DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to the new ground rejection presented below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 (4/30/26) of copending Application No. 18396217 (Hereinafter A18396217) in view of Kwak (US 20230144010 A1).
For claim 1, A18396217 discloses a communication apparatus that communicates includes two or more a base station that manages a cell including N (N≥2) transmission/reception points, the communication apparatus comprising (claim 1, “A communication apparatus that communicates with a base station that includes two or more transmission/reception points, the communication apparatus comprising”):
a communicator configured to receive, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including parameters used for configuring communication apparatus specific parameters of a downlink bandwidth part, and for beam failure detection resource sets (claim 1 “a communicator configured to receive, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including a radio link monitoring configuration for configuring radio link monitoring and a beam failure detection configuration for configuring two or more beam failure detection resource sets;”); and
a controller configured to trigger, based on the number of beam failure events, the BFR procedure, for each of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets, a number of beam failure events for the communication apparatus to trigger a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure (claim 6, “… the controller is configured to set only the RLF as the purpose in a case where the beam failure detection configuration for configuring the two or more beam failure detection resource sets is configured. ”)
the controller is configured to initiate a random access procedure in a case where the BFR procedure is triggered for all of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets and the BFR procedure is not successfully completed for any of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets a beam failure recovery (BFR) is triggered for all of the N beam failure detection resource sets and the BFR is not successfully completed for any of the beam failure detection resource sets (claim 1 “… the purpose is set to only the RLF in a case where the beam failure detection configuration for configuring the two or more beam failure detection resource sets is configured”)
A18396217 is silent but Kwak, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses: that the RRC includes a BWP-DownlinkDedicated information element used for configuring communication apparatus specific parameters of a downlink bandwidth part, the BWP-DownlinkDedicated information element including configuration beam failure detection resource sets and parameters for (FIG. 17 and the associated text, “[0217] FIG. 17 shows example configuration parameters for a wireless device to receive control and/or data from a base station. A wireless device may receive one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters of a cell. The configuration parameters may indicate/comprise one or more parameters of a serving cell configuration 1710 (e.g., ServingCellConfig). The one or more parameters of the serving cell configuration 1710 may comprise one or more downlink bandwidth parts (e.g., a list of BWP-Downlinks). The one or more parameters of the serving cell configuration 1710 may comprise one or more uplink bandwidth parts (e.g., a list of BWP-Uplinks). A downlink bandwidth part configuration 1720 (e.g., BWP-Downlink) and/or an uplink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-Uplink) may comprise a bandwidth part index (e.g., bwp-Id), configuration parameters of a cell-common downlink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-DownlinkCommon), and/or a wireless device-specific downlink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-DownlinkDedicated). … The locationAndBandwidth may indicate a starting resource block (RB) of the bandwidth part and a bandwidth of the bandwidth part, based on a reference point … [0217] … The configuration parameters may indicate/comprise sps-ConfigList and/or beamFailureRecoverySCellConfig. …”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to combine A18396217 with Kwak for the benefit of performing failure recovery ([0217] of Kwak).
For claim 7 is rejected because it is a claim of the corresponding base station communicating with the communication apparatus of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
For claim 10 is rejected because it is a claim of a method that is performed by the communication apparatus of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Dependent claims are rejected in a similar fashion.
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 1-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20230144010 A1) in view of D1 (R1-2105781, NPL dated 12/26/23, 12 pages).
For claim 1, Kwak discloses a communication apparatus that communicates with a base station that includes two or more transmission/reception points (FIG. 20 shows wireless Device 2011 communicates with a base station 2010 that includes at least two TRP #0 and TRP #1), the communication apparatus comprising:
a communicator configured to receive, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including a BWP-DownlinkDedicated information element used for configuring communication apparatus specific parameters of a downlink bandwidth part, the BWP-DownlinkDedicated information element including configuration beam failure detection resource sets (FIG. 17 and the associated text, “[0217] FIG. 17 shows example configuration parameters for a wireless device to receive control and/or data from a base station. A wireless device may receive one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters of a cell. The configuration parameters may indicate/comprise one or more parameters of a serving cell configuration 1710 (e.g., ServingCellConfig). The one or more parameters of the serving cell configuration 1710 may comprise one or more downlink bandwidth parts (e.g., a list of BWP-Downlinks). The one or more parameters of the serving cell configuration 1710 may comprise one or more uplink bandwidth parts (e.g., a list of BWP-Uplinks). A downlink bandwidth part configuration 1720 (e.g., BWP-Downlink) and/or an uplink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-Uplink) may comprise a bandwidth part index (e.g., bwp-Id), configuration parameters of a cell-common downlink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-DownlinkCommon), and/or a wireless device-specific downlink bandwidth part (e.g., BWP-DownlinkDedicated). … The locationAndBandwidth may indicate a starting resource block (RB) of the bandwidth part and a bandwidth of the bandwidth part, based on a reference point … [0217] … The configuration parameters may indicate/comprise sps-ConfigList and/or beamFailureRecoverySCellConfig. …”); and
a controller configured to trigger, based on the number of beam failure events, the BFR procedure, for each of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets, a number of beam failure events for the communication apparatus to trigger a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure beam failure detection resource sets for each of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets (FIGs. 24-26 and the associated text, such as “[0291] The one or more configuration parameters (e.g., the one or more configuration parameters 2420/2620 or any other configuration parameters) may indicate one or more beam failure detection groups/sets/pools (or beam failure detection reference signal groups/sets/pools or BFD-RS groups/sets/pools). In FIG. 24 and FIG. 26, the one or more beam failure detection groups/sets/pools comprise a first beam failure detection group/set/pool (e.g., BFD group 1) and a second beam failure detection group/set/pool (e.g., BFD group 2). Each beam failure detection group/set/pool may be associated with (e.g., correspond to) a TRP, a CORESET pool, an SRS resource set, etc.”), wherein
the controller is configured to initiate a random access procedure in a case where the BFR procedure is triggered for all of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets and the BFR procedure is not successfully completed for any of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets a beam failure recovery (BFR) is triggered for all of the N beam failure detection resource sets and the BFR is not successfully completed for any of the beam failure detection resource sets (claim 19 “… initiating a random access procedure on a condition that beam failure recovery is not successful for both the first and second sets of reference signals.”)
Kwak does not explicitly state but D1, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication specified by 3GPP, discloses individually detect beam failure for each of the two or more beam failure detections (p6, 2nd Agreement, 1st para “for a UE configured … when beam failure is detected in a one or more CCs in one or more of BFD-RS sets configured in one or more of CCs”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of D1 above to each of the N beams by Sun to yield a predictable result of reusing a beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA to combine Sun with D1 for the benefit of reusing communication resources such as a beam ([0161] of D1).
For claim 7 is rejected because it is a claim of the corresponding base station communicating with the communication apparatus of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
For claim 10 is rejected because it is a claim of a method that is performed by the communication apparatus of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 2, 8 and 11, Kwak in view of D1 discloses claims 1, 7 and 10, Kwak further discloses: wherein the controller is configured to initiate the random access procedure on a special cell (SpCell) in a case where the BFR procedure is triggered for all of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets of the SpCell and the BFR procedure is not successfully completed for any of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets (claim 19 “… initiating a random access procedure on a condition that beam failure recovery is not successful for both the first and second sets of reference signals.”).
As to claim 3, Kwak in view of D1 discloses claim 1, Kwak further discloses: wherein in a case that the beam failure for one BFR procedure detection resource set of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets is triggered, the controller is configured to initiate the random access procedure only in a case where the BFR procedure for the other beam failure detection resource set of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets is triggered and the BFR procedure is not successfully completed for any of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets (claim 19 “… initiating a random access procedure on a condition that beam failure recovery is not successful for both the first and second sets of reference signals.”; note that a random access procedure is a BFR procedure).
As to claim 4, Kwak in view of D1 discloses claim 2, Kwak further discloses:wherein in a case that the BFR procedure for the one beam failure detection resource set is triggered, the controller is configured to initiate the random access procedure on the SpCell only in a case where the BFR procedure for the other beam failure detection resource set is triggered and the BFR procedure is not successfully completed for any of the two or more beam failure detection resource sets (“[0099] A WTRU may support BFR procedures for one or more secondary sells (SCells). Pursuant to a BFR procedure for the SCells, the WTRU may monitor a set of RS associated with Tx beams associated with control channel transmissions. …” and claim 19 “… initiating a random access procedure on a condition that beam failure recovery is not successful for both the first and second sets of reference signals.”).
As to claim 5, Kwak in view of D1 discloses claim 3, Kwak further discloses: wherein in a case that the BFR procedure for the one beam failure detection resource set is triggered, the controller is configured to determine not to initiate the random access procedure in a case where the BFR procedure for the other beam failure detection resource set is triggered and the BFR procedure is successfully completed for the other beam failure detection resource set (claim 19 “… initiating a random access procedure on a condition that beam failure recovery is not successful for both the first and second sets of reference signals.”; note that random access procedure is not triggered if only any one of BFR procedure is successfully completed).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights