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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 05/12/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with newly identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
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, 9-10, 22 and 28-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0394671, “Zhang”).
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 relative to a base station (This will be discussed in view of Zhang.);
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 relative to a base station ([Zhang, 0080] “Downlink beam information may include downlink beam direction or subspace. A subspace may be a set of spatial parameters to describe the beam/antenna orientation and direction. Downlink beam direction may pertain to the downlink beam carrying the notification and/or to another downlink beam. Downlink beam direction may be expressed in terms of location direction or BAI, such as the angle of the downlink beam in terms of azimuth angle and/or zenith angle (such as angle from the zenith) and/or (x, y, z) coordinates in relation to a base station, possibly using the base station as a reference point or origin.”)
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 Zhang in order to effectively utilize resources such that “The UE-specific notification may be transmitted in a downlink beam pointed in the direction of the UE.” [Zhang, 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 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 Zhang et al. (US 2022/0394671, “Zhang”) 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 Zhang et al. (US 2022/0394671, “Zhang”) 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 Zhang et al. (US 2022/0394671, “Zhang”), 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].
Claim(s) 7 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0175957, “Raghavan”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0394671, “Zhang”) and further in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0174337, “Prasad”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Raghavan unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7 and 26, it is noted that while disclosing a BFR procedure, Raghavan does not specifically teach about a beam training. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Prasad as follows;
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.”).
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].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights