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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed towards a “non-transitory readable storage medium”. It is unclear by what or by whom the claimed storage medium is readable. It is recommended that these claims be amended such that it is clear that the claimed storage medium is readable by a specific device (i.e. a computer readable storage medium).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0362687 A1).
It is noted that many of the claims contain limitations written in the alternative using language such as “or”, “one or more of”, “one of the following”, “and/or”, etc. In order to properly anticipate these limitations, the prior art need only be shown to teach at least one of the claimed alternatives.
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Xu et al. discloses a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, i.e. a non-transitory readable storage medium, and a program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal to perform a beam failure recovery method for multiple transmission and reception points (See paragraph 2, paragraphs 209-210, and Figure 19 of Xu et al. for reference to a user equipment, which is a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and programs stored in the memory executed by the processor to perform a method of beam failure recovery in a scenario including multiple transmission and reception points, TRPs). Xu et al. also discloses performing, by a terminal, a first operation in a case that beam failure occurs on at least some of multiple transmission and reception points (TRPs) (See paragraphs 165-166 and Figure 15 of Xu et al. for reference to a user equipment performing operations in response to detecting a beam failure event occurring on a beam failure reference signal). Xu et al. further discloses wherein the first operation comprises one or more of following: measuring a candidate beam reference signal to determine a new beam (See paragraphs 74-75 and paragraph 169 of Xu et al. for reference to an performing an operation to determine a candidate beam from a TRP corresponding to the detected beam failure, wherein a candidate beam is determined by measuring based on measuring a reference signal), and sending a first message on one or multiple first resources, wherein the first message comprises a scheduling request (SR) and/or a media access control control element containing beam failure recovery information (BFR MAC CE) (See paragraph 99, paragraphs 170-172 of Xu et al. for reference to sending a beam failure recovery request, which is a first message, via PUCCH resources including a first part transmitted through a scheduling request and a second part transmitted through a media access control element).
With respect to claim 2, Xu et al. discloses wherein a TRP is identified by one or more of following: a beam failure detection reference signal set identifier (BFD-RS Set ID);a new beam identification reference signal set identifier (NBI-RS set ID); a control resource set pool index (CORESET Pool Index); and a control resource set group identifier (CORESET Group ID) (See paragraphs 102-104 and Figure 7-8 of Xu et al. for reference to TRPs being identified by one or more BFD-RS indexes of a failed beams, which is a BFD-RS Set ID, and being identified by one or more candidate beams for BFD-RS, which is a NBI-RS set ID).
With respect to claim 3, Xu et al. discloses wherein the candidate beam reference signal is associated with the at least some TRPs (See paragraphs 102-104, paragraph 169, and Figures 7-8 of Xu et al. for reference to each BFD-RS being associated with a specific TRP).
With respect to claim 6, Xu et al. discloses wherein the one first resource is one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource, and the one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource comprises multiple pieces of spatial relation information, wherein the multiple pieces of spatial relation information correspond to multiple TRPs respectively (See paragraph 99, paragraphs 102-104, paragraphs 170-172, and Figure 7 and 8 of Xu et al. for reference to the beam failure recovery request being sent in a first part through a scheduling request and a second part through a media access control element via a PUCCH resource, wherein the beam failure recovery request indicates multiple beams, which are spatial relation information, as well as whether a beam failure event has occurred on each beam and corresponding candidate beams for the failed beams, wherein each beam also corresponds to a specific TRP of multiple TRPs, i.e. TRP1 and TRP2).
With respect to claim 8, Xu et al. discloses wherein in a case that the candidate beam reference signal is configured by a network side, the BFR MAC CE comprises one or more of following: an identifier of a cell with beam failure; an identifier of a TRP with beam failure; indication information, wherein the indication information is used to indicate whether a new beam is found; and information of a new beam; or, in a case that no candidate beam reference signal is configured by a network side, the BFR MAC CE comprises one or more of following: an identifier of a cell with beam failure; and an identifier of a TRP with beam failure (See paragraphs 102-104, paragraph 159, paragraphs 170-172, and Figures 7-8 and 14 of Xu et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the base station, which is on the network side, provides the UE with beam failure recovery configuration information including configuration information of reference signal sets corresponding to TRP1 and TRP2 for beam failure detection, and for reference to the MAC CE comprising an identifier of beams that have failed corresponding to specific TRPs, which is an identifier of a TRP with beam failure, the MAC CE comprising IDs of candidate beams, which is indication information used to indicate whether a new beam is found and information of a new beam).
With respect to claim 9, Xu et al. discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal, a second message from a network-side device, wherein the second message is a response message of the first message (See paragraph 162 and Figure 14 of Xu et al. for reference to the UE receiving a response message, which is a second message, from a base station in response to the beam failure recovery request). Xu et al. also discloses wherein the second message and the BFR MAC CE correspond to the same first identifier or different first identifiers, and the first identifier comprises a cell identifier and/or a TRP identifier (See paragraphs 102-104, paragraphs 161-162, and Figure 7-8 and 14 of Xu et al. for reference to the response message confirming the candidate beam indicated by the beam failure recovery request, such that the response message and the MAC CE of the beam failure recovery request correspond to the same TRP identifier of the candidate beam).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0104036 A1).
With respect to claim 4, although Xu et al. does disclose sending a beam failure recovery request including a scheduling request via PUCCH resources (See paragraph 99 and paragraphs 170-172 of Xu et al.), Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the multiple first resources comprise multiple physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources or uplink grant resources, and the multiple PUCCH resources or uplink grant resources correspond to multiple TRPs. However, Zhou et al., in the field of communications, discloses a UE transmitting a BFR request via multiple PUCCH resources corresponding to multiple TRPs (See paragraphs 80-81 of Xu et al.). Transmitting a BFR request via multiple PUCCH resources corresponding to multiple TRPs has the advantage of allowing each TRP in communication with a UE to learn of the existence of a beam failure event such that appropriate action may be taken by each TRP to resolve the beam failure. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Zhou et al., to combine transmitting a BFR request via multiple PUCCH resources corresponding to multiple TRPs, as suggested by Zhou et al., within the system and method of Xu et al., with the motivation being to allow each TRP in communication with a UE to learn of the existence of a beam failure event such that appropriate action may be taken by each TRP to resolve the beam failure.
With respect to claim 5, Xu et al. does not specifically disclose determining a target transmission resource among the multiple PUCCH resources or uplink grant resources; and sending the first message on the target transmission resource; wherein the target transmission resource comprises one of following: a PUCCH resource or an uplink grant resource closest to the beam failure in time domain; a PUCCH resource or an uplink grant resource associated with a TRP with beam failure; a PUCCH resource closest to the beam failure in time domain and a PUCCH resource associated with a TRP with beam failure; an uplink grant resource closest to the beam failure in time domain and an uplink grant resource associated with a TRP with beam failure; and an uplink resource of a TRP corresponding to a first reference signal, wherein the first reference signal is a reference signal with the greatest measured value or a reference signal with a measured value greater than a preset threshold. As shown above in the rejection of claim 4, Zhou et al. renders obvious transmitting a BFR request via multiple PUCCH resources corresponding to multiple TRPs. Zhou et al. also discloses determining to transmit the BFR request on a cell, i.e. a Pcell, Pscell, or Scell, that is configured for PUCCH in which a PUCCH BFR is configured (See paragraph 80 of Zhou et al.). This corresponds to the claimed alternative of determining a target transmission resource among the multiple PUCCH resources or uplink grant resources and sending the first message on the target transmission resource; wherein the target transmission resource comprises a PUCCH resource or an uplink grant resource associated with a TRP with beam failure. Determining to transmit the BFR request on a cell, i.e. a Pcell, Pscell, or Scell, that is configured for PUCCH in which a PUCCH BFR is configured has the advantage of ensuring that the BFR request is sent to the appropriate cell and corresponding TRP. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Zhou et al., to combine determining to transmit the BFR request on a cell, i.e. a Pcell, Pscell, or Scell, that is configured for PUCCH in which a PUCCH BFR is configured, as suggested by Zhou et al., within the system and method of Xu et al., with the motivation being to ensure that the BFR request is sent to the appropriate cell and corresponding TRP.
With respect to claim 7, although Xu et al. does disclose sending a beam failure recovery request including a scheduling request via a PUCCH resource (See paragraph 99 and paragraphs 170-172 of Xu et al.), Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the sending a first message on one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource comprises: determining a target spatial relation for the one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource; and sending the first message based on the target spatial relation; wherein the target spatial relation comprises one of following: a spatial relation corresponding to a TRP without beam failure; and all spatial relations for the one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource, wherein the first message is sent based on the all spatial relations at the same time, or the first message is sent based on the all spatial relations in a time division mode. As shown above in the rejection of claim 4, Zhou et al. renders obvious transmitting a BFR request via multiple PUCCH resources corresponding to multiple TRPs. Zhou et al. also discloses determining target PUCCH resources corresponding to a beam on another TRP if all beams for one TRP become weak (See paragraphs 80-81 of Zhou et al.). This corresponds to the claimed alternative of determining a target spatial relation for the one PUCCH resource or uplink grant resource; and sending the first message based on the target spatial relation; wherein the target spatial relation comprises a spatial relation corresponding to a TRP without beam failure. Determining target PUCCH resources corresponding to a beam on another TRP if all beams for one TRP become weak has the advantage of ensuring that the BFR request may be received by the network even in the situation when all beams of a specific TRP become unusable. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Zhou et al., to combine determining target PUCCH resources corresponding to a beam on another TRP if all beams for one TRP become weak, as suggested by Zhou et al., within the system and method of Xu et al., with the motivation being to ensure that the BFR request may be received by the network even in the situation when all beams of a specific TRP become unusable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of Ling et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0412240 A1).
With respect to claim 10, although Xu et al. does disclose its beam failure recovery request MAC CE indicating candidate beams, which are new beams (See paragraphs 102-104 and Figures 7-8 of Xu et al.), Xu et al. does not specifically disclose in a case that a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) is detected, terminating, by the terminal, a beam recovery request procedure and/or resetting a beam for some channels by using the new beam; wherein a new data indicator (NDI) in the first PDCCH is flipped and the first PDCCH schedules a second uplink transmission, and the second uplink transmission and a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) transmission have the same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier; or, in a case that the terminal receives a third message, terminating, by the terminal, a beam recovery request procedure and/or resetting a beam of a corresponding channel by using beam information indicated by the third message; wherein the third message is used to adjust a transmission configuration indication state (TCI state) of CORESET associated with the TRP with beam failure and/or a spatial relation configured for a PUCCH. However, Ling et al., in the field of communications, discloses, after transmitting a beam failure recovery request, a UE receives DCI in a PDCCH from a base station scheduling a PUSCH transmission with a same HARQ process number and a toggled new data indicator field, wherein the reception of this message ends the beam recovery procedure (See paragraphs 85-90 and Figure 3 of Ling et al.). This corresponds to the claimed alternative requiring in a case that a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) is detected, terminating, by the terminal, a beam recovery request procedure and/or resetting a beam for some channels by using the new beam; wherein a new data indicator (NDI) in the first PDCCH is flipped and the first PDCCH schedules a second uplink transmission, and the second uplink transmission and a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) transmission have the same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier. Receiving DCI in a PDCCH from a base station scheduling a PUSCH transmission with a same HARQ process number and a toggled new data indicator field, wherein the reception of this message ends the beam recovery procedure has the advantage of allowing communications to continue after recovery from a beam failure. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Ling et al., to combine receiving DCI in a PDCCH from a base station scheduling a PUSCH transmission with a same HARQ process number and a toggled new data indicator field, wherein the reception of this message ends the beam recovery procedure, as suggested by Ling et al., within the system and method of Xu et al., with the motivation being to allow communications to continue after recovery from a beam failure.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0199528 A1).
With respect to claim 15, although Xu et al. does disclose the candidate beam reference information is configured by the network side (See paragraphs 102-104, paragraph 159, paragraphs 170-172, and Figures 7-8 and 14 of Xu et al. for reference to an embodiment wherein the base station, which is on the network side, provides the UE with beam failure recovery configuration information including configuration information of reference signal sets), Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein in a case that the BFR MAC CE does not comprise the information of the new beam and the terminal fails to detect a new beam meeting a threshold condition through measurement, the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal, a fifth message, wherein the fifth message indicates deactivation of a TRP; wherein the fifth message comprises one or more of following: first information, indicating information of the TRP with beam failure; and second information, indicating value change information of CORESET Pool Index or CORESETP Group ID.
With respect to claim 16, Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first information comprises one or more of CORESET Pool Index, CORESETP Group ID, BFD-RS Set ID, and NBI-RS Set ID.
With respect to claim 17, Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the value change information of CORESET Pool Index comprises one or more of following: indication information of whether values of all CORESET Pool Index are the same; and a changed value of CORESET Pool Index; or, the value change information of CORESETP Group ID comprises one or more of following: indication information of whether values of all CORESET Group ID are the same; and a changed value of CORESET Group ID.
With respect to claim 18, Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises: in a case the fifth message is received, performing, by the terminal, a third operation; wherein the third operation comprises one or more of following: terminating one or more of reception, measurement, and uplink transmission associated with the TRP with beam failure; terminating all higher-layer behaviors associated with the TRP with beam failure; performing one or more of reception, measurement, and uplink transmission based on all resources configured by the network side; and performing one or more of reception, measurement, and uplink transmission based on part of resources among all resources configured by the network side.
With further respect to claims 15-18, Kang et al., in the field of communications, discloses a UE transmitting a BFR MAC-CE to a base station that includes information on whether or not a new candidate beam has been found for a TRP (See paragraph 227 of Kang et al.), and receiving a response to the BFR MAC-CE indicating that the UE may reset, i.e. change, the beam related to the TRP in which the BF has occurred (See paragraphs 229-229 of Kang et al), wherein the TRP is indicated by a TRP ID that may be a CORESET group ID (See paragraph 227 of Kang et al.), such that the TRP indicating the reset of the beam related to the TRP is related to a change in a corresponding CORESET group ID, and wherein measurements on new candidate beam RSs are performed by the UE in response to receiving the response to the BFR MAC-CE from the base station (See paragraph 229 of Kang et al.). Transmitting a BFR MAC-CE and receiving a corresponding response in the manner taught by Kang et al. has the advantage of allowing beam failure recovery to be performed regardless of whether or not a new candidate beam is indicated by a UE in the BFR MAC-CE. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kang et al., to combine transmitting a BFR MAC-CE and receiving a corresponding response in the manner taught by Kang et al. within the system and method of Xu et al., with the motivation being to allow beam failure recovery to be performed regardless of whether or not a new candidate beam is indicated by a UE in the BFR MAC-CE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations requiring “in a case that the BFR MAC CE does not comprise the information of the new beam and no candidate beam reference information is configured by the network side, the method further comprises: in a case that the terminal has detected a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for activating aperiodic channel state information (CSI) reporting, stopping, by the terminal, detection of a BFD-RS associated with the TRP with beam failure; wherein the PDCCH is associated with the TRP with beam failure”.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable since the each depend on and further limit claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461