DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 03/25/2026.
2. Claims 1 – 9 have been cancelled.
3. Claims 10 – 14 are new and currently pending.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims filed on 03/25/2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Newley added claims 9 - 14 changed the scope of the claims and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is being made. See the new claim rejection presented below.
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) 10 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 12, 542, 596 B2) in view of Yi et al. (US 2020/0350972).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses: A terminal [the terminal is seen in figure 9, label 9 -15 and 9- 35] comprising:
a transmitter that transmits [Column 41, liens 31 - 32] capability information indicating support of beam failure recovery per transmission/reception point (TRP); [Colum 41, lines 6 – 15: Based on the UE capability, the UE sends its capability to a given base station in view of beam failure recovery (BFD) which entails multiple TRPs: “…the terminal may report the number of BFD RS sets that can be configured to the terminal for partial BFR operation, the maximum number of BFD RSs, the maximum number of BFD RSs per BFD RS set, the number of TRPs connected to the BFD RS in each BFD RS set…” ]
a receiver [Column 41, liens 31 - 32] that receives a plurality of configurations for beam failure detection in a plurality of TRPs within a same serving cell; and [See column 41, Lines 18 – 25, in view of the capability sent by the UE the UE will receive from the base station configurations pertaining to TRPs: “…the base station may configure, through higher layer signaling, the terminal with the number of BFD RS sets, the maximum number of BFD RSs, the maximum number of BFD RSs per BFD RS set, the number of TRPs connected to a BFD RS in each BFD RS set, the number of candidate beam sets, and the maximum number of candidate beams per candidate beam set”.]
a processor [column 41, lines 33 – 34] that determines, based on the plurality of configurations, whether beam failure occurs in each of the plurality of TRPs, wherein when the beam failure occurs in one or more TRPs of the plurality of TRPs, the transmitter transmits a medium access control-control element (MAC CE) indicating the one or more TRPs in which the beam failure occurs. [see column 35, lines 56 – 64: the MACCE includes information, such as “…Index(es) of TRPs whose radio link quality is lower than a given threshold for all RSs in the BFD RS set or BFD RS group corresponding to each TRP (or, RSs in the BFD RS set or BFD RS group corresponding to each CORESETPoolIndex)…”]
One small detail Jang does not disclose, is the TRPs are within the same serving cell. Such difference is seen in the analogous reference of Yi, see ¶ 0368 in view of ¶ 0362: The TPRS are under the same serving cell/carrier/frequency in performing BFD (¶ 0368, ¶0361, ¶ 305 and ¶ 420 (multiple TRPs BFR), hence, Yi is analogous art performing similar steps as Jang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang’s system in view of Yang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to support one or more advanced scenarios that may not be effectively supported, examples of which is given in ¶ 0362 of Yi as “…For example, a base station/gNB may operate one or more transmission and reception points (TRPs) in a cell (or a carrier or a frequency) to enhance performance (e.g., coverage, throughput, latency, etc.).
Claims 12 – 14 (Claim 14 is a combination of claim 12 and claim 13 limitations) recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11, Jang further discloses: The terminal according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of configurations corresponds to the plurality of TRPs, respectively. [See column 41, Lines 18 – 25, in view of the capability sent by the UE the UE will receive from the base station configurations pertaining to TRPs: “…the base station may configure, through higher layer signaling, the terminal with the number of BFD RS sets, the maximum number of BFD RSs, the maximum number of BFD RSs per BFD RS set, the number of TRPs connected to a BFD RS in each BFD RS set, the number of candidate beam sets, and the maximum number of candidate beams per candidate beam set”.]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights