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 Amendments and Arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretation under 112(f), Applicant’s argument filed 11/25/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(f) claim interpretations have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied 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 1, 3, 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US Publication No. 2021/0320764) in view of Kimura et al (US Publication No. 2021/0058219).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses, a terminal [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, terminal device 130] comprising:
a receiver [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, terminal device 130; note that every terminal device has at least one receiver] . . . one or more configurations for radio link monitoring [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, the higher layer parameter about beam failure detection resources is configured to the terminal device 130]; and
a processor [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, terminal device 130; note that every terminal device has at least one processor] that monitors, based on the one or more configurations, a plurality of reference signals corresponding to a plurality of respective communication points in a same carrier [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, determines first radio link quality associated with the first TRP by measuring RS1 from the the first TRP and second radio link quality associated with the second TRP by measuring RS from the second TRP based on the higher layer parameter; further see ¶0035, the first TRP and the second TRP may be included in a same serving cell or same activated bandwidth part],
wherein the communication points include at least one base station [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0051, the first and second TRPs includes at least one TRP], and
when radio link failure has occurred in at least one of the plurality of communication points, the processor initiates communication with another communication point or another carrier [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0045, if the beam 310 from the TRP 120-1 is determined to be failed, the terminal device 130 may send a beam changing request to the network device 110 via the TRP 120-2 (i.e., another communication point)].
Although Gao discloses, “. . . one or more configuration for radio link monitoring” and “wherein the communication points include at least one base station” as set forth above, Gao does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chen discloses, receiving one or more configuration for radio link monitoring [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0081, the UE1 is notified from the base station of settings and instructions for the measurement of the link communication channel quality] and wherein the communication points include at least one base station and at least one terminal [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0082, the communication points include the base station and the UE2; note that the UE1 receives a plurality of reference signals from the base station (SEQ502) and the UE2 (SEQ503)].
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 Gao with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kimura 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 Kimura into the system of Gao would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure more clear control for a plurality of radio link monitoring processes for a plurality of reference signals, 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 3, Gao in view of Kimura discloses, the terminal according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Gao does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kimura discloses, wherein the receiver receives the one or more configurations from one communication point [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0081, the UE1 is notified from the base station of settings and instructions for the measurement of the link communication channel quality].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kimura in the system of Gao for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 5 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Gao discloses, a base station [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0035 and 0051, network device 110] comprising:
a transmitter [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0035 and 0051, network device 110; note that every network device has at least one transmitter]; and
a processor [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0035 and 0051, network device 110; note that every network device has at least one controller].
Claim 6 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 6 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Gao discloses, a system comprising a terminal and a base station [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0035 and 0051, a system comprising a terminal device 130] and a network device 110].
Claim 10 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a system including the terminal and the base station, but recites similar features to claims 1 and 6 without further additional features from claims 1 and 6. Thus, claim 10 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claims 1 and 6.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US Publication No. 2021/0320764) in view of Kimura et al (US Publication No. 2021/0058219) and further in view of Shrestha et al (US Publication No. 2021/0251012).
Regarding claim 2, Gao in view of Kimura discloses, the terminal according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Gao in view of Kimura does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Shrestha discloses, wherein the one or more configurations include one configuration common to the plurality of communication points [FIGS. 1-2; their related descriptions; ¶0111, a common configuration is a configuration that may be shared among multiple UEs and commonly used by multiple UE].
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 Gao in view of Kimura with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Shrestha 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 Shrestha into the system of Gao in view of Kimura would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to reduce waste of resource and improve resource usage efficiency, 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 7, Gao in view of Kimura and Shrestha discloses, the terminal according to claim 2 as set forth above.
Gao does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kimura discloses, wherein the receiver receives the one or more configurations from one communication point [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0081, the UE1 is notified from the base station of settings and instructions for the measurement of the link communication channel quality].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kimura in the system of Gao for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
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