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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Office Action (OA) dated 01/30/2026 acknowledged the Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 20-23 and 27-29). The OA incorrectly acknowledged non-elected Invention II (claims 15-16 and 18-19) was canceled. The non-elected invention II remains pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 filed on 04/24/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with newly identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
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, 6, 12, 20-22 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0227899, “Yu”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0349090, “Zhou”, provisional application 63085141 (“141”)).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Yu unless otherwise mentioned.
Yu comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a terminal device comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 2: 233 “Processor”); and at least one memory (Fig. 2: 234 “Memory”) including computer program code (Fig. 2: 235 “Program”), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to:
detect at least one beam failure instance in association with at least one serving beam ([0034] “Triggering UE-initiated transmission for beam failure recovery requires UE to monitor both serving BPL(s) and good BPL currently not used for communication. … The considered events include Event R1 (candidate becomes offset better than serving and serving becomes worse than threshold)”);
determine if at least one non-serving beam better than the at least one serving beam is available ([0034] “Triggering UE-initiated transmission for beam failure recovery requires UE to monitor both serving BPL(s) and good BPL currently not used for communication. … The considered events include Event R1 (candidate becomes offset better than serving and serving becomes worse than threshold)”); and
trigger an early beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure in a case where a number of the at least one beam failure instance detected is less than a threshold Q for triggering a beam failure recovery (This will be discussed in view of Zhou.) and the at least one non-serving beam better than the at least one serving beam is available ([0035] “Time-to-trigger can be applied for event evaluation, i.e., event criteria should be satisfied”, and [0036] “Once the triggering condition is satisfied for a predefined evaluation period, UE 502 transmits a Beam Failure Recovery reQuest (BFRQ) 510 to BS”).
It is noted that while disclosing BFR with conditions, Yu does not specifically teach about a BFR procedure based on a number of BFDs less than a threshold. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Zhou as follows;
trigger an early beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure in a case where a number of the at least one beam failure instance detected is less than a threshold Q for triggering a beam failure recovery ([Zhou, 0136] “if the number of BFDs indicating a beam failure is less than (or equal to) a threshold (or the threshold is otherwise met), then the UE may perform a TRP-specific BFR.” See [141, 0135].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Yu by using the features of Zhou in order to effectively re-establish a connection with a serving cell such that “a communication indicating a beam failure configuration for a serving cell, the beam failure configuration including at least one of a beam failure parameter of a beam group or a beam failure parameter of a cell” [Zhou, 0007].
Regarding claim 20, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, the terminal device of claim 1 wherein the at least one serving beam carries a downlink control channel ([0031] “the serving BPL is associated to control channel beam, e.g., physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).”).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, the terminal device of claim 1 and the method of claim 20, respectively, wherein the at least one beam failure instance is detected when
at least one beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) has a quality lower than a threshold ([0033] “The quality is measured based on UE-specifically configured CSI-RS resources and/or SS-blocks resources.”, and aforesaid [0034].).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, the terminal device of claim 1 and the method of claim 20, respectively, wherein the at least one non-serving beam is determined to be better than the at least one serving beam when at least one of following conditions is satisfied:
the at least one non-serving beam has a quality better than the at least one serving beam by an offset (Off) ([0034] “Event R1 (candidate becomes offset better than serving and serving becomes worse than threshold)”) for a time to trigger (TTT) time period ([0036] “Once the triggering condition is satisfied for a predefined evaluation period”);
the at least one non-serving beam is included in at least one beam measurement report sent from the terminal device to network and has a quality better than the at least one serving beam; and the at least one non-serving beam is included as a highest quality beam in at least one beam measurement report sent from the terminal device to network (These alternatives are not examined.).
Regarding claims 12 and 28, the terminal device of claim 1 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to and the method of claim 20, respectively,
provide an indication that the early BFR procedure is performed to network during or after the early BFR procedure ([0036] “Once the triggering condition is satisfied for a predefined evaluation period, UE 502 transmits a Beam Failure Recovery reQuest (BFRQ) 510 to BS 501 over beam failure recovery resources.”).
Claim(s) 7 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0227899, “Yu”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0349090, “Zhou”, provisional application 63085141 (“141”)) and further in view of Cirik et al. (US 2025/0280463, “Cirik”) and Jeon et al. (US 2023/0189387, “Jeon”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Yu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, it is noted that while disclosing triggering a BFR procedure, Yu does not specifically teach about starting a timer when BF is detected and a candidate beam is identified and about starting a BFR procedure when a timer is expired. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Cirik and Jeon as follows;
the terminal device of claim 1 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to, and the method of claim 20, respectively,:
start a timer T when the at least one beam failure instance is detected and the at least one non-serving beam is determined to be better than the at least one serving beam ([Cirik, 0465] “The timer 3310 may start after or in response to one or more of: the beam failure detection, new candidate beam identification”), wherein the early BFR procedure is triggered when the timer T expires ([Jeon, 0319] “The wireless device may start to perform the triggered and/or pending beam failure recovery procedure after or in response to an expiry of the beam failure recovery prohibit timer.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Yu by using the features of Cirik and Jeon in order to improve BFR procedures such that “After sending a first signal associated with a first candidate beam for beam failure recovery, the wireless device may send a second signal associated with a second candidate beam for beam failure recovery.” [Cirik, Abstract], and “The wireless device measures, in the RRC inactive state and based on a time duration started in response to a data transmission via the configured grant, a downlink signal for detection of a beam failure instance.” [Jeon, Abstract].
Claim(s) 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0227899, “Yu”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0349090, “Zhou”, provisional application 63085141 (“141”)), Cirik et al. (US 2025/0280463, “Cirik”) and Jeon et al. (US 2023/0189387, “Jeon”), and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0235422, “Hwang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Yu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that while disclosing triggering a BFR procedure, Yu does not specifically teach about stopping a timer in response to receiving a beam switching command. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Hwang as follows;
the terminal device of claim 7 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to:
stop the timer T ([Hwang, 0068] “In the case where the timer stops in the course of the beam switching procedure”) in response to one or more of:
a beam switching command received from network ([Hwang, 0062] “receives a beam switching indication from the base station”);
a cell change command received from the network; and a radio resource control (RRC) level measurement reporting event A3 triggered at the terminal device (These alternatives are not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Yu by using the features of Hwang in order to effectively manage radio link failure such that “The method includes identifying an out-of-synchronization (OOS) or in-synchronization (IS) indication for multiple receive beams” [Hwang, 0009].
Claim(s) 11 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0227899, “Yu”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0349090, “Zhou”, provisional application 63085141 (“141”)) and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2023/0208579, “Jung”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Yu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 11 and 27, it is noted that while disclosing triggering a BFR procedure, Yu does not specifically teach about state of a serving beam or channel. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Jung as follows;
the terminal device of claim 1 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to and the method of claim 20, respectively,
indicate information of the at least one serving beam to network during the early BFR procedure ([Jung, 0072] “a UE may consistently report a first serving control channel with high RSRP for a while (based on periodic beam reporting), and may trigger a beam failure recovery procedure due to temporary blocking on the first serving control channel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Yu by using the features of Jung in order to improve BFR procedures such that “One apparatus for transmitting device capability information includes a processor that operates the apparatus with multiple antenna port groups for communication between the apparatus and a network” [Zheng, 0010].
Claim(s) 13 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0227899, “Yu”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0349090, “Zhou”, provisional application 63085141 (“141”)) and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2025/0300718, “Zheng”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Yu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 13 and 29, it is noted that while disclosing triggering a BFR procedure, Yu does not specifically teach about reporting capability. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Zheng as follows;
the terminal device of claim 1 wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to and the method of claim 20, respectively,
report capability of the terminal device to network, the capability of the terminal device including an indicator indicating that the terminal device supports the early BFR procedure ([Zheng, 0078] “UE 115 may transmit a first message 348 that includes a capability indicator. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the first message 348 includes an indicator 392. Indicator 392 may indicate a capability and/or configuration for BFR MAC CE capability, such as a MAC CE layout.); and
receive configuration for the early BFR procedure from the network ([Zheng, 0078] “base station 105 sends control information to indicate to UE 115 that MAC CE are to be used in BFR operations.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Yu by using the features of Zheng in order to improve BFR procedures such that “transmitting, by the UE, a MAC CE including serving cell identification information and new beam information.” [Zheng, 0010].
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights