DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2024-01-23 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 17-36 are pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20, 21, 28
the prioritizing
There are/is no antecedent basis for the limitation(s). Proper introduction to the limitation is required (e.g., replacing the with a or an).
Claim(s) 27, 28, 34
the primary cell
the primary secondary cell
There are/is no antecedent basis for the limitation(s). Proper introduction to the limitation is required (e.g., replacing the with a or an).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 17, 24, and 31 of co-owned application U.S. Application 18915863 in view of TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) and R2-2201699 (NPL - 3GPP_R2-2201699)
Claim(s) 17, 24, 31
Instant 17 (apparatus), 24 (method), and 31 (CRM), are unpatentable over claim(s), claim(s) 1 (apparatus), 8 (method), and 15 (CRM) respectively, of co-owned, co-pending application U.S. 18915863 (the reference claims)
The claim(s) is/are unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application in view of TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) and R2-2201699 (NPL - 3GPP_R2-2201699). The instant claims differ slightly from the reference claims in that the reference claims are broader as exemplified in the amendments made 2025-11-11 in application U.S. 18915863:
the receiving step was broadened to omit receiving particularly from a base station
the encode and transmits step was broadened to require only one bitmap and instead of both first/second beam failure signal sets, now the claims only require only one either the first or set signal sets.
Accordingly, the instant claims require this narrower scope identified above, while the reference claims do not. These changes are considered obvious in view of TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) and R2-2201699which teaches the narrower scope:
TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) teaches receiving the configuration information from a base station <Fig. 1B, FIG. 3 (503), page 8, line 25 to page 9, line 3; Fig. 2, page 10, lines 18-30, Fig. 5 (502));>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by the reference claims with the embodiment(s) disclosed by TIMO_051. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve communication efficiency, and help the UE to recover more efficiently from a beam failure situation. <para. 0040>.
R2-2201699 teaches two bitmaps in a medium access control control element bitmaps for serving cell and bitmap for another serving cell in BFR MAC CE <Page 27, Option 2; 2.1.8 Enhanced BFR MAC CE Format Aspects; Proposal 4 and 10, 13 at pages 10-11>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by the reference claims and TIMO_051with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Furthermore, the following dependent claims are also unpatentable over the identified claim(s) of the reference patent/application for the same rationale.
Claim of US18915863
Instant Claim
2
18
3
19
4
20
6
22
7
21
9
25
10
26
11
27
13
29
14
28
16
32
17
33
18
34
19
35
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 22, 29, 35 and 23, 30, 36
The claim(s) recite variants of:
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least two bitmaps the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets.
Due to the run-on sentence nature of the limitation, it is unclear as to how to the limitation should be interpreted. For example, what element is related to the phrase “for at least one of the one or more serving cells” since there are multiple previously cited nouns this could be applicable to (the failure status information? the second beam failure detection reference signal set?)
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 and 7, 14, 20
The claim(s) recite variants of:
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least two bitmaps the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets.
With regards to: the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set
Due to the insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, it is unclear as to how to construe the limitation – for example, it is unclear where this limitation originated and/or if the limitation was intended to refer to a previously cited element.
More particularly this is confusing because the independent claim(s) recite:
failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set and
failure status information of the second beam failure
These are similar subject matter but using different descriptors. Consequently there is confusion as to whether they are the same things or different things. In other words, is “the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set” referring to the “failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set.” You phrasing using the word “related” and the other use “of the" – is there a difference between these two? Should the examiner construed this to be distinct different pieces of information?
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) in view of R2-2201699 (NPL - 3GPP_R2-2201699)
Claim(s) 17, 24, 31
TIMO_051 teaches
at least one memory including instructions, the at least one memory and instructions being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: UE include processor, program code and memory <FIG(s). 7; pg. 22-23>.
receive, from a base station, configuration information configuring two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets for one or more serving cells, the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets comprising at least a first beam failure detection reference signal set and a second beam failure detection reference signal set; onfiguration from network device for beam failure detection on multiple TRP among multiple beam RS <Fig. 1B, FIG. 3 (503), page 8, line 25 to page 9, line 3; Fig. 2, page 10, lines 18-30, Fig. 5 (502));>
monitor, whether beam failure is detected based on the configuration information; detecting beam failure on TRP according to configuration <FIG. 2, page 10, lines 18-19, Fig. 5 (504))>
encode, when the beam failure is detected for the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set, into at least
transmit the medium access control control element comprising the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set. <Fig. 2, page
10, lines 21-22; Fig. 5 (508)>
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
two bitmaps in a medium access control control element
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
two bitmaps in a medium access control control element bitmaps for serving cell and bitmap for another serving cell in BFR MAC CE <Page 27, Option 2; 2.1.8 Enhanced BFR MAC CE Format Aspects; Proposal 4 and 10, 13 at pages 10-11>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) 18, 25, 32
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode into a first bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set; and
encode into a second bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set.
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
encode into a first bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set; and encode into a second bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set. Different BFD-RS set get a respective bitmap in the MAC CE <Page 10 Proposal 4>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) 19, 26, 33
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode, if a serving cell is not configured with multiple beam failure detection reference signal sets, into the first bitmap failure status information of the serving cell.
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
encode, if a serving cell is not configured with multiple beam failure detection reference signal sets, into the first bitmap failure status information of the serving cell. BFR MAC CE includes bit map for beam failure reporting. In one scenario a single BFD-RS sets are for the cell (“one or more” is “one”) BFR MAC CE includes bit map for beam failure reporting <Fig. 2, page 7, lines 3-27; page 9 lines 25-25; page 10, lines 19-20; page 15 Line 25-27; Fig. 4A, 4B, Fig. 5 (506)>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) 21, 28
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
perform the prioritizing by prioritizing a first byte of the failure status information indicating failure for at least one of the beam failure detection reference signal sets for the primary cell or the primary secondary cell over other failure status information.
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
perform the prioritizing by prioritizing a first byte of the failure status information indicating failure for at least one of the beam failure detection reference signal sets for the primary cell or the primary secondary cell over other failure status information. Beam recovery information 1st octet is used to indicate failure of TRP and associated serving cell. The 1st octet can be considered “prioritized” because it’s the 1st among other octets. <Section 2, 2.1.8 Enhanced BFR MAC CE Format Aspects>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) in view of R2-2201699 (NPL - 3GPP_R2-2201699), and further view of AGIWAL_332 (US20230180332)
Claim(s) 22, 29, 35
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least two bitmaps the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets.
However in a similar endeavor, AGIWAL_332 teaches
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least two bitmaps the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets. a second bitmap for one or more serving cells for which two BFD-RS sets are configured and beam failure is detected for at least one BFD-RS set <para. 0161-0164; Claim 4>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051 and R2-2201699 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by AGIWAL_332. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a communication method and system for converging a fifth generation (5G) communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a fourth generation (4G). <para. 0011>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIMO_051 (WO2021240051) in view of R2-2201699 (NPL - 3GPP_R2-2201699), in view of AGIWAL_332 (US20230180332), and further view of TURTINEN_052 (US20210314052)
Claim(s) 23, 30, 36
TIMO_051 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
determine size of at least one bitmap of the at least two bitmaps based on highest index of serving cells for which failure status information indicates failure for at least one beam failure detection reference signal set.
However in a similar endeavor, TURTINEN_052 teaches
determine size of at least one bitmap of the at least two bitmaps based on highest index of serving cells for which failure status information indicates failure for at least one beam failure detection reference signal set. Determining whether to use a part of the bitmap (and omit other parts of the bitmap), which changes, the size, is based on the highest cell index among serving cells.. <FIG(s). 4A; para. 0086-0087>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by TIMO_051, R2-2201699 and AGIWAL_332 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by TURTINEN_052. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to an improved solution for reporting beam failure <Summary>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 27, 34
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Cited References
US20250175238
US12526716
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415