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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention-I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected invention-II directed to method (claims 11-20) are canceled. Applicant newly submitted claims 21-30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 22, 26 and 28-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0174337, “Prasad”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Raghavan unless otherwise mentioned.
Raghavan comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method comprising:
transmitting an indication of a new beam direction ([0104 and Fig. 8] “the node 315a may transmit the BFR request using PRACH resources associated with the beam 802(q).”),
wherein identifying the new beam direction is performed ([0104 and Fig. 8] “At step 840, upon detecting the beam failure, the node 315a transmits a BFR request to the BS 305 to trigger a BFR. In this regard, upon detecting the beam failure, the node 315a may search for SSBs in different beam directions, identify a good beam, and transmit a PRACH signal to the BS in the beam direction of the good beam.”) responsive to detecting beam failure ([0103 and Fig. 8] “At step 830, the node 315a detects a beam failure.”), the indication using coordinate information, the coordinate information expressed relative to a predefined coordinate system (This will be discussed in view of Prasad.);
transmitting a request for beam failure recovery ([0104 and Fig. 8] “At step 840, upon detecting the beam failure, the node 315a transmits a BFR request to the BS 305 to trigger a BFR. In this regard, upon detecting the beam failure,”); and
receiving a response to the request for beam failure recovery ([0106 and Fig. 8] “At step 850, upon detecting the BFR request, the BS 305 transmits a BFR response to the node 315a using the beam 802(q).”).
It is noted that while disclosing a BFR procedure, Raghavan does not specifically teach about a coordinate system for a beam. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Prasad as follows;
the indication using coordinate information, the coordinate information expressed relative to a predefined coordinate system ([Prasad, 0129] “the indication using coordinate information, the coordinate information expressed relative to a predefined coordinate system”, [Prasad, 0132] “This would also require enhancements in the MDT 117 reporting procedure, so that the UE 100 measures and stores this information (in the offline mode) during failure situations such as RLF”, and [Prasad, 0175 and Fig. 6B] “The primary beams 1a, 1b, and 1c have a signal quality information respectively of SQI (1a), SQI (1b), and SQI (1c). The primary beams 1a, 1b, and 1c have respective angles of arrival of AoA(1a), AoA(1b), and AoA(1c) at the UE 100.”. Note that the Prasad’s AOA is equivalent to the recited coordinate information, and its AOA shall be measured based on a reference which is equivalent to the recited predefined coordinate system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Raghavan by using the features of Prasad in order to increase reliability of wireless network connections in high traffic density such that “enable enhancement to wide-area network based radio link reliability” [Prasad, 0008].
Regarding claim 10, it is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured, by executing the instructions” ([0123 and Fig. 5] “may utilize one or more components, such as the processor 502, the memory 504, the beam module 508, the transceiver 510, and the one or more antennas 516, to execute the steps of method 1000”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, it is a non-transitory CRM claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored” ([0140] “the present disclosure include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon. The non-transitory computer-readable medium includes code for causing a first wireless communication device to communicate”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 3 and 22, the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the detecting beam failure comprises using sensing ([0103] “At step 830, the node 315a detects a beam failure. In this regard, the node 315a may determine that a beam measurement, such as a RSRP and/or a RSRQ, for the beam 802(p) falls below a certain threshold.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 26, the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the identifying the new beam direction comprises performing a beam training procedure ([Prasad, 0127] “FIG. 3: illustrates an example signaling diagram for the initial/training phase for the UE 100 and 5G-RAP 110, in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. In the initial or training phase, the 5G-RAP 110 configures the UE 100 with additional measurements that are required for generating the new radio reflection environment map.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 28, the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the identifying the new beam direction comprises using sensing ([0111] “The BS 305, the node 315a, and the node 315b may perform may beam measurement, reporting, and refinement to select a new beam (e.g., the beam 802(q))”).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 21, 27 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0174337, “Prasad”) and further in view of Butt et al. (US 2023/0171836, “Butt”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Raghavan unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 2, 21 and 30, it is noted that while disclosing a BFR procedure, Raghavan does not specifically teach about BF by an AI. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Butt as follows;
the method of claim 1, the device of claim 10 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 29, respectively, wherein the detecting beam failure comprises using artificial intelligence ([Butt, 0065] “the beam failure probability factor may be determined by a trainable machine learning, ML, model.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Raghavan by using the features of Butt in order to improve beam failure procedures with minimizing delaying recovery procedures such that “comparing the beam failure probability factor with a beam failure threshold probability, beamFailureThresholdProb, and if the beam failure probability factor is higher than the beamFailureThresholdProb, declaring a beam failure” [Butt, 0011].
Regarding claims 8 and 27, the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the identifying the new beam direction comprises using artificial intelligence ([Butt, 0085] “the use of ML-based method provides proactive beam failure declaration and triggers the beam recovery procedure, in order to identify and establish a new beam pair”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Butt are the same as for claim 2.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0174337, “Prasad”) and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2024/0241215, “Duan”) and Kwon et al. (US 2021/0329702, “Kwon”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Raghavan unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, it is noted that while disclosing a BFR procedure, Raghavan does not specifically teach about transmitting a sensing signal and measuring a reflection of the sensing signal, and BLER. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Duan and Kwon, respectively, as follows;
the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the detecting beam failure comprises:
transmitting a sensing signal; receiving a reflection of the sensing signal; and processing the reflection of the sensing signal ([Duan, 0097] “a transmitted radio signal 506 may be reflected off of a target object, such as a building 504, and the receiver on the base station 502 is configured to receive and measure a reflected beam 508.”) to obtain a hypothetical metric of link quality ([Kwon, 0096] “A UE detects a beam failure when a signal quality of a channel falls below a specified threshold, for example. As for the signal quality of the channel, several metrics can be used. In the 3GPP RAN1 discussion, two signal quality measures were considered in detecting the beam failure. A first is a hypothetical PDCCH Block Error Rate (BLER)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Raghavan by using the features of Duan and Bi in order to increase signaling efficiencies and reduce latency such that “a method of operating a radar controller includes determining a radar slot format that configures transmission of a reference radar signal on a first symbol over a first link” [Duan, 0007], and “methods for performing random access communications with reduced communications overhead to improve overall efficiency” [Kwon, 0004].
Regarding claims 5 and 24, the method of claim 4 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the hypothetical metric of link quality comprises a hypothetical physical downlink control channel block error rate ([Kwon, 0096] “A UE detects a beam failure when a signal quality of a channel falls below a specified threshold, for example. As for the signal quality of the channel, several metrics can be used. In the 3GPP RAN1 discussion, two signal quality measures were considered in detecting the beam failure. A first is a hypothetical PDCCH Block Error Rate (BLER)”).
Claim(s) 6 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0174337, “Prasad”), Duan et al. (US 2024/0241215, “Duan”) and Kwon et al. (US 2021/0329702, “Kwon”), and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2025/0105905, “Kang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Raghavan unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 6 and 25, it is noted that while disclosing a BFR procedure, Raghavan does not specifically teach about RLM BLER. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Kang as follows;
the method of claim 4 and the device of claim 10, respectively, wherein the hypothetical metric of link quality comprises a reuse radio link management default block error rate ([Kang, 0213] “when a hypothetical BLER for all resources for RLM is equal to or greater than a threshold (i.e., when radio link quality is worse than a threshold), a physical layer of a terminal may provide out-of-sync to a higher layer (e.g., a MAC layer).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Raghavan by using the features of Kang in order to efficiently access radio link quality in a wireless communication system such that “a method and an apparatus of assessing radio link quality for performing a beam failure detection or radio link monitoring operation.” [Kang, 0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411