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 .
The instant office action is in response to communication submitted on 02/01/2024.
Claims 1-30 are pending of which claims 1, 13, 22, and 27 are independent.
The IDS(s) submitted on 06/06/2025 and 02/01/2024 is relevant and being considered.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27, 28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koskela et al (US 20240179548 A1) .
Regarding claim1, Koskela discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (i.e. Fig. 1B UE 100 with hardware details in Fig. 10), comprising: a first interface configured to (Fig. 10 Connectivity 1050 per paragraph132 has more than one antenna and per paragraph 77 simultaneous reception of multi DCI from different TRPs communicating omnidirectionally require the UE to use different antenna/interface for different TRP. ) :
communicate with a first transmission and reception point (TRP) in accordance with a first configuration for directional communications (See Fig. 1B UE 100 communicate with TRP1 after being configured for directional communication using two beams/RS#4 and RS#5. See Paragraph 75 UE 100 being configured to communicate with TRP1 and TRP 2 for directional communication using directional beams RS#4 and RS#5 for TRP1 and beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 for TRP2) ;
communicate with a second TRP in accordance with a second configuration for directional communications (See Fig. 1B UE100 communicating with TRP0 using directional beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 and as discussed above the configuration is described in paragraph 77); and the first interface (Antenna 1in Connectivity Unit 1050 of Fig. 10 per paragraphs 77 and 132) or a second interface (Antenna 2 in Connectivity Unit 1050 of Fig. 10 per paragraphs 77 and 132) configured to:
output a control signa indicating a TRP beam failure status l(Fig. 3 step 303 BFR MAC CE is the control signal indicating detected beam failure in step 303 and the control signal B indicating a TRP beam failure status is transmitted in step 304 – see paragraphs 83-88 for details) for the first configuration for directional communications with the first TRP and the second configuration for directional communications with the second TRP. ( See Fig. 4 showing details of the control signal (mTRP) BFR MAC CE with R1 bit indicating TRP beam failure status for first TRP in bit R1 and for second TRP in bit R2)
Regarding claim13, Koskela discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (i.e. Fig. 1B Access Point 104 which is gNB in Fig. 3 with hardware details in Fig. 11) , comprising:
a first interface (Fig. 11 Tx/Rx 1130 is a MIMO and TRP1 has its own antenna and TRP2 has its own antenna per paragraph 136 and 44) configured to: communicate with a user equipment (UE) (i.e. UE 100) via a first transmission and reception point (TRP) in accordance with a first configuration for directional communications(See Fig. 1B UE 100 communicate with TRP1 after being configured for directional communication using two beams/RS#4 and RS#5. See Paragraph 75 UE 100 being configured to communicate with TRP1 and TRP 2 for directional communication using directional beams RS#4 and RS#5 for TRP1 and beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 for TRP2);
communicate with the UE via a second TRP in accordance with a second configuration for directional communications(See Fig. 1B UE100 communicating with TRP0 using directional beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 and as discussed above the configuration is described in paragraph 77); and the first interface (i.e. Antenna of TRP1) or a second interface (i.e. Antenna of TRP2) configured to:
obtain, from the UE (See Fig. 3 gNB/Access Point receiving control signal BFR MAC CE in step 304), a control signa indicating a TRP beam failure status (Fig. 3 step 303 BFR MAC CE is the control signal indicating detected beam failure in step 303 and the control signal B indicating a TRP beam failure status is transmitted in step 304 – see paragraphs 83-88 for details) for the first configuration for directional communications with the first TRP and the second configuration for directional communications with the second TRP. ( See Fig. 4 showing details of the control signal (mTRP) BFR MAC CE with R1 bit indicating TRP beam failure status for first TRP in bit R1 and for second TRP in bit R2).
Regarding claim 22, Koskela discloses a method(see Figs. 1-8) for wireless communication comprising:
communicating with a first transmission and reception point (TRP) in accordance with a first configuration for directional communications (See Fig. 1B UE 100 communicate with TRP1 after being configured for directional communication using two beams/RS#4 and RS#5. See Paragraph 75 UE 100 being configured to communicate with TRP1 and TRP 2 for directional communication using directional beams RS#4 and RS#5 for TRP1 and beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 for TRP2) ;
communicating with a second TRP in accordance with a second configuration for directional communications (See Fig. 1B UE100 communicating with TRP0 using directional beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 and as discussed above the configuration is described in paragraph 77); and
transmitting a control signa indicating a TRP beam failure status (Fig. 3 step 303 BFR MAC CE is the control signal indicating detected beam failure in step 303 and the control signal B indicating a TRP beam failure status is transmitted in step 304 – see paragraphs 83-88 for details) for the first configuration for directional communications with the first TRP and the second configuration for directional communications with the second TRP. ( See Fig. 4 showing details of the control signal (mTRP) BFR MAC CE with R1 bit indicating TRP beam failure status for first TRP in bit R1 and for second TRP in bit R2)
Regarding claim 27, Koskela discloses a method (See Figs. 1-8) for wireless communication at a network entity (i.e. Fig. 1B Access Point 104 which is gNB in Fig. 3 with hardware details in Fig. 11) , comprising:
communicating with a user equipment (UE) (i.e. UE 100) via a first transmission and reception point (TRP) in accordance with a first configuration for directional communications (See Fig. 1B UE 100 communicate with TRP1 after being configured for directional communication using two beams/RS#4 and RS#5. See Paragraph 75 UE 100 being configured to communicate with TRP1 and TRP 2 for directional communication using directional beams RS#4 and RS#5 for TRP1 and beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 for TRP2);
communicating with the UE via a second TRP in accordance with a second configuration for directional communications(See Fig. 1B UE100 communicating with TRP0 using directional beams RS#1, RS#2, RS#3 and as discussed above the configuration is described in paragraph 77); and
receiving, from the UE (See Fig. 3 gNB/Access Point receiving control signal BFR MAC CE in step 304), a control signa indicating a TRP beam failure status (Fig. 3 step 303 BFR MAC CE is the control signal indicating detected beam failure in step 303 and the control signal B indicating a TRP beam failure status is transmitted in step 304 – see paragraphs 83-88 for details) for the first configuration for directional communications with the first TRP and the second configuration for directional communications with the second TRP. ( See Fig. 4 showing details of the control signal (mTRP) BFR MAC CE with R1 bit indicating TRP beam failure status for first TRP in bit R1 and for second TRP in bit R2).
Regarding claim 2, Koskela discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein outputting the control signal indicating the TRP beam failure status further comprises: outputting, via the control signal (i.e. BFR MAC CE Fig. 4) , an indication of a cell (Fig. 4 bit P per paragraph 91 indicate the first and second TRPs are associated with the serving cell) associated with the first TRP and the second TRP on which a beam failure is detected. (See Paragraph 91 and Fig. 4 where the control signal indicating the serving cell associated with first and second TRP)
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Koskela discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein outputting the control signal indicating the TRP beam failure status further comprises: outputting, via the control signal, a status indicator indicating the TRP beam failure status (See Fig. 4 BFR MAC CE bits R1 and R2 indicating respective status of TRP beam failure and corresponding Candidate RS index listed for each TRP in Fig. 4) and indicating whether a candidate reference signal is reported via the control signal for identified TRPs of the first TRP and the second TRP for which beam failure is detected. (See paragraphs 92 -94 with respect to Fig. 4 indicating whether a candidate reference signal is reported via the control signal for identified TRPs of the first TRP and the second TRP for which beam failure is detected.)
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Koskela discloses 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein outputting the control signal indicating the TRP beam failure status further comprises: outputting the status indicator as a codepoint of a quantity of bits (i.e. Fig. 4 BFR MAC-CE indicator is R1 and R2 and are one bit each) wherein different codepoints indicate different TRP beam failure statuses (i.e. per one bit two different statuses can be reported) and whether the candidate reference signal is reported via the control signal for the identified TRPs for which beam failure is detected.(See Fig. 4 for each TRP candidate Reference Signal index is indicated per paragraphs 91 and 96)
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected in the same scope as claim 5.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected in the same scope as claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Koskela discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein reported candidate reference signals are indicated by one or more of a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state, a reference signal identifier, or a joint identifier linking two or more reference signals. (Koskela in paragraph 55 indicates candidate BFD-RS can be indicated by TCI states.)
Regarding claim 12, Koskela discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control signal comprises a beam failure recovery (BFR) medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE). (See Fig. 3 and Fig, 4 and paragraph 91 on BFR MAC-CE being the control signal.)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3, 15, 24, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Kang et al (US 20240372602 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Koskela discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein outputting the control signal indicating the TRP beam failure status further comprises: outputting, via the control signal, an indication of per-component carrier beam failure, wherein the TRP beam failure status is associated with a first component carrier that is enabled for TRP beam failure reporting.
Kang, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein outputting the control signal indicating the TRP beam failure status further comprises: outputting, via the control signal, an indication of per-component carrier beam failure, wherein the TRP beam failure status is associated with a first component carrier that is enabled for TRP beam failure reporting. (Kang in paragraph 255 indicates that BFR MAC-CE as control signal may include the failed CC (Component Carrier) ID.)
In view of the above, having Koskela’s beam failure indications in TRP operation and then given the well- established teaching of Kang’ s techniques for Beam Recovery for Component Carriers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Xiao’s default beams for PUCCH/SRS configuration method as taught by Kang’ s techniques for Beam Recovery for Component Carriers, since Kang states in paragraphs 255 and 300 that the modification results in allowing the UE to report a failed Component Carrier (CC) as part of beam recovery with the failed CC.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected in the same scope as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ,18, 19, 20, and 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474