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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filled on 04/24/026 has been entered.
Claims 11,12,14 are amended.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 11-12,14 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the above assertions. Specifically, Sengupta, in the cited paragraph [0079], merely describes a scenario where a beam failure on an SCell (not an SpCell) is reported via a PCell, which may then trigger a RACH. Sengupta, however, does not describe a specific multi-step conditional logic. For example, Sengupta does not describe two BFD-RS sets for an SpCell, the triggering of BFR for both of the BFD-RS sets, and the subsequent BFR procedure failure for one of the two BFD-RS sets. Thus, Sengupta fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, at least, the feature of "if a special cell (SpCell) is configured with two BFD-RS sets and if a BFR is triggered for both of the two BFD-RS sets of the SpCell and a beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed for one of the two BFD-RS sets, initiate a random access procedure," as was recited in unamended dependent claim 13.
Moreover, Sengupta, in paragraph [0131], describes initiating a random access procedure on an SpCell. Specifically, Sengupta describes that if a beam failure counter reaches a maximum count, the MAC entity "initiates an RA procedure [...] on the SpCell," which describes a direct trigger for an RA procedure upon beam failure detection. In other words, Sengupta describes that the RA procedure is immediately initiated upon beam failure. Sengupta, however, does not describe an intermediate action of attempting and failing a BFR procedure, as a prerequisite for initiating the random access procedure.In contrast, in one or more non-limiting implementations, the present application describes that the UE "initiate[s] a random access procedure" only if the following conditions of "a special cell (SpCell) is configured with two BFD-RS sets," "a BFR is triggered for both of the two BFD-RS sets of the SpCell," and "a beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed for at least one of the two BFD-RS sets" are met. Furthermore, the present application describes a more sophisticated and robust fallback mechanism, which does not immediately initiate an RA procedure upon beam failure. Instead, the mechanism relies on the BFR procedure first, and only if two BFD-RS sets have failed and the BFR procedure fails to successfully complete for one of two BFD-RS sets, will the RA procedure be initiated as a final resort. See unamended claim 13, which recites features related to such example implementations.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, applicant is reminded that claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Amended claims recites “in a case that a special cell (SpCell) is configured with two BFD-RS sets, a BFR is triggered for both of the two BFD-RS sets of the SpCell, and a BFR procedure is not successfully completed for one of the two BFD-RS sets, initiate a random access procedure” that means, in case special cell (SpCell) is not configured with two BFD-RS sets there is no need for said limitation need to be met. As such, examiner maintains the rejection without considering the limitation “in a case that a special cell (SpCell) is configured with two BFD-RS sets, a BFR is triggered for both of the two BFD-RS sets of the SpCell, and a BFR procedure is not successfully completed for one of the two BFD-RS sets, initiate a random access procedure” for patentability, because the limitation recited in the claim as conditional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11,12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sengupta to (US20200383167)
Regarding claims 11,14 , Sengupta teaches Equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; a memory, wherein instructions stored in the memory are executable to( [0143] A UE 902 reception may be established by and via the antenna panels 926, RFFE 924, RF circuitry 922, receive circuitry 920, digital baseband circuitry 916, and protocol processing circuitry 914. In some embodiments, the antenna panels 926 may receive a transmission from the AN 904 by receive-beamforming signals received by a plurality of antennas/antenna elements of the one or more antenna panels 926) trigger a beam failure recovery (BFR) for a beam failure detection (BFD)-reference signal (RS) set of a serving cell; ([0060] discloses the UE 102 declares a beam failure instance/event and triggers a BFR procedure, which involves the UE 102 transmitting a BFR request (BFRQ) to a serving AN 108 and identifying new beams on which it can continue Tx/Rx . [0042] For beam failure detection (BFD), the AN 108 (e.g., gNB 116) configures the UE 102 with BFD reference signals and the UE 102 declares a beam failure when a number of beam failure instance indications from the PHY layer reaches a configured threshold before a configured timer expires) and in a case where a medium access control (MAC) PDU is transmitted and the MAC PDU includes a BFR MAC control element (CE) or a truncated BFR MAC CE which contains beam failure recovery information of a BFD-RS set of a secondary cell (SCell), cancel all BFRs triggered for the BFD-RS set of the SCell([0134] discloses the MAC entity triggers the SR for SCell BFR for each SCell for which BFR has been triggered and not cancelled. The MAC entity may trigger the SR for SCell BFR as previously described with respect to FIGS. 1-7. All BFRs triggered prior to MAC PDU assembly for SCell BFR may be cancelled when a MAC PDU is transmitted and that PDU includes a BFR MAC CE or truncated BFR MAC CE).
Regarding claim 12, Sengupta teaches in a case that the BFR procedure determines that at least one BFR for a BFD-RS set of the two BFD-RS sets has been triggered and has not been cancelled for an SCell for which evaluation of candidate beams has been completed and in a case that an available uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) resource does not cannot-accommodate the BFR MAC CE plus a subheader of the BFR MAC CE ,([0134] discloses if UL-SCH resources are available for a new transmission and if the UL-SCH resources can accommodate the truncated BFR MAC CE 802, 803 plus its subheader as a result of LCP, the MAC entity instructs the Multiplexing and Assembly procedure to generate the truncated BFR MAC CE 802 or 803. Otherwise, the MAC entity triggers the SR for SCell BFR for each SCell for which BFR has been triggered and not cancelled) trigger a scheduling request (SR) for beam failure recovery of the BFD-RS set([0135] Discloses an SR used for requesting UL-SCH resources for new transmission. The MAC entity may be configured with zero or more SR configurations).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZEWDU A BEYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ZEWDU A BEYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights