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 . Claims 23-42 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “On Per-TRP Beam Failure Recovery” (hereinafter referred to as Convida) in view of Liu et al. (US# 2024/0007879 hereinafter referred to as Liu).
RE Claim 23, Convida discloses a method, performed by a terminal device (See Convida FIG 1 – UE), comprising:
performing, beam failure detection for a cell based on two reference signal (RS) sets (See Convida Section 2.1; FIG 1 – performing BFD for cell based on multiple RSs); and
transmitting, to a network device, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for beam failure recovery (See Convida pgs. 3-4 – proposals 10 & 11 – BFR MAC CE), the MAC CE comprising
a first field indicating whether beam failure is detected for the cell (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – BFR MAC CE comprising failed cell indication (Ci)),
a second field indicating whether beam failure is detected for one or both of the RS sets, of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – BFR MAC CE comprising reserved bit used to indicate if the following octet also contains AC field for the same serving cell (i.e. two octets if both TRP links have failed)), and
a third field indicating presence of a candidate RS identifier (ID) field (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – can include indication that TRP-link has failed and there is presence of candidate beam RS or not in the octet), wherein:
the second field being a first value indicates that beam failure is detected for both the RS sets, and two octets containing the third field are present for both of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…two octets if both TRP links have failed (indicated by reserved bit)), and
the second field being a second value indicates that beam failure is detected for one of the RS sets, and one octet containing the third field is present for only one RS set of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…one octet if one TRP links has failed (indicated by reserved bit)).
Convida does not specifically disclose
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet.
However, Liu teaches of
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet (See Liu FIGs 2-3; [0011], [0058]-[0062], [0064] – SP & S fields indicating whether beam failure is detected by one or both of the RS sets; not in same octet as candidate RS field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the beam failure detection system, as disclosed in Convida, wherein the second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet, as taught in Liu. One is motivated as such in order to perform beam failure recovery in multiple TRP scenarios (See Liu Background; Summary).
RE Claim 24¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 23 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fourth field indicating a RS set ID (See Convida Proposals 4 & 5 – indicating RS set indices).
RE Claim 25¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 23 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fifth field indicating a candidate RS ID (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – includes candidate beam RS).
RE Claim 26¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 25 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the one octet (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in the octet).
RE Claim 27¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 25 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the two octets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in both octets (i.e. option 3)).
RE Claim 28¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 23 above, wherein up to two PUCCH resources for scheduling request (SR) are configured, the two PUCCH resources are associated with at least one of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 3 – Agreement – up to two PUCCH-SR resources in a cell group).
RE Claim 29, Convida discloses a method, performed by a network device (See Convida FIG 1), comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for beam failure recovery (See Convida pgs. 3-4 – proposals 10 & 11 – BFR MAC CE), the MAC CE comprising
a first field indicating whether beam failure is detected for a cell (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – BFR MAC CE comprising failed cell indication (Ci)), wherein the cell is configured with two reference signal (RS) sets for beam failure detection (See Convida Section 2.1; FIG 1 – performing BFD for cell based on multiple RSs),
a second field indicating whether beam failure is detected for one or both of the RS sets, of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – BFR MAC CE comprising reserved bit used to indicate if the following octet also contains AC field for the same serving cell (i.e. two octets if both TRP links have failed)), and
a third field indicating presence of a candidate RS identifier (ID) field (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – can include indication that TRP-link has failed and there is presence of candidate beam RS or not in the octet), wherein:
the second field being a first value indicates that beam failure is detected for both the RS sets, and two octets containing the third field are present for both of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…two octets if both TRP links have failed (indicated by reserved bit)), and
the second field being a second value indicates that beam failure is detected for one of the RS sets, and one octet containing the third field is present for only one RS set of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…one octet if one TRP links has failed (indicated by reserved bit)).
Convida does not specifically disclose
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet.
However, Liu teaches of
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet (See Liu FIGs 2-3; [0011], [0058]-[0062], [0064] – SP & S fields indicating whether beam failure is detected by one or both of the RS sets; not in same octet as candidate RS field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the beam failure detection system, as disclosed in Convida, wherein the second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet, as taught in Liu. One is motivated as such in order to perform beam failure recovery in multiple TRP scenarios (See Liu Background; Summary).
RE Claim 30¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 29 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fourth field indicating a RS set ID (See Convida Proposals 4 & 5 – indicating RS set indices).
RE Claim 31¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 29 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fifth field indicating a candidate RS ID (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – includes candidate beam RS).
RE Claim 32¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 31 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the one octet (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in the octet).
RE Claim 33¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 31 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the two octets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in both octets (i.e. option 3)).
RE Claim 34¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 29 above, wherein up to two PUCCH resources for scheduling request (SR) are configured, the two PUCCH resources are associated with at least one of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 3 – Agreement – up to two PUCCH-SR resources in a cell group).
RE Claim 35, Convida discloses a terminal device (See Convida FIG 1 – UE), comprising a processor configured to cause the terminal device to:
perform, beam failure detection for a cell based on two reference signal (RS) sets (See Convida Section 2.1; FIG 1 – performing BFD for cell based on multiple RSs); and
transmit, to a network device, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for beam failure recovery (See Convida pgs. 3-4 – proposals 10 & 11 – BFR MAC CE), the MAC CE comprising
a first field indicating whether beam failure is detected for the cell (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – BFR MAC CE comprising failed cell indication (Ci)),
a second field indicating whether beam failure is detected for one or both of the RS sets, of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – BFR MAC CE comprising reserved bit used to indicate if the following octet also contains AC field for the same serving cell (i.e. two octets if both TRP links have failed)), and
a third field indicating presence of a candidate RS identifier (ID) field (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – can include indication that TRP-link has failed and there is presence of candidate beam RS or not in the octet), wherein:
the second field being a first value indicates that beam failure is detected for both the RS sets, and two octets containing the third field are present for both of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…two octets if both TRP links have failed (indicated by reserved bit)), and
the second field being a second value indicates that beam failure is detected for one of the RS sets, and one octet containing the third field is present for only one RS set of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…one octet if one TRP links has failed (indicated by reserved bit)).
Convida does not specifically disclose
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet.
However, Liu teaches of
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet (See Liu FIGs 2-3; [0011], [0058]-[0062], [0064] – SP & S fields indicating whether beam failure is detected by one or both of the RS sets; not in same octet as candidate RS field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the beam failure detection system, as disclosed in Convida, wherein the second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet, as taught in Liu. One is motivated as such in order to perform beam failure recovery in multiple TRP scenarios (See Liu Background; Summary).
RE Claim 36¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a terminal, as set forth in claim 35 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fourth field indicating a RS set ID (See Convida Proposals 4 & 5 – indicating RS set indices).
RE Claim 37¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a terminal, as set forth in claim 35 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fifth field indicating a candidate RS ID (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – includes candidate beam RS).
RE Claim 38¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a terminal, as set forth in claim 37 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the one octet (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in the octet).
RE Claim 39¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a terminal, as set forth in claim 37 above, wherein the fifth field is also contained in the two octets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10 – new candidate beam RS can be included in both octets (i.e. option 3)).
RE Claim 40¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a terminal, as set forth in claim 35 above, wherein up to two PUCCH resources for scheduling request (SR) are configured, the two PUCCH resources are associated with at least one of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 3 – Agreement – up to two PUCCH-SR resources in a cell group).
RE Claim 41, Convida discloses a network device (See Convida FIG 1), comprising a processor configured to cause the network device to:
receive, from a terminal device, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) for beam failure recovery (See Convida pgs. 3-4 – proposals 10 & 11 – BFR MAC CE), the MAC CE comprising
a first field indicating whether beam failure is detected for a cell (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – BFR MAC CE comprising failed cell indication (Ci)), wherein the cell is configured with two reference signal (RS) sets for beam failure detection (See Convida Section 2.1; FIG 1 – performing BFD for cell based on multiple RSs),
a second field indicating whether beam failure is detected for one or both of the RS sets, of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – BFR MAC CE comprising reserved bit used to indicate if the following octet also contains AC field for the same serving cell (i.e. two octets if both TRP links have failed)), and
a third field indicating presence of a candidate RS identifier (ID) field (See Convida pg. 3 – Proposal 10 – can include indication that TRP-link has failed and there is presence of candidate beam RS or not in the octet), wherein:
the second field being a first value indicates that beam failure is detected for both the RS sets, and two octets containing the third field are present for both of the RS sets (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…two octets if both TRP links have failed (indicated by reserved bit)), and
the second field being a second value indicates that beam failure is detected for one of the RS sets, and one octet containing the third field is present for only one RS set of the cell (See Convida pg. 4 – Proposal 10; option 3 – the BFR MAC CE includes…one octet if one TRP links has failed (indicated by reserved bit)).
Convida does not specifically disclose
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet.
However, Liu teaches of
The second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet (See Liu FIGs 2-3; [0011], [0058]-[0062], [0064] – SP & S fields indicating whether beam failure is detected by one or both of the RS sets; not in same octet as candidate RS field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the beam failure detection system, as disclosed in Convida, wherein the second field is in an octet different from the two octets and the one octet, as taught in Liu. One is motivated as such in order to perform beam failure recovery in multiple TRP scenarios (See Liu Background; Summary).
RE Claim 42¸ Convida, modified by Liu, discloses a network device, as set forth in claim 41 above, wherein the MAC CE further comprises a fourth field indicating a RS set ID (See Convida Proposals 4 & 5 – indicating RS set indices).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment (See Claims above, Liu reference).
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 Steve R Young whose telephone number is (571)270-7518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
/STEVE R YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477