DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on November 12, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 are pending for examination, of which claims 1-6 were amended and claim 7 was newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
It is noted that the double patenting rejection is still to be maintained.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Awadin et al. (US 20210234601 A1), hereinafter referred to as Awadin.
Regarding claim 1:
Awadin discloses a terminal (wireless transmit/ receive unit {WTRU}, element 102 in Fig.32 or [0042]) comprising:
a receiver (transceiver, element 120 in Fig.32) that receives a second reference signal used for a different purpose from a first reference signal used for a purpose of a beam failure detection (that receives {second} reference signal used for synchronization {SSB} that is different from beam failure reference signal {BFRS} [0058 and 0005]); and
a processor (processing unit, element 118 in Fig.32) that performs a measurement related to the beam failure detection using the second reference signal (that measures to quantify beam quality and determines whether beam failure should be declared [0058]).
Furthermore, Awadin discloses UE infers some BFRS(s) are not transmitted due to LBT failure, e.g., condition -- resulted from the case where gNB fails in transmitting the configured periodic BFRS to UE, which is then scheduled with aperiodic BFRS(s) for UE to measure the beam quality [0080] in order to determine whether the beam failure should be declared or not [0058]). Thus, Awadin does disclose the receiver omits reception of the first reference signal which is periodically transmitted when a specific condition is satisfied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to detect the beam failure by receiving/ measuring a {second} reference signal not used for beam failure detection, wherein the {first} periodic beam failure detection RS is not to be received; thus enhancing beam failure recovery [0003] – as a result of increasing the chance of receiving BFRSs used to whether declare beam failure [0069].
Consequently, Awadin does disclose all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
Awadin discloses a terminal (wireless transmit/ receive unit {WTRU}, element 102 in Fig.32 or [0042]) comprising:
a receiver (transceiver, element 120 in Fig.32) that receives a downlink control information indicating measurement using a dynamic reference signal dynamically transmitted as a reference signal used for a beam failure detection (that receives downlink control information {DCI} scheduling aperiodic BFRS(s) that UE may use to measure beam quality [0058] in order to determine beam failure [0058]) ; and receives the dynamic reference signal (and receiving aperiodic BFRS(s) [0058]; and
a processor (processing unit, element 118 in Fig.32) that performs the measurement related to the beam failure detection using the dynamic reference signal based on the downlink control information (that measures beam quality using aperiodic BFRS(s) [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to measure dynamic or aperiodic RSs for detecting beam failure; thus enhancing beam failure recovery [0003] – as a result of increasing the chance of receiving {dynamic} BFRSs used to whether declare beam failure [0069].
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 1, except that claim 3 is recited from the perspective of a radio communications system comprising a terminal and base station (UEs and Node-B, elements 102a and 140a in Fig.33), wherein base station comprises a transmitter (transceiver, elements 120in Fig.33).
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 2, except that claim 4 is recited from the perspective of a base station comprising: a transmitter and a processor (transceiver, element 120, and processor, element 118 in Fig.33).
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 1, except that claim 5 is recited in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected for substantially same reason as claim 2, except that claim 6 is recited in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 7:
Awadin discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Awadin further discloses the specific condition comprises a condition under which the measurement related to the beam failure detection using the second reference signal is performed within a specific period (only monitoring aperiodic BFRSs in MCOT, e.g., specific period [0083] and Fig.12).
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 CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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 A. 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 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465