DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/13/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant appears to have misspelled multi-downlink control information (DCI)-based as “(DCI)-baiebsed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
performing, based at least in part on the configuration, beam failure detection for the serving cell, wherein the two BFI counters are independently incremented based at least in part on a beam failure associated with the respective TRPs of the serving cell.
Claim 12 features the following limitation:
perform, based at least in part on the configuration, beam failure detection for the serving cell, wherein the two BFI counters are independently incremented based at least in part on a beam failure associated with the respective TRPs of the serving cell.
The applicant did not disclose that the step of incrementing BFI counters is part of an action of performing beam failure detection as covered by the claimed “wherein” clause. The applicant references incrementing counters throughout their disclosure but only after a beam failure has been detected. The applicant does not explicitly disclose any function for performing beam failure detection.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 22 features the following limitation:
receive, via radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a multi-downlink control information (DCI)-baiebsed multi-TRP downlink transmission configuration for the serving cell, wherein the capability report is transmitted in response to receiving the multi- DCI-based multi-TRP downlink transmission configuration,
Paragraph 42 covers the following:
[0042] When a UE is configured with multi-DCI based multi-TRP DL transmission mode, i.e. different higher layer CORESETPoolIndex values are configured for the CORESETs configured in a cell by RRC signaling for TRP differential, a UE transmits a capability report to the gNB, wherein the capability report indicates that per TRP BFR is supported (i.e. configuration of multiple BFD RS sets is supported) for the cell. The cell can be a SpCell or a SCell. A CORESET configures a set of frequency-time resources for PDCCH transmission.
The applicant did not disclose that a multi-downlink control based multi TRP downlink transmission configuration for a serving cell is received via RRC signaling. Instead, the applicant has only disclosed that a UE is configured with a “multi-DCI based multi TRP DL transmission mode” and that “different higher layer CORESETPoolIndex values are configured for the CORESETs configured in a cell by RRC signaling for TRP differential”.
Written Description Issue #3
Claim 23 covers the following:
wherein to transmit the capability report, the at least one processor is operable to cause the UE to: transmit a plurality of capability reports comprising the capability report, wherein the plurality of capability reports is associated with respective serving cells of a plurality of serving cells, and wherein the signaling is received in response to the plurality of capability reports.
Paragraph 45 disclosed the following:
[0045] The transmission of the capability report from UE to gNB and the receiving of the configuration from gNB to UE are made per cell. That is, the UE transmits a capability report for each of the serving cells supporting configuration of multiple BFD RS sets, and receives a configuration for each of the transmitted capability reports.
The signaling in claim 12 would not be received “in response to the plurality of capability reports” as it would only be received in response to the capability report pertaining to the particular cell that the signaling pertains to. The applicant did not originally disclose the scenario now claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the configuration" in the final limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The amendment to the second limitation cancels the reference to “receiving a configuration”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the configuration" in the final limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The amendment to the second limitation cancels the reference to “receiving a configuration”.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what the relationship is between “the plurality of capability reports” and the “respective serving cells”. The applicant uses the verb is which applies to a single noun instead of “are” so it is unclear what the relationship is between the plurality of reports and the “respective” serving cells. If the applicant is trying to claim that each of the capability reports is “associated with a respective serving cell” as disclosed in paragraph 45, the applicant should be clear about this relationship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 12,542,596 to Jang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0103232 by Zhou et al.
As to claim 1, Jang teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: transmitting a capability report indicating that the UE supports per-transmission reception point (TRP) beam failure recovery via configuration of multiple beam failure detection reference signal (BFD RS) sets for a serving cell (col. 41, lines 5-17); receiving, in response to the capability report, signaling that indicates at least two new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS) sets associated with respective TRPs and two beam failure indication (BFI) counters associated with the respective TRPs for the serving cell (col. 41, lines 18-28); however Jang does not explicitly teach performing, based at least in part on the configuration, beam failure detection for the serving cell, wherein the two BFI counters are independently incremented based at least in part on a beam failure associated with the respective TRPs of the serving cell.
Zhou teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving signaling that indicates at least two new beam identification reference signal (NBI RS) sets associated with respective TRPs and two beam failure indication (BFI) counters associated with the respective TRPs for the serving cell (paragraphs 173 and 174 and Figure 12); and performing, based at least in part on the configuration (ref. no. 1206), beam failure detection for the serving cell (ref. no. 1325 in Figure 13), wherein the two BFI counters are independently incremented based at least in part on a beam failure associated with the respective TRPs of the serving cell (paragraphs 143, 173, and 174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile network management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Jang regarding providing a configuration of beam failure detection to a UE in response to a capability report of the UE with the teachings of Zhou regarding a UE using counters to monitor failures of particular TRPs because such information, when applied to the teachings of Jang, would optimize the selection of an appropriate cell for a UE to operate in.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 2 and 14, see paragraphs 63 and 64 of Zhou.
As to claims 3 and 15, see paragraphs 66 and 67 of Zhou. The PCell reads on the breadth of the disclosed special cell.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 12,542,596 to Jang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0103232 by Zhou et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0132517 by Zhu et al.
As to claim 5, the Jang-Zhou combination teaches the subject matter of claim 2, however it does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 5.
Zhu is mapped according to the provisional 63/105,133.
Zhu teaches teaches transmitting a MFR MAC CE based at least in part on at least one BFI counter of the two BFI counters beign larger than a configured maximum count (page 15 of Zhu, which shows figure 5B, final paragraph. As shown in Figure 5B the UE can send information via MAC-CE for BFR. The explanation on page 22 of Figure 10 of Zhu shows how the new beam information shown in Figure 5B can be based on the BFI counters reaching a max).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zhou regarding managing beam failures with the teachings of Zhu regarding a particular means for reporting beam failures to the base station because such teachings provide one way for the base station to learn of the beam status as the UE.
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
Claim(s) 4, 6-10,16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 12,542,596 to Jang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0103232 by Zhou et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0132517 by Zhu et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0199529 by Koskela et al.
Koskela is mapped according to its provisional, 63/030,523, in order to show priority.
As to claim 4, the Jang-Zhou combination teaches the subject matter of claim 3,however it does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 4.
Zhu teaches a PDU including a BFR MAC CE as part of a PDU of a random access procedure (see Zhu figure 9 and mapping of the rejection of claim 5).
Koskela teaches and a BFR MAC CE indicates whether at least one new beam is identified from a second NBI RS set of two NBI RS sets and a candidate RS identifier (ID) corresponding to the at least one new beam if the at least one new beam is identified from the second NBI RS set (Figures 6A-F and corresponding disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zhu regarding reporting using BFR MAC CE with the teachings of Koskela regarding the particular format claimed for a BFR MAC CE because such information would enhance the BFR MAC CE of Zhu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zhou regarding managing beam failures with the teachings of the Zhu-Koskela combination regarding a particular means for reporting beam failures to the base station because such teachings provide one way for the base station to learn of the beam status as the UE.
As to claims 6 and 9, the Zhu-Li combination teaches the subject matter of claim 5 however it does not explicitly teach the BFR MAC CE containing 2 bits fields to indicate a beam failover.
Kosela teaches BFR MAC CE contains a first bit field to indicate whether beam failure is detected for one of the two BFD RS sets for the SpCell and Kosela teaches if the two BFD RS sets are configured for the SCell, then the BFR MAC CE contains two bit fields, each of which indicates whether beam failure is detected for one BFD RS set for the SCell (see figures 6A-F and corresponding text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zhu regarding reporting using BFR MAC CE with the teachings of Koskela regarding the particular format claimed for a BFR MAC CE because such information would enhance the BFR MAC CE of Zhu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the telecommunication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Zhou regarding managing beam failures with the teachings of the Zhu-Koskela combination regarding a particular means for reporting beam failures to the base station because such teachings provide one way for the base station to learn of the beam status as the UE.
As to claims 7 and 8, see Figures 6A-6F, ref. no. 602 and 604.
As to claim 10, the applicant defines the special cell as the serving cell so claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 9.
As to claims 18-20, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 6-9.
Claims Not Rejected with Prior art
Claims 22 and 23 were not rejected with prior art but not indicated as allowable because they were not found to be supported by the original disclosure.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights