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
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 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...”);
receiving or transmitting, by the processor, an on-demand RS from or to the network node 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...”); 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 differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose triggering condition is fulfilled.
NAGARAJA, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, 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 the method of 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 the method of 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 4, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches the minimum broadcast RS is received via a first radio of the apparatus, and the on-demand RS is received via a second radio of the apparatus. (ZHANG, see at least para. 128 in view of para. 279 and 16, e.g. the respective steps 1806 and 1816)
Regarding claim 6, ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA teaches transmitting, by the processor, a request triggering the on-demand RS to the network node in the case that the triggering condition is fulfilled; or receiving, by the processor, an indication of triggering the on-demand RS from the network node. (ZHANG, see at least para. 128, “...In response to the event, at 1812, the UE2 sends an on-demand request to the node 1802...”; NAGARAJA, 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 the method of ZHANG for improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network.
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 the method of ZHANG for improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 8 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be an apparatus of claim 8 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the apparatus of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, in view of claim 8 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, respectively.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 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, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA, as applied to claims 1, 8, 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 the method of ZHANG in view of NAGARAJA for improving network efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 8 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
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 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“Firstly, regarding the limitation "receiving or transmitting an on-demand RS from or to the network node (or transmitting or receiving an on-demand RS for additional DL/UL measurement to or from a specific UE) in a case that a triggering condition is fulfilled" recited in each of Claims 1 and 8, the Examiner refers to paragraph [0128] of ZHANG as allegedly disclosing the feature. However, paragraph [0128] and FIGs. 18A-18B of ZHANG merely disclose that the UE may send an on-demand request for a new RS configuration in response to a UE-triggered event, such that the network node may reconfigure/update the RS configuration and send the reconfigured/updated RS configuration to the UE. It should be noted that the on-demand request for a new RS configuration, as taught in ZHANG, cannot be equivalent to the on-demand RS based on which the UE performs additional DL/UL measurement. In fact, the entire disclosure of ZHANG only speaks of a single type of RS with updatable configuration, and there is no teaching, disclosure, or suggestion in ZHANG about an on-demand RS in addition to the minimum broadcast RS.
(Remarks, page 8-9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes the arguments are centered on the features of “receiving or transmitting, by the processor, an on-demand RS from or to the network node in a case that a triggering condition is fulfilled”, as recited in claim 1 (similarly in claim 8). ZHANG in para. 128 discloses at 1810 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. Hence, ZHANG clearly discloses receiving or transmitting an on-demand RS from or to the network node in a case that a triggering is fulfilled. While ZHANG may not disclose a condition is fulfilled, NAGARAJA cures ZHANG in at least para. 113, such that 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. Therefore, ZHANG- NAGARAJA indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“Secondly, regarding the limitation "receiving or transmitting an on-demand RS from or to the network node (or transmitting or receiving an on-demand RS for additional DL/UL measurement to or from a specific UE) in a case that a triggering condition is fulfilled" recited in each of Claims 1 and 8, the Examiner refers to paragraphs [0104] and [0113] of NAGARAJA as allegedly disclosing the feature. However, paragraphs [0104] and [0113] of NAGARAJA merely disclose that a BS may configure a UE with event triggers that are used to initiate a mobility event, such as beam switch or inter-cell handover, and the BS may configure the UE during a connected mode using an on-demand RS. That is, NAGARAJA at best teaches configuring the event triggers via an on-demand RS. There is no teaching, disclosure, or suggestion in NAGARAJA about receiving/transmitting the on-demand RS when any of the configured event triggers is detected.”
(Remarks, page 9-10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes the arguments are centered on the features of “receiving or transmitting, by the processor, an on-demand RS from or to the network node in a case that a triggering condition is fulfilled”, as recited in claim 1 (similarly in claim 8). As responded in the section above, ZHANG in para. 128 discloses at 1810 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. Hence, ZHANG clearly discloses receiving or transmitting an on-demand RS from or to the network node in a case that a triggering is fulfilled. While ZHANG may not disclose a condition is fulfilled, NAGARAJA cures ZHANG in at least para. 113, such that 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. Therefore, ZHANG- NAGARAJA indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“Thirdly, regarding the limitation "performing additional DL or uplink (UL) measurement based on the on-demand RS" recited in Claim 1, the Examiner refers to paragraph [0129] of ZHANG as allegedly disclosing the feature. However, paragraph [0129] and FIGs. 18A-18B of ZHANG merely disclose that the UE may perform measurements on the RS and report the measurement results to the network node for RS reconfiguration. In addition, it should be noted that 1810-1816 and 1818-1824 relate to alternative implementations for RS reconfiguration, and only one alternative, i.e., 1818- 1824, involves the UE's measurement. That is, there is no teaching, disclosure, or suggestion in ZHANG about an on-demand RS in addition to the minimum broadcast RS. nor about performing additional DL/UL measurements based on the on-demand RS.” (Remarks, page 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes the arguments are centered on the features of “performing, by the processor, additional DL or uplink (UL) measurement based on the on-demand RS”, as recited in claim 1 (similarly in claim 8).
ZHANG in para. 128 discloses the UE2 sends an on-demand request to the node 1802. The request may include a request for a new RS configuration. At 1814, the node 1802 reconfigures or updates an RS for the UE2, based on the request from the UE2. At 1816, the new RS configuration is sent to the UE2, in response to the on-demand request. ZHANG further in para. 129 discloses at 1818, one or more UEs may monitor, for example, a CSI measurement, a beamforming measurement, an RRM measurement, or an interference measurement. Therefore, ZHANG, alone or combined, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “performing, by the processor, additional DL or uplink (UL) measurement based on the on-demand RS”, as recited in claim 1 (similarly in claim 8).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 14, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 8, and 14, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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