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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 08/19/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
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 claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung et al (US Publication No. 2022/0085862 A1)1 in view of Agiwal et al (US Publication No. 2022/0046441 A1)2 and further in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2022/0103233 A1)3.
Regarding claim 15, Kung discloses, a system comprising a terminal and a base station [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; see ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, wireless communication system including UE and base station] (see also e.g., pages 13 and 25 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), wherein the terminal [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; see ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, UE] (see also e.g., pages 13 and 25 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118) comprises:
a transmitter [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, transceiver 314; note that every terminal device has at least one transmitter] (see also e.g., pages 13 and 25 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118);
a receiver [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, transceiver 314; note that every terminal device has at least one receiver] that receives a plurality of first configurations for beam failure detection [¶0320, in order to detect the beam condition per TRP, separate beam failure detection RS can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case; note that since separate beam failure detection RS (BFD RS) is configured for each TRP for MTRP case, the UE is configured with a plurality of BFD RSs by NW (base station), which is considered as receiving the plurality of BFD RSs (i.e., a plurality of first configurations for beam failure detection) from the NW] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), a plurality of second configurations for candidate beam identification, and a BFD timer [¶0214, RRC configures . . . RadioLinkMonitoring Config . . . beamFailureDetectionTimer for the beam failure detection] (see also e.g., page 4 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), for a plurality of TRPs [¶0322, similar as beam failure detection RS, separate new candidate beam can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case; note that since separate new candidate beam is configured for each TRP for MTRP case, the UE is configured with a plurality of new candidate beam by NW (base station), which is considered as receiving the plurality of candidate beams (i.e., a plurality of second configurations for candidate beam identification) from the NW] within a same serving cell [¶0318, both TRPs on the SCell fail; further see ¶0337, multiple TRPs (e.g., multiple transmission and/or reception points) associated with a cell; further see ¶0348, the UE may be configured with multi-TRP operation of the cell; further see ¶0364, UE may maintain (and/or may be configured with) one threshold (e.g., one threshold number of beam failure instance indications) for multiple TRPs (e.g., different TRPs) of a cell] (see also e.g., page 13-16 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118); and
a processor [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, CPU 308; note that every terminal device has at least one processor] that performs the beam failure recovery for each of the plurality of TRPs, based on the plurality of first configurations, the plurality of second configurations [¶0319-0326, perform the beam failure detection for each TRP and detecting the new candidate beam based on the separate BFD RSs and the candidate beams] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118) and the BFD timer [¶0231, perform the beam failure detection based on the beamfailureDetectionTimer; see “if the beamFailureDetectionTimer expires, . . .”] (see also e.g., page 4 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), and the BFD timer [¶0231, perform the beam failure detection based on the beamfailureDetectionTimer; see “if the beamFailureDetectionTimer expires, . . .”] (see also e.g., page 4 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118),
wherein when beam failure occurs in one or more TRPs of the plurality of TRPs [¶0324, when beam failure is detected for a TRP of multi-TRP (note: the cited portions of Kung describes multi-TRP case)] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), the transmitter [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0324 further with respect to ¶0039, transceiver 314] transmits a medium access control control element (MAC CE) indicating the one or more TRPs in which the beam failure occurs [¶0324, transmit the beam failure information via available link to the other TRP by reusing MAC CE for BFR defined in R16 for SCell BFR with additional TRP indication] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), and
a base station [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; see ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, NW (base station)] comprises:
a receiver [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0317 further with respect to ¶0039, transceiver 314; note that base station has at least one receiver]; and
a transmitter [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0317 further with respect to
¶0039, transceiver 314; note that every base station has at least one transmitter] that transmits the plurality of first configurations [¶0320, in order to detect the beam condition per TRP, separate beam failure detection RS can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case; note that since separate beam failure detection RS (BFD RS) is configured for each TRP for MTRP case, the UE is configured with a plurality of BFD RSs by NW (base station), which is considered as the NW transmitting the plurality of BFD RSs (i.e., a plurality of first configurations for beam failure detection) to the UE] (see also e.g., pages 13 and 25 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), the plurality of second configurations [¶0322, similar as beam failure detection RS, separate new candidate beam can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case; note that since separate new candidate beam is configured for each TRP for MTRP case, the UE is configured with a plurality of new candidate beam by NW (base station), which is considered as the NW transmitting the plurality of candidate beams (i.e., a plurality of second configurations for candidate beam identification) to the UE] (see also e.g., pages 13 and 25 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118) and a BFD timer [¶0214, RRC configures . . . RadiolinkMonitoringConfig . . . beamFailureDetectionTimer for the beam failure detection] (see also e.g., page 4 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118),
wherein when the beam failure occurs in the one or more TRPs of the plurality of TRPs [¶0324, when beam failure is detected for a TRP of multi-TRP (note: the cited portions of Kung describes multi-TRP case)] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118), the receiver receives the MAC CE [¶0324, receiving the beam failure information via available link by reusing MAC CE for BFR defined in R16 for SCell BFR with additional TRP indication] (see also e.g., page 13 of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118).
Although Kung discloses, “receives a plurality of first configurations for beam failure detection, a plurality of second configurations for candidate beam identification, and a BFD timer” as set forth above, Kung does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the BFD timer being common to the plurality of TRPs.
However, Agiwal discloses, receives a BFD timer for a plurality of TRPs within a same serving cell, the BFD timer being common to the plurality of TRPs [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0153, a value of beamFailureDetectionTimer can be same for all TRPs of a serving cell] (see also e.g., page 25 and ¶0148 of KR 2023/0048083), and performs the beam failure recovery for each of the plurality of TRPs, based on the BFD timer [¶0084, a beam failure is detected on a serving cell if number of consecutive detected beam failure instance exceeds a configured maximum number (beamFailureInstanceMaxCount) within a configured time (beamFailureDetectionTimer); further see ¶0085-0094] (see also e.g., pages 18-19 of KR 2023/0048083).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Kung with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Agiwal to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Agiwal into the system of Kung would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring consistent beam-failure detection timing for all TRPs within the same cell and reducing signaling overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Although Kung discloses, “wherein the terminal comprises: a transmitter . . . , and the base station comprises: a receiver” as set forth above, Kung in view of Agiwal does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), a transmitter that transmits capability information indicating support of beam failure recovery per transmission/reception point (TRP), and a receiver that receives the capability information.
However, Zhou discloses, a transmitter that transmits capability information indicating support of beam failure recovery per transmission/reception point (TRP), and a receiver that receives the capability information [¶0037, in TRP specific BFR, it may be useful for a UE to indicate its (various) capabilities for supporting TRP specific BFR further with respect to FIG. 12 and ¶0128, step 1202] (see also e.g., ¶0115 of US Provisional Application No. 63/083,851).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Kung in view of Agiwal with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhou to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhou into the system of Kung in view of Agiwal would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., reducing beam failure recovery latency and supporting seamless mobility in wireless networks, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features to claim 15 without additional features. Thus, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 12, Kung in view of Agiwal and Zhou discloses, the terminal according to claim 11 as set forth above.
Kung discloses, wherein the plurality of first configurations correspond to the plurality of TRPs, respectively [¶0320, in order to detect the beam condition per TRP, separate beam failure detection RS can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case], and the plurality of second configurations correspond to the plurality of TRPs, respectively [¶0322, similar as beam failure detection RS, separate new candidate beam can be configured for each TRP for MTRP case].
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar features to claim 15 without additional features. Thus, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar features to claim 15 without additional features. Thus, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Kung claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/077,118 filed on 09/11/2020, thus Kung is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 03/19/2021.
2 Agiwal claims priority of KR 20230048083 A filed on 08/05/2020, thus Agiwal is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 03/19/2021.
3 Zhou claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/083,851 filed on 09/25/2020, thus Zhou is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 03/19/2021.
Prosecution Insights