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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/02/2024.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending.
Claims 16-35 are rejected.
Claims 16, 22, 29 and 35 are independent claims.
-
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8. Claims 16-21 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linhai HE et al. (US 2021/0044342 A1), hereinafter HE, in view of Aimin Justin Sang et al. (US 2019/0089579 A1), hereinafter Sang.
For claim 16, HE teaches a user equipment (UE) (HE, Fig. 3 item 350) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (HE, Fig. 3 item 360); and
at least one processor (HE, Fig. 3 item 359) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a serving cell, configuration information related to two or more transmission reception points (TRPs) of the serving cell (HE, Fig. 9 step 902 and paragraph 88. See also Figs. 1, 4.);
detect a first beam failure of a first TRP within the two or more TRPs (HE, Figs. 9 step 904 and paragraph 89.);
perform a first beam failure recovery (BFR) for the first TRP (HE, Fig. 9 step 906 and paragraphs 90-91.);
detect, before receiving a response for the first BFR request from the serving cell, a second beam failure of a second TRP within the two or more TRPs (HE, Fig. 9 step 908 and paragraph 92.); and
monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) within a period (HE, Fig. 910 and paragraph 93.).
Sang further teaches performing a BFR including transmitting a BFR request (Sang, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 211, 218.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in HE with performing a BFR including transmitting a BFR request taught in Sang to save unnecessary later steps or redundant diversity exploration and unnecessary indications to RLF. [Sang: paragraph 179].
For claim 17, HE and Sang further teach the UE of Claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: perform, in response to ending of the period, a random access channel (RACH) procedure (HE, Fig. 8 step 846 and paragraph 94.).
For claim 18, HE and Sang further teach the UE of Claim 17, wherein the RACH procedure is based on configuration information related to a BFR procedure for the serving cell (HE, Fig. 8 step 846 and paragraph 94.).
For claim 19, HE and Sang further teach the UE of Claim 16, wherein one or more of:
the period is associated with a time window in a time domain, wherein the time window starts upon transmitting the first BFR request or the second BFR request, and wherein a length of the time window is configured by the serving cell; or the period is associated with a timer, the period starts in response to starting of the timer, and the period ends in response to an expiry of the timer or stopping of the timer (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Fig. 6 and paragraph 156.).
For claim 20, HE and Sang further teach the UE of Claim 19, wherein the timer is configured to start in response to one or more of: transmission of the first BFR request, and detection of the second beam failure; transmission of the first BFR request; or detection of the second beam failure, and transmission of the second BFR request (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Fig. 6 and paragraph 156.).
For claim 21, HE and Sang further teach the UE of Claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to stop the timer in response to one or more of: receiving the response for the first BFR request from the serving cell; or receiving a response for a second BFR request from the serving cell (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Figs. 6, 10 and paragraphs 156, 211, 218.).
For claim 29, HE teaches a processor (HE, Fig. 3 item 359) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller (HE, Fig. 3 item 359) coupled with at least one memory (HE, Fig. 3 item 360) and configured to cause the processor to:
receive, from a serving cell, configuration information related to two or more transmission reception points (TRPs) of the serving cell (HE, Fig. 9 step 902 and paragraph 88. See also Figs. 1, 4.);
detect a first beam failure of a first TRP within the two or more TRPs (HE, Figs. 9 step 904 and paragraph 89.);
perform a first beam failure recovery (BFR) for the first TRP (HE, Fig. 9 step 906 and paragraphs 90-91.);
detect, before receiving a response for the first BFR request from the serving cell, a second beam failure of a second TRP within the two or more TRPs (HE, Fig. 9 step 908 and paragraph 92.); and
monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) within a period (HE, Fig. 910 and paragraph 93.).
Sang further teaches performing a BFR including transmitting a BFR request (Sang, Fig. 10 and paragraphs 211, 218.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in HE with performing a BFR including transmitting a BFR request taught in Sang to save unnecessary later steps or redundant diversity exploration and unnecessary indications to RLF. [Sang: paragraph 179].
For claim 30, HE and Sang further teach the processor of Claim 29, wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to: perform, in response to ending of the period, a random access channel (RACH) procedure (HE, Fig. 8 step 846 and paragraph 94.).
For claim 31, HE and Sang further teach the processor of Claim 30, wherein the RACH procedure is based on configuration information related to a BFR procedure for the serving cell (HE, Fig. 8 step 846 and paragraph 94.).
For claim 32, HE and Sang further teach the processor of Claim 29, wherein one or more of: the period is associated with a time window in a time domain, wherein the time window starts upon transmitting the first BFR request or the second BFR request, and wherein a length of the time window is configured by the serving cell;or the period is associated with a timer, the period starts in response to starting of the timer, and the period ends in response to an expiry of the timer or stopping of the timer (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Fig. 6 and paragraph 156.).
For claim 33, HE and Sang further teach the processor of Claim 32, wherein the timer is configured to start in response to one or more of: transmission of the first BFR request, and detection of the second beam failure; transmission of the first BFR request; or detection of the second beam failure, and transmission of the second BFRrequest (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Fig. 6 and paragraph 156.).
For claim 34, HE and Sang further teach the processor of Claim 32, wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to stop the timer in response to one or more of: receiving the response for the BFR request from the serving cell; or receiving a response for a second BFR request from the serving cell (HE, Figs. 6, 8 and paragraph 70. See also Sang, Figs. 6, 10 and paragraphs 156, 211, 218.).
9. Claims 22-28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangbum KIM et al. (US 2020/0351731 A1), hereinafter KIM.
For claim 22, HE teaches a user equipment (UE) (KIM, Fig. 1D.) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (KIM, Fig. 1F item 1f-30.); and
at least one processor (KIM, Fig. 1F item 1f-40.) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a serving cell, configuration information of a handover procedure related to one or more candidate cells (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-30 and paragraph 52.), wherein the handover procedure is performed based on that a handover condition of the handover procedure is met (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-65 and paragraph 53.) or an activation indication of the handover procedure is received; and
receive, from the serving cell, at least one of:
a normal handover command;
a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover command; or
configuration information regarding a conditional handover (CHO) procedure (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-30 and paragraph 52.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in HE to have method of receiving, from a serving cell, configuration information of a cell switch procedure related to one or more candidate cells, wherein the cell switch procedure is performed based on that a cell switch condition of the cell switch procedure is met or an activation indication of the cell switch procedure is received; and receiving, from the serving cell, at least one of: a normal handover command; a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover command; or configuration information regarding a conditional handover (CHO) procedure. Because it is obvious that handover procedure is as same as cell switching.
For claims 23-26, instant claims are proviso upon limitation “the activation indication” not required by the claims 22-26; therefore, the limitation of instant claims does not come into force.
For claim 27, it depends on claim 26, thus it is rejected for the same reason.
For claim 28, it depends on claim 27, thus it is rejected for the same reason.
For claim 35, HE teaches a processor (KIM, Fig. 1F item 1f-40.) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller (KIM, Fig. 1F item 1f-40.) coupled with at least one memory (KIM, Fig. 1F item 1f-30.) and configured to cause the processor to:
receive, from a serving cell, configuration information of a handover procedure related to one or more candidate cells (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-30 and paragraph 52.), wherein the handover procedure is performed based on that a handover condition of the handover procedure is met (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-65 and paragraph 53.) or an activation indication of the handover procedure is received; and
receive, from the serving cell, at least one of:
a normal handover command;
a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover command; or
configuration information regarding a conditional handover (CHO) procedure (KIM, Fig. 1D step 1d-30 and paragraph 52.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in HE to have method of receiving, from a serving cell, configuration information of a cell switch procedure related to one or more candidate cells, wherein the cell switch procedure is performed based on that a cell switch condition of the cell switch procedure is met or an activation indication of the cell switch procedure is received; and receiving, from the serving cell, at least one of: a normal handover command; a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover command; or configuration information regarding a conditional handover (CHO) procedure. Because it is obvious that handover procedure is as same as cell switching.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILL W LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/WILL W LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412