CTFR 18/391,846 CTFR 84535 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to communications filed May 8 th , 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are currently amendment. The present application is a continuation of International Patent Application no. PCT/JP2022/025388, filed on June 24 th , 2022, which claims priority to Japanese Patent Application no. 2021-106423, filed on June 28 th , 2021. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a receiver configured to” and “a controller configured to” in claims 1 and 6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeineddine et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0198602, hereinafter Zeineddine) . With respect to claims 1, 6, and 11, Zeineddine discloses a communication apparatus, base station, and method executed by a communication apparatus that communicates with a base station (paragraph [0033], lines 4) that manages a cell including a plurality of transmission/reception points (paragraph [0047], multiple transmission and receive point ), the communication apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message (paragraph [0055], lines 5-9) including BWP-DownlinkDedicated (paragraph [0070], lines 10-14, DL-BWP ) including configuration information configuring three or more reference signal resources (paragraph [0036], reference signal resource configurations in each of the first, second, and third beam failure detection reference signal set ) including first information configuring a reference signal resource corresponding to a radio link monitoring (paragraph [0036], radio link quality of reference signal resource configurations ) and second information configuring a plurality of reference signal resources corresponding to each of a plurality of failure detections (paragraph [0036], reference signal resource configurations in each of the first, second, and third beam failure detection reference signal set ); and a controller configured to: perform a radio link monitoring for the reference signal resource for the radio link monitoring based on a radio link monitoring configuration (paragraph [0069], lines 7-10, monitors a radio link ; paragraph [0087], lines 1-4, RadioLinkMonitoringConfig ), and individually detect beam failure for the reference signal resource for each of the plurality of failure detections (paragraph [0043] based on a configuration for each of the plurality of beam failure detections (paragraph [0054], lines 15-22, a quality of each BFD-RS may be individually compared with a threshold ); wherein the BWP-DownlinkDedicated is used for configuring communication apparatus specific parameters of a downlink bandwidth part of the cell (paragraph [0070], lines 10-14, DL-BWP ). With respect to claims 2, 7, and 12, Zeineddine discloses the communication apparatus according to claims 1, 6, and 11, wherein the BWP-DownlinkDedicated includes the radio link monitoring configuration and the configuration for each of the plurality of beam failure detections (paragraph [0075], lines 1-8, radio link quality measurements on the BWP of the serving cell ). With respect to claims 3, 8, and 13, Zeineddine discloses the communication apparatus according to claims 1, 6, and 11, wherein a purpose of the reference signal resource corresponding to the radio link monitoring is only configured to radio link failure when the reference signal resource corresponding to each of the plurality of beam failure detections is configured (paragraph [0036], lines 1-9, beam failure detection reference signal set ). With respect to claims 4, 9, and 14, Zeineddine discloses the communication apparatus according to claims 1, 6, and 11, wherein the configuration for each of the plurality of beam failure detections includes an additional/modification list for adding and/or modifying one or a plurality of reference signal resources (paragraph [0075], lines 1-8, candidateBeamRSList ), a release list for releasing one or a plurality of reference signal resources (paragraph [0082]), a maximum count value of beam failure instance indication from a physical layer (paragraph [0070], lines 1-8), and a timer value for detecting the beam failure (paragraph [0087], lines 1-10) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed May 8 th , 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claims 1, 6, and 11, the applicant argues that Zeineddine fails to disclose three or more reference signal resources . The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that there is no language in the claims that precludes each of the reference signals of the “three or more reference signals” from containing overlapping or shared configuration information. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that the third beam failure detection resource signal set of Zeineddine, containing information from either the first or second beam failure detection resource signal set, is not precluded from being considered a third reference signal for the purposes of mapping on to the claims limitations as currently presented, and therefor satisfies a third reference signal resource. Additionally, Zeineddine discloses that each of the fist and second beam failure detection reference signal sets contains both the claimed first information configuring a reference signal resource corresponding to a radio link monitoring, disclosed by the prior art as “radio link quality of reference signal resource configurations” (see paragraph [0043], lines 1-8), in addition to the claimed second information configuring a plurality of reference signal resources corresponding to each of a plurality of failure detections, disclosed by the prior art as “resource configurations indexes by failureDetectionResources” (see paragraph [0075], lines 1-8). Therefore, it is the examiner position that each of the first and second beam failure detection reference signal sets contain both the claimed ”first configuring information” and “second configuring information” which would result in the prior art disclosing at least four of the required “ three or more reference signal resources”. Therefor the examiner maintains that Zeineddine anticipates the claims as currently presented . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khan Patent no. 12,633,991 Zhu Pat. Pub. 2025/0150151 MolavianJazi Pat. Pub. 2025/0113341 Cirik Patent no. 12,244,456 Jia Pat. Pub. 2024/0251265 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BLAKE J RUBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3802. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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. 5/26/26 /BLAKE J RUBIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/391,846 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/391,846 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/391,846 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/391,846 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/391,846 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights