DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 18/329,840 filed on June 6th, 2023.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 03/09/2026, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 2 and 6 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 – 20 are rejected.
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/Remarks
Specification: The abstract was objected to because of its length being more than the 150 words limit. The appropriate correction has been made. The specification objection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejection: Claim 18 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The appropriate correction has been made in claim 18. The claim rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11 – 12 of the Remarks, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 3 – 5 and 7 – 18, with the exception of newly canceled claims 2 and 6, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 12/10/2025, particularly as regards the amended limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Raghavan et al. [US 20200186228 A1], Sistonen et al. [US 20200413269 A1], and Lindskog et al. [WO 2023217350 A1]. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
It should be noted that the scope of the previous claim 1 has been changed with the current amendment. Therefore, since this amendment changes the scope of the limitation as recited in amended claim 1, it necessitates a new ground(s) of rejection.
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 limitation recites “a first signal for first a beam measurement” (emphasis added) in line 2. Claims 19 and 20 both recite the same claim limitation on line 4 respectively. The word “first” should be after the article “a” instead of being before it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 limitation recites “transmitting another signal to another UE through the beams having the second beam at the second slot” (emphasis added) in Line 3 and 4. The word “level” appears to be omitted after the “second beam” as identified above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitations are presented as follows
(Currently Amended) A method performed by a base station, comprising:
a) - transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a first signal for first a beam measurement of the UE at a first beam level corresponding to a first beam width;
b) - determining whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level corresponding to a second beam width narrower than the first beam width, based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE;
c) - in accordance with a determination to transmit the second signal:
transmitting, to the UE, a second signal;
d) - receiving, from the UE, a result of the first beam measurement using the first signal and a result of the second beam measurement using the second signal; and
e) - performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement; and
f) - in accordance with a determination to not transmit the second signal, g) - performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level.
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitations: (c) “in accordance with a determination to transmit the second signal” … (e) “performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement” and (f) “in accordance with a determination to not transmit the second signal, performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level”.
The limitations are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. Limitation (c) requires that a beam scheduling be performed to select between a beam level for the UE if the determination to transmit the second signal is made. This contingent limitation further provides alternate options (in limitation (e)) during the beam selection process by reciting “select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level”. As for Limitation (f), it requires that a beam scheduling be performed to select the first beam level if the determination to transmit the second signal is not made. These conditions are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of the limitations (c) or (f) can be performed. Furthermore, if the limitation (c) is selected, there is further contingency in the selection of the first beam level (hereinafter option 1) or the second beam level (hereinafter option 2), wherein only one of the beam levels is required to be selected. As such, when limitation (c) is performed, it is fulfilled by selecting only the first beam level (option 1) or limitation (c) can be fulfilled by selecting only the second beam level (option 2).
Therefore, the BRI of the claim 1 requires limitations (a), (b) and only one of (c) or (f) (the dependent limitations (d) and (e) will be performed along with limitation (c), while the dependent limitation (g) will be performed along with (f)). When the limitation (c) is selected or performed, a further selection in limitation (e) of either option 1 or option 2 will be made.
For the purpose of examination, the limitations (a), (b), (f), and (g) will be selected and rejected as shown in the 35 USC. § 103 rejection of claim 1 below, see office action for more details.
It should be noted that no prior art claim mapping or rejection will be provided for the limitations of claims 3, 4, 7 – 11, and 13 that are based upon the claim limitations in claim 1 (i.e., limitations (c), (d), and (e)) that are not covered by the BRI of claim 1 as rejected in the office action below.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. [US 20200186228 A1] hereinafter Raghavan, and further in view of Sistonen et al. [US 20200413269 A1] hereinafter Sistonen, and Lindskog et al. [WO 2023217350 A1] hereinafter Lindskog.
Regarding claim 1, Raghavan teaches a method performed by a base station (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; in view of a first wireless device being base station 105), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; in view of a second wireless device being UE 115), a first signal for first a beam measurement of the UE at a first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. (i.e., Therefore, since the base station receives a beam measurement report from the UE, the base station transmitted a signal for beam measurement to the UE)) corresponding to a first beam width (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths. For example, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. (i.e., Therefore, a first beam width is P1 beam having a wider beam width));
determining whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 85; wherein the base station may utilize cluster validity metric to signal that one or more beams reported in a beam measurement report are unacceptable, and therefore a second beam measurement report is being requested. This may begin by identifying the best cluster in the channel from the RSRP table (e.g., the best beam measurements from a first set of beams indicated in the first beam measurement report). (i.e., Therefore, the base station determines whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level based on the first beam measurement report)) corresponding to a second beam width narrower than the first beam width, based on information on cluster validity metric (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. (i.e., Therefore, a second beam width is P2 beam having a narrower beam width));
in accordance with a determination to transmit the second signal:
transmitting, to the UE, a second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. (i.e., Therefore, since the base station determines that a second beam measurement is required based on the first beam measurement report, it transmits the cluster validity metric (i.e., a second signal) to the UE for a second beam measurement report));
receiving, from the UE, a result of the first beam measurement using the first signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. (i.e., Therefore, the base station receives the first result using a first signal)) and a result of the second beam measurement using the second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1015, the base station may receive from the second wireless device, in response to transmitting the cluster validity metric, a second beam measurement report indicating a second set of beam measurements for the wireless channel. (i.e., Therefore, the base station receives the second result using a second signal)); and
performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1020, the base station may select a beam for transmitting to the second wireless device based on the first and second beam measurement reports. (i.e., Therefore, the base station performs beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from the first or the second beam level based on the results of the first and second beam measurements reports)); and
in accordance with a determination to not transmit the second signal, performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. (i.e., Therefore, in the event that the base station does not transmit the cluster validity metric to the UE for a second beam measurement report (i.e., if the base station determines not to transmit the second signal), the base station will have to perform beam scheduling to select the first beam on the first beam level based on the beam measurement report it received for the first beam level)).
Raghavan does not explicitly disclose that the determining whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE.
Referring to the invention of Sistonen, Sistonen teaches that transmitting a signal for a beam measurement of the UE at a beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE (Sistonen: ¶ 100; wherein control may be made on the basis of at least one of the following input parameters: measurement data from one or more terminal devices in the service area 200 (i.e., the transmission capacity information), measurement data from the antenna modules, network-level information acquired from the radio access network, location and/or mobility of the terminal device(s) in the service area (i.e., the mobility information), and information type of traffic and/or links in the service area (i.e., the traffic information). Therefore, if at least one of the information above are used to determine the control of the antenna modules (i.e., antenna modules for beamforming and beam measurements), then it is understandable that more than one type (i.e., the three types) of information are used together).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the transmission capacity, the traffic, and mobility types of information as taught by Sistonen into the invention of Raghavan in order to achieve a multi-dimensional beam measurement model that is not just about “how strong” a beam is, but also what it’s carrying, how much it’s carrying, and how it’s changing with movement. This leads to more efficient, stable, and service-aware beam management.
Raghavan in view of Sistonen do not explicitly disclose the eventual selection of the first beam level when performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement.
Referring to the invention of Lindskog, Lindskog teaches a network node that makes a determination to select the wide beam after receiving the reports of both the narrow beams and the wide beams from the UE, therefore performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Lindskog: Fig. 13C, Page 19, lines 3 – 12; wherein the UE transmits 1351 measurements associated with one or more NBs (1-4) (i.e., narrow beams 1 – 4, which corresponds to the second beam as taught by Raghavan) and one or more WBs (17) (i.e., wide beam 17, which corresponds to the first beam as taught by Raghavan) to the network node. Upon receiving the measurements received from the UE, the network node determines 1352 whether to switch to use the WB 17 for the communication… The network node determines whether the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4. When it is determined that the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4, the network node determines to switch to the use the WB 17 for communication with the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection of the wide beam teachings of Lindskog into the combined invention of Raghavan and Sistonen in order to achieve effective a quick and reliable connection between the devices.
In view of the combination of Raghavan, Sistonen, and Lindskog above, the first beam (i.e., the wide beam) is the selected beam as required in the limitations of claim 1 above. Therefore, the rejection of subsequent dependent claims will be based on the selected beam being the first beam (i.e., the wide beam).
Regarding claim 5, Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the information on the transmission capacity of the UE comprises an average synchronization signal reference signal received power (SS-RSRP) (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65-66, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein the receiving device may obtain or otherwise determine RSRP estimates for all beam pairs (e.g., possibly averaged over multiple sub-bands and/or multiple symbols) to form the RSRP table. Therefore, the receiving device (i.e., the UE) determines the RSRP estimates for all beam pairs to form an RSRP table using average RSRP values. This information will be a part of the transmission capacity information provided by the UE to the base station in the event of beam scheduling), and
wherein the mobility information of the UE comprises a beam change frequency (BCF) (Sistonen: ¶ 89, ¶ 105; wherein the observed traffic conditions and mobility of the terminal devices may be used to adaptively change the dimensions of the service area and quality conditions may drive a fixed change of the service area. Therefore, the mobility information of the UE will comprise necessary beam change information (i.e., beam change frequency)).
Regarding claim 12, Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the beam level for the UE further includes a third beam level corresponding to a third beam width narrower than the first beam width and the second beam width (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width. Therefore, a third beam width is P3 beam having a narrower beam width),
wherein the method comprises:
in a case that the second beam level is selected as the beam level for the UE, adjusting based on the information on the transmission capacity, the mobility information of the UE, and the traffic to be transmitted to the UE, the beam level for the UE to another second beam level. (It should be noted that this second half of the claim limitation does not further limit the claim limitations as presented in the rejection of claim 1 upon which it depends. The same conditions as the contingent limitations applied to certain claims of this office action also applies to this second half of claim 12 limitations).
Regarding claim 19, Raghavan teaches a base station (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 139-143, ¶ 144-146; in view of a first wireless device being base station 105), comprising a memory (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; in view of a memory 930) and a processor (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; in view of a processor 940);
wherein, the memory has computer programs stored therein (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; wherein memory 930 may store computer-readable code 935 including instructions); and
the processor is configured to execute the computer programs (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; wherein memory 930 may store computer-readable code 935 including instructions that, when executed by a processor (e.g., the processor 940) cause the device to perform various functions) to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE) (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; in view of a second wireless device being UE 115), a first signal for first a beam measurement of the UE at a first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. Therefore, since the base station receives a beam measurement report from the UE, the base station transmitted a signal for beam measurement to the UE) corresponding to a first beam width (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths. For example, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. Therefore, a first beam width is P1 beam having a wider beam width);
determine whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 85; wherein the base station may utilize cluster validity metric to signal that one or more beams reported in a beam measurement report are unacceptable, and therefore a second beam measurement report is being requested. This may begin by identifying the best cluster in the channel from the RSRP table (e.g., the best beam measurements from a first set of beams indicated in the first beam measurement report). Therefore, the base station determines whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level based on the first beam measurement report) corresponding to a second beam width narrower than the first beam width, based on information on cluster validity metric (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. Therefore, a second beam width is P2 beam having a narrower beam width);
in accordance with a determination to transmit the second signal:
transmit, to the UE, a second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. Therefore, since the base station determines that a second beam measurement is required based on the first beam measurement report, it transmits the cluster validity metric (i.e., a second signal) to the UE for a second beam measurement report);
receive, from the UE, a result of the first beam measurement using the first signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. Therefore, the base station receives the first result using a first signal) and a result of the second beam measurement using the second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1015, the base station may receive from the second wireless device, in response to transmitting the cluster validity metric, a second beam measurement report indicating a second set of beam measurements for the wireless channel. Therefore, the base station receives the second result using a second signal); and
perform beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1020, the base station may select a beam for transmitting to the second wireless device based on the first and second beam measurement reports. Therefore, the base station performs beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from the first or the second beam level based on the results of the first and second beam measurements reports); and
in accordance with a determination to not transmit the second signal, perform beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. Therefore, in the event that the base station does not transmit the cluster validity metric to the UE for a second beam measurement report (i.e., if the base station determines not to transmit the second signal), the base station will have to perform beam scheduling to select the first beam on the first beam level based on the beam measurement report it received for the first beam level).
Raghavan does not explicitly disclose that the determining whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE.
Referring to the invention of Sistonen, Sistonen teaches that transmitting a signal for a beam measurement of the UE at a beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE (Sistonen: ¶ 100; wherein control may be made on the basis of at least one of the following input parameters: measurement data from one or more terminal devices in the service area 200 (i.e., the transmission capacity information), measurement data from the antenna modules, network-level information acquired from the radio access network, location and/or mobility of the terminal device(s) in the service area (i.e., the mobility information), and information type of traffic and/or links in the service area (i.e., the traffic information). Therefore, if at least one of the information above are used to determine the control of the antenna modules (i.e., antenna modules for beamforming and beam measurements), then it is understandable that more than one type (i.e., the three types) of information are used together).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the transmission capacity, the traffic, and mobility types of information as taught by Sistonen into the invention of Raghavan in order to achieve a multi-dimensional beam measurement model that is not just about “how strong” a beam is, but also what it’s carrying, how much it’s carrying, and how it’s changing with movement. This leads to more efficient, stable, and service-aware beam management.
Raghavan in view of Sistonen do not explicitly disclose the eventual selection of the first beam level when performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement.
Referring to the invention of Lindskog, Lindskog teaches a network node that makes a determination to select the wide beam after receiving the reports of both the narrow beams and the wide beams from the UE, therefore performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Lindskog: Fig. 13C, Page 19, lines 3 – 12; wherein the UE transmits 1351 measurements associated with one or more NBs (1-4) (i.e., narrow beams 1 – 4, which corresponds to the second beam as taught by Raghavan) and one or more WBs (17) (i.e., wide beam 17, which corresponds to the first beam as taught by Raghavan) to the network node. Upon receiving the measurements received from the UE, the network node determines 1352 whether to switch to use the WB 17 for the communication… The network node determines whether the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4. When it is determined that the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4, the network node determines to switch to the use the WB 17 for communication with the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection of the wide beam teachings of Lindskog into the combined invention of Raghavan and Sistonen in order to achieve effective a quick and reliable connection between the devices.
In view of the combination of Raghavan, Sistonen, and Lindskog above, the first beam (i.e., the wide beam) is the selected beam as required in the limitations of claim 1 above. Therefore, the rejection of subsequent dependent claims will be based on the selected beam being the first beam (i.e., the wide beam).
Regarding claim 20, Raghavan teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 143; in view of a non-transitory computer-readable medium - memory 930) storing one or more programs, the one or more programs including instructions (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; wherein memory 930 may store computer-readable code 935 including instructions), which, when being executed by at least one processor (Raghavan: Fig. 9, ¶ 139-143; wherein memory 930 may store computer-readable code 935 including instructions that, when executed by a processor (e.g., the processor 940) cause the device to perform various functions) of a base station cause the base station (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 139-143, ¶ 144-146; in view of a first wireless device being base station 105) to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE) (Raghavan: Fig. 1, Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; in view of a second wireless device being UE 115), a first signal for first a beam measurement of the UE at a first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. Therefore, since the base station receives a beam measurement report from the UE, the base station transmitted a signal for beam measurement to the UE) corresponding to a first beam width (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths. For example, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. Therefore, a first beam width is P1 beam having a wider beam width);
determine whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 85; wherein the base station may utilize cluster validity metric to signal that one or more beams reported in a beam measurement report are unacceptable, and therefore a second beam measurement report is being requested. This may begin by identifying the best cluster in the channel from the RSRP table (e.g., the best beam measurements from a first set of beams indicated in the first beam measurement report). Therefore, the base station determines whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level based on the first beam measurement report) corresponding to a second beam width narrower than the first beam width, based on information on cluster validity metric (Raghavan: Fig. 2, ¶ 65, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein conventional beam management techniques may be based on different beam widths, beam management may use P1/P2/P3 beams, with a P1 beam having a wider beam width than a P2 or a P3 beam, e.g., begin with a wide beam width and move to a narrower beam width on base station side with a P2 beam and at the UE side with a P3 beam. Therefore, a second beam width is P2 beam having a narrower beam width);
in accordance with a determination to transmit the second signal:
transmit, to the UE, a second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. Therefore, since the base station determines that a second beam measurement is required based on the first beam measurement report, it transmits the cluster validity metric (i.e., a second signal) to the UE for a second beam measurement report);
receive, from the UE, a result of the first beam measurement using the first signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1005, the base station may receive a first beam measurement report from a second wireless device (i.e., the UE), the first beam measurement report indicating a first set of beam measurements for a wireless channel between the first wireless device and the second wireless device. Therefore, the base station receives the first result using a first signal) and a result of the second beam measurement using the second signal (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1015, the base station may receive from the second wireless device, in response to transmitting the cluster validity metric, a second beam measurement report indicating a second set of beam measurements for the wireless channel. Therefore, the base station receives the second result using a second signal); and
perform beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1020, the base station may select a beam for transmitting to the second wireless device based on the first and second beam measurement reports. Therefore, the base station performs beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from the first or the second beam level based on the results of the first and second beam measurements reports); and
in accordance with a determination to not transmit the second signal, perform beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Raghavan: Fig. 10, ¶ 5, ¶ 58-59, ¶ 144-146; wherein at 1010, the base station may transmit to the second wireless device a cluster validity metric for at least one beam in the first beam measurement report. Therefore, in the event that the base station does not transmit the cluster validity metric to the UE for a second beam measurement report (i.e., if the base station determines not to transmit the second signal), the base station will have to perform beam scheduling to select the first beam on the first beam level based on the beam measurement report it received for the first beam level).
Raghavan does not explicitly disclose that the determining whether to transmit a second signal for a second beam measurement of the UE at a second beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE.
Referring to the invention of Sistonen, Sistonen teaches that transmitting a signal for a beam measurement of the UE at a beam level is based on information on transmission capacity, mobility information, and traffic information of the UE received from the UE (Sistonen: ¶ 100; wherein control may be made on the basis of at least one of the following input parameters: measurement data from one or more terminal devices in the service area 200 (i.e., the transmission capacity information), measurement data from the antenna modules, network-level information acquired from the radio access network, location and/or mobility of the terminal device(s) in the service area (i.e., the mobility information), and information type of traffic and/or links in the service area (i.e., the traffic information). Therefore, if at least one of the information above are used to determine the control of the antenna modules (i.e., antenna modules for beamforming and beam measurements), then it is understandable that more than one type (i.e., the three types) of information are used together).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the transmission capacity, the traffic, and mobility types of information as taught by Sistonen into the invention of Raghavan in order to achieve a multi-dimensional beam measurement model that is not just about “how strong” a beam is, but also what it’s carrying, how much it’s carrying, and how it’s changing with movement. This leads to more efficient, stable, and service-aware beam management.
Raghavan in view of Sistonen do not explicitly disclose the eventual selection of the first beam level when performing beam scheduling to select a beam level for the UE from among the first beam level or the second beam level after receiving the result of the first beam measurement and the result of the second beam measurement.
Referring to the invention of Lindskog, Lindskog teaches a network node that makes a determination to select the wide beam after receiving the reports of both the narrow beams and the wide beams from the UE, therefore performing beam scheduling to select the first beam level (Lindskog: Fig. 13C, Page 19, lines 3 – 12; wherein the UE transmits 1351 measurements associated with one or more NBs (1-4) (i.e., narrow beams 1 – 4, which corresponds to the second beam as taught by Raghavan) and one or more WBs (17) (i.e., wide beam 17, which corresponds to the first beam as taught by Raghavan) to the network node. Upon receiving the measurements received from the UE, the network node determines 1352 whether to switch to use the WB 17 for the communication… The network node determines whether the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4. When it is determined that the signal quality of the WB 17 is greater than the signal quality of the NB 4, the network node determines to switch to the use the WB 17 for communication with the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the selection of the wide beam teachings of Lindskog into the combined invention of Raghavan and Sistonen in order to achieve effective a quick and reliable connection between the devices.
In view of the combination of Raghavan, Sistonen, and Lindskog above, the first beam (i.e., the wide beam) is the selected beam as required in the limitations of claim 1 above. Therefore, the rejection of subsequent dependent claims will be based on the selected beam being the first beam (i.e., the wide beam).
Claims 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al., Sistonen et al., and Lindskog et al., and further in view of Ni et al. [US 20210203396 A1] hereinafter Ni.
Regarding claim 14, Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising.
Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog does not explicitly disclose obtaining, using a specified model, a predicted traffic within a coverage area of beams having the first beam level, based on a historical traffic within the coverage area of beams having the first beam level; and identifying, based on the predicted traffic within the coverage area of the beams having the first beam level, the number of beams having the second beam level and the second width of the beams having the second beam level within the coverage area.
Referring to the invention of Ni, Ni teaches obtaining, using a specified model, a predicted traffic within a coverage area of beams having the first beam level, based on a historical traffic within the coverage area of beams having the first beam level (Ni: ¶ 89-91, Fig. 7, ¶ 132, ¶ 148-152; wherein when using AI technology, traffic prediction may be performed through a traffic prediction model… and traffic prediction is performed for the beam areas included in the cell, in operation 860, the beam number to cover each beam area in the cell is calculated according to the predicted traffic distribution data of each beam area in the cell… wherein classifying the historical traffic distribution data in each cell may be completed, and the corresponding historic environment data may be labeled according to the classification result of the traffic distribution data. The labeled historic environment data may be used as sample environment data among the training samples for subsequent traffic prediction model); and
identifying, based on the predicted traffic within the coverage area of the beams having the first beam level, the number of beams having the second beam level and the second width of the beams having the second beam level within the coverage area (Ni: ¶ 89-91, Fig. 7, ¶ 132, ¶ 148-152; wherein the beam number may be determined according to the traffic information (the traffic distribution data of each beam area (i.e., to include the second beam level with its respective beam width)) and the beambook size limit (i.e., the number of beams) of the cell. The beam number (that is, the total number of beams) to cover each beam area may be calculated according to the predicted traffic volume (that is, traffic distribution data, which may be referred to as the predicted traffic volume) in each beam area and the beambook size of the cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predicted traffic within a coverage area teachings of Ni into the combined beam coverage teachings of Raghavan, Sistonen, and Lindskog, in order to improve network efficiency, reduce operational overhead, enhance coverage quality, and enable adaptive, energy-conscious beam management in 5G/6G systems.
Regarding claim 15, Raghavan in view of Sistonen, Lindskog, and Ni teaches the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
obtaining historical information on the transmission capacity of the beam having the first level; and adjusting the predicted traffic within the coverage area based on the historical information on the transmission capacity of at the beams having the first beam (Ni: ¶ 89-91, Fig. 7, ¶ 132, ¶ 148-152; wherein classifying the historical traffic distribution data in each cell may be completed, and the corresponding historic environment data (i.e., the historical data/ beam attributes to include transmission capacity, related to the beams of the cell covering that traffic distribution area) may be labeled according to the classification result of the traffic distribution data. The labeled historic environment data may be used as sample environment data among the training samples for subsequent traffic prediction model).
Regarding claim 16, Raghavan in view of Sistonen, Lindskog, and Ni teaches the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
identifying attribute information of the first beam level and attribute information of the second beam level,
wherein, the attribute information of the first beam level is associated with the number of beams having the first beam level and the first width of the beams having the first beam level (Lindskog: Fig. 13C, Page 18, Page 19, lines 3 – 12, Claim 1; wherein one or more WBs (17) (i.e., wide beam 17, 18, 19, 20, which corresponds to the first beams at a first beam level as taught by Raghavan) has a wide beam width),
wherein, the attribute information of the second beam level is associated with the number of beams having the second beam level and the second width of the beams having the second beam level (Lindskog: Fig. 13C, Page 18, Page 19, lines 3 – 12, Claim 1; wherein one or more NBs (1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16) (i.e., narrow beams which corresponds to the second beams at a second beam level as taught by Raghavan) has a narrow beam width as compared to the WBs),
wherein the number of beams having the first beam level includes the number of first vertical beams and the number of first horizontal beams, wherein the number of beams having the second beam level includes the number of second vertical beams and the number of second horizontal beams (Ni: Fig. 4A, ¶ 77-78, ¶ 130; wherein the numbers of beams arranged in horizontal direction and in vertical direction of antenna array are determined based on the beambook size limit information 410 and possible beam width supported by the antenna array of the base station),
wherein the first width is associated with first beam widths of first vertical beams and second beam widths of first horizontal beams, and wherein the second width is associated with third beam widths of second vertical beams and fourth beam widths of second horizontal beams (Ni: Fig. 4A, ¶ 77-78, ¶ 130; wherein the beam coverage range requirement 420 includes the horizontal coverage range and vertical coverage range of the cell, such as the horizontal and vertical angle ranges shown in the FIG. 3. The beam coverage range requirements 420 may be determined according to the network coverage scenario of each operator. At operation S410, position (i.e., horizontal angle φ and vertical angle θ) and beam width for each of beams are calculated based on the principle that is to uniformly distribute the beams into the beam coverage range of the cell).
Regarding claim 17, Raghavan in view of Sistonen, Lindskog, and Ni teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising:
obtaining, based on the number of second vertical beams, the number of first vertical beams, and a coverage width in a vertical dimension in a cell, information on the second width; and obtaining, based on the number of second horizontal beams, the number of first horizontal beams, and a coverage width in a horizontal dimension in a cell, information on the first width (Ni: Fig. 4B, ¶ 77-78, ¶ 130; wherein the horizontal dimension coverage angle range corresponding to the beambook is [−120°, 120° ], and the vertical dimension coverage angle range is [−12°, 12° ]. Each of ellipses in FIG. 4B represents a beam, the size of the ellipse represents coverage range of the corresponding beam, and the coverage angle of each of beams in the beambook is uniformly distributed. As seen from FIG. 4B, the number of the beams arranged in the horizontal direction is 16 and the number of the beams arranged in the vertical direction is 4, and then the HPBW.sub.h of each of beams in the beambook is 240°/16, i.e., 15°, the HPBW.sub.v is 24°/4, i.e., 6°, the set of φ of beams is {±7.5, ±22.5, . . . }, and the set of θ is {±3°, ±9° }).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al., Sistonen et al., and Lindskog et al., and further in view of He et al. [US 20200336253 A1] hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 18, Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising.
Raghavan in view of Sistonen and Lindskog does not explicitly disclose after transmitting a signal to the UE through beams having the first beam level at a first slot followed by a second slot, transmitting another signal to another UE through the beams having the second beam at the second slot.
Referring to the invention of He, He teaches that a transmission device can transmit to UEs through multiple beams in corresponding multiple slots (He: Fig. 20, ¶ 223 – 227; wherein a transmitter UE transmits a reservation signal that is transmitted using multiple beams in corresponding multiple slots to multiple UEs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transmission in multiple beams in corresponding slots teachings of He into the combined beam scheduling teachings of Raghavan, Sistonen, and Lindskog, in order to provide interference-free communication to many UEs, greatly increasing capacity, reliability, and efficiency while supporting high-density and mobile environments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al. [US 20230276431 A1]: Method and Apparatus for Cooperative Scheduling in a Mobile Communication System.
Raghavan et al. [US 20200186229 A1]: Beam refinement in Millimeter Wave Channel.
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 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 HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights