DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-18, 20 and 21 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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) 1-3, 7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US 20200136895 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US Pub. 20200177318 A1).
For claims 1 and 12, Venugopal discloses a method performed by a user equipment ("UE") (the method of paragraphs [0086]-[0095] and figure 6), the method comprising:
detecting, for reception of a periodic downlink reference signal from at least a first beam [0086-87], multiple occurrences of:
an interference level being greater than an interference level threshold (paragraph [0087], "At 610, the UE 604 fails to detect a periodic reference signal transmitted on at least one of the beams in the first set of DL transmit beams 606, and/or detects that a quality metric (e.g., RSRP) associated with the reference signal has fallen below a signal quality threshold (represented in FIG. 6 as "Qout" and paragraph [0088], "At 615, the UE 604 again fails to detect; the periodic reference signal transmitted on the at least one of the beams in the first set of DL transmit beams 606, and/or again detects that the quality metric associated with the reference signal has fallen below the Qout threshold');
a listen-before-talk failure (detecting signals before session establishment) [0069]; or both;
incrementing, in response to detecting each instance of the multiple consecutive occurrences, a counter for tracking the multiple consecutive occurrences (beam failure indicator (BFI) based on a counter to increase the increment for each failure detection) [0086-88];
determining whether the multiple occurrences is greater than a threshold (paragraph [0088], "Because the BF/ count has reached the maximum count ("MaxCnt'') threshold while the BFD timer is running,"); and
in response to the multiple occurrences being greater than the threshold [0088]: monitoring to receive the periodic downlink reference signal from a second beam (paragraph [0089], "More specifically, the controller/processor 359 of the UE 604 requests that the Layer 1 functionality of the UE 604 (implemented by the RX processor 356) identify at least one beam in a second set ("seLq1'') of DL transmit beams 608 that carries a periodic reference signal with a received signal strength greater than a signal quality threshold (represented as "Qin''). The second set of DL transmit beams 608 may correspond to one or more of beams 502a-h in FIG. 5 in the mmW frequency range. The second set of DL transmit beams 608 is referred to as the "candidate beam reference signal list." The UE 604 may receive both the beam IDs of the beams in the second set of DL transmit beams 608 and the Qin threshold from the base station 602. In the example of FIG. 6, the second set of DL transmit beams 608 includes four beams, one of which (shaded) carries periodic reference signals having a received signal strength greater than the Qin threshold'); or
terminating the monitoring for the reception of the downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for a time period (paragraph [0089] because the at least a first beam is no longer monitored); or both [0089].
But Venugopal doesn’t explicitly discloses multiple consecutive occurrences.
However, Belleschi discloses detecting, for reception of a periodic downlink reference signal (LBT signal) from at least a first beam, multiple consecutive occurrences [0129, 0023].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data detection used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Venugopal with Belleschi to ensure proper detection of downlink signals in order to improve data reception.
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Venugopal further discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising: a processor [0064]; and a memory coupled to the processor [0064], the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor [0063-65].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 13, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses receiving periodic downlink reference signal resource configuration information to indicate at least two beams and a switching pattern for the indicated beams before detecting the multiple occurrences [0089-90].
For claims 3 and 14, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses in response to the multiple occurrences being greater than the threshold, monitoring to receive the periodic downlink reference signal from the second beam, terminating the monitoring for the reception of the downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for the time period, or both without receiving additional configuration information [0086-89].
For claim 7, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses the threshold corresponds to a single periodic reference signal resource or a single beam [0088].
For claim 8, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses the threshold corresponds to all periodic reference signal resources, all beams, or both [0088].
For claim 9, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal on at least the first beam comprises reception of the periodic downlink reference signal on a plurality of beams, and reception on the plurality of beams is offset in time from each other (paragraph [0087]) reception of the downlink reference signal on a plurality of beams. Furthermore, the transmitting device performs a beam sweep (see paragraph [0086], "The first set of DL transmit beams 606 may correspond to one or more of beams 502a-h in FIG. 5 in the mmW frequency range." and paragraph [0078], "Referring to FIG. 5, the base station 502 may transmit a beamformed signal to the UE 504 on one or more beams 502a, 502b, 502c, 502d, 502e, 502f, 502g, 502h, each having a beam identifier that can be used by the UE 504 to identify the respective beam. Where the base station is beamforming towards the UE 504 with a single array of antennas, the base station 502 may perform a "beam sweep" by transmitting first beam 502a, then beam 502b, and so on until lastly transmitting beam 502h.").
For claim 10, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses terminating the monitoring for the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for the time period comprises terminating the monitoring for the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for the time period without receiving an indication [0087-89].
Claims 11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US 20200136895 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US Pub. 20200177318 A1) in view of Chendamarai et al. (US 20180242232 A1).
For claim 11, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses terminating the monitoring for the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for the time period comprises receiving an indication [0087-89], and
But Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, doesn’t explicitly discloses the indication indicates that the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal from at least the first beam is inhibited for the time period.
However, Chendamarai discloses the indication indicates that the reception of the periodic downlink reference signal from at least the first beam is inhibited for the time period [0097]-[0102].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission beams used in a mobile communication system; 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 combine the teachings of Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, with Chendamarai to enhance communication capabilities, thus, improving network efficiency.
For claim 15, Venugopal discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory [0063-65]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the base station [0063-65] to:
detect, for transmission of a downlink reference signal from at least a first beam [0086-87], multiple occurrences of:
an interference level being greater than an interference level threshold (paragraph [0087], "At 610, the UE 604 fails to detect a periodic reference signal transmitted on at least one of the beams in the first set of DL transmit beams 606, and/or detects that a quality metric (e.g., RSRP) associated with the reference signal has fallen below a signal quality threshold (represented in FIG. 6 as "Qout" and paragraph [0088], "At 615, the UE 604 again fails to detect; the periodic reference signal transmitted on the at least one of the beams in the first set of DL transmit beams 606, and/or again detects that the quality metric associated with the reference signal has fallen below the Qout threshold'); or
a listen-before-talk failure (detecting signals before session establishment) [0069]; or both; and
increment, in response to detecting each instance of the multiple consecutive occurrences, a counter for tracking the multiple occurrences (beam failure indicator (BFI) based on a counter to increase the increment for each failure detection) [0086-88];
determine whether the multiple occurrences is greater than a threshold (paragraph [0088], "Because the BF/ count has reached the maximum count ("MaxCnt'') threshold while the BFD timer is running,"); and
But Venugopal doesn’t explicitly discloses multiple consecutive occurrences.
However, Belleschi discloses detecting, for reception of a periodic downlink reference signal (LBT signal) from at least a first beam, multiple consecutive occurrences [0129, 0023].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data detection used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Venugopal with Belleschi to ensure proper detection of downlink signals in order to improve data reception.
But Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, doesn’t explicitly discloses in response to the multiple occurrences being greater than the threshold:
transmit the downlink reference signal from a second beam;
inhibit transmission of the downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for a time period; or both.
However, Chendamarai discloses in response to the multiple occurrences being greater than the threshold [0100]-[0101]:
transmit the downlink reference signal from a second beam (paragraph [0101], "instead a second LBT procedure may be performed in a subsequent window (e.g., interval 820-b) allocated for single-beam DRS. The second LBT procedure may be performed in the same direction as single-beam DRS 810 or in a different direction.") [0101-102];
inhibit transmission of the downlink reference signal from at least the first beam for a time period (paragraph [0101], "instead a second LBT procedure mav be performed in a subsequent window (e.g., interval 820-b) allocated for single- beam DRS. The second LBT procedure may be performed in the same direction as single-beam DRS 810 or in a different direction."; emphasis added by the examiner. because the second LBT procedure is performed in a subsequent window, the downlink reference signal from the at least the first beam is not transmitted for a time period which is at least the current window); or both [0101].
Chendamarai also discloses detect, for transmission of a downlink reference signal from at least a first beam [0097]-[0102], multiple occurrences of:
an interference level being greater than an interference level threshold [0100]-[0101]; or
a listen-before-talk failure (paragraphs [0100]-[0101],"In some cases, the base station may perform another LBT procedure within interval 820-a if a first LBT procedure fails. Upon a successful LBT, the base station 105 may transmit single-beam DRS 810-b indicating a RACH opportunity 815-b. For example, single-beam DRS 810 may be staggered across time, subject to LBT, such that multiple directions may be spanned as the LBT associated with each direction succeeds over time. In some cases, the base station may perform another LBT procedure within interval 820-a if a first LBT procedure fails. Upon a successful LBT, the base station 105 may transmit single-beam DRS 810-b indicating a RACH opportunity 815-b. For example, single-beam DRS 810 may be staggered across time, subject to LBT, such that multiple directions may be spanned as the LBT associated with each direction succeeds over time. If the LBT procedure fails in the given direction, the single-beam DRS 810 mav not be transmitted and instead a second LBT procedure mav be performed in a subsequent window (e.g., interval 820-b) allocated for single-beam DRS. The second LBT procedure may be performed in the same direction as single-beam DRS 810 or in a different direction. For instance, multiple time windows may correspond to respective single-beam DRS directions. As such, DRS in one direction may only be transmitted within a given interval 820. Alternatively, multiple directions may be supported for a given interval 820."; emphasis added by the examiner; it is noted that paragraphs [0100]-[0101] disclose two LBT procedures that fail, said LBT procedures having the same beam).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission beams used in a mobile communication system; 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 combine the teachings of Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, with Chendamarai to enhance communication capabilities, thus, improving network efficiency.
For claim 16, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Chendamarai, discloses the transmission of the downlink reference signal from at least the first beam comprises transmission of the downlink reference signal from the first beam using a single periodic reference signal resource [0086-88].
For claim 17, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Chendamarai, Chendamarai further discloses the at least one processor tis configured o cause the base station to transmit configuration information to a user equipment to indicate a switching pattern for a spatial filter configuration before detecting the multiple occurrences [0067]. See motivation to combine the reference from the above.
For claim 18, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Chendamarai, Chendamarai further discloses in response to the multiple occurrences being greater than the threshold, the downlink reference signal is transmitted from the second beam, the downlink reference signal is inhibited from being transmitted from at least the first beam for the time period, or both without transmitting additional configuration information to a user equipment [0100-102]. See motivation to combine the reference from the above.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US 20200136895 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US Pub. 20200177318 A1) in further view of Jeon et al. (US 20180324716 A1).
For claim 4, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses incrementing a counter to track the multiple occurrences [0086-88],
But Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein incrementing the counter comprises incrementing a separate counter for each periodic reference signal resource, for each beam, incrementing a single counter for the periodic reference signal resource set, or both.
However, Jeon discloses wherein incrementing the counter comprises incrementing a separate counter for each periodic reference signal resource, for each beam, incrementing a single counter for the periodic reference signal resource set, or both [0315].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission beams used in a mobile communication system; 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 combine the teachings of Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi with Jeon to enhance event tracking capabilities, thus, improving network optimization.
For claim 5, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Jeon, Jeon further discloses resetting the separate counter in response to proper transmission on a corresponding periodic reference signal resource, a corresponding beam, or both [0315].
For claim 6, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Jeon, Jeon further discloses resetting the separate counter in response to the separate counter reaching the threshold and a resulting action being performed [0333].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US 20200136895 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US Pub. 20200177318 A1) in further view of Chendamarai et al. (US 20180242232 A1) in further view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20230006727 A1).
For claim 20, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Chendamarai, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi and Chendamarai, doesn’t explicilty discloses the following limitation taught by Jang.
Jang discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to increment a separate counter for each periodic reference signal resource, for each beam, or both [0215] (Jang’s Claim 15).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission beams used in a mobile communication system; 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 combine the teachings of Venugopal, Belleschi, and Chendamarai with Jang to enhance event tracking capabilities, thus, improving network optimization.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al. (US 20200136895 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US Pub. 20200177318 A1) in further view of Jang et al. (US Pub. 20230006727 A1).
For claim 21, Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Venugopal, as modified by Belleschi, doesn’t explicilty discloses the following limitation taught by Jang.
Jang discloses to increment the counter, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to increment a separate counter for each periodic reference signal resource for each beam, or to increment a single counter for the periodic reference signal resource set, or both [0215] (Jang’s Claim 15).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission beams used in a mobile communication system; 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 combine the teachings of Venugopal, and Belleschi with Jeon to enhance event tracking capabilities, thus, improving network optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…increment, in response to detecting each instance of the multiple consecutive occurrences, a counter for tracking the multiple occurrences…”, the Examiner asserts that Venugopal discloses beam failure indicator (BFI) based on a counter to increase the increment for each failure detection. See paragraphs [0086-88].
“… starts a beam failure detection (BFD) timer and initializes a beam failure indicator (BFI) counter to “1”… increments the BFI count to “2.” Because the BFI count has reached the maximum count (“MaxCnt”) threshold while the BFD timer is running, the UE 604 determines that there has been a beam failure of the at least one beam (e.g., a DL control beam) in the first set of DL transmit beams 606.” [0087-88].
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights