...”); and
receiving, by the processor, configuration of the triggering condition from the network node (NAGARAJA, see at least 104-105, for one non-limiting example, “...According to one option, the BS may specify the relative changes between the reference beams which may be used to detect an event trigger...”).
ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose reporting, by the processor, capability information indicating whether the apparatus supports the on-demand RS to the network node.
MANOLAKOS, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches reporting, by the processor, capability information indicating whether the apparatus supports the on-demand RS to the network node (see at least para. 112 of fig. 7 along with para. 110 and 98, e.g. “...at 704, the UE 302 provides the network entity 306 with the requested list of capabilities...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MANOLAKOS into ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA for improving network efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5, except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/28/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
