21DETAILED 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 .
Examiner’s Notes
The examiner notes that in a plurality of claims the UE receive information, but fails to do anything with the information. The UE can on or off and still the antenna of the UE will receive the same beams. How can the UE be different from the prior art? Also, a plurality of limitations is presented as “associations”, an association or relationship does not require any modification, just a reason to say that the items are related. For examination purposes all limitations are associated because they are part of a communication system. Differences in names or labels do not necessarily mean a different item, unless explicitly claimed; for example, a third beam could be the first beam, etc.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3-16-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the argument that “a UE receiving beam refinement signals does not disclose or suggest "receive, after the beam selection procedure and for a UE beam refinement procedure, a reference signal via a first network node beam associated with a network node beam refinement procedure”; the examiner’s position is that the argument may be true or false based on the details of “the beam selection procedure” which are barely given in the claims. For examination purposes, receiving the signal that is going to be used for measurement of beam selection is going to be equated to the beam selection procedure or is a second procedure, second node, beam change request, validation, etc.; thereby, reading on the argued claim limitation. Please note that in the absence of the details of the procedure, a plurality of interpretation may apply. Additionally, arguments directed to associations are moot, relationships do not require any modification, just a reason to say that the items are related, and will fail to distinguish from the prior art.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The art rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-13, 15, 18-21, 23, 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koskela 12034502.
As to claim 1, Koskela discloses a user equipment (UE) [210,306,710] for wireless communication (see col. 1, lines 20-25), comprising:
one or more memories [725]; and one or more processors [720], coupled to the one or more memories, which are, individually or in any combination (see fig. 7), configured to:
perform a beam selection procedure (see col. 3, lines 20-30; col. 16, lines 28-30);
receive, after the beam selection procedure and for a UE beam refinement procedure, a reference signal [BRS or BRRS] via a first network node beam associated with a network node beam refinement procedure (see col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 5; col. 6, lines 35-41); and
receive, after the UE beam refinement procedure, an indication of a switch to the first network node beam from a second network node beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8) and perform, based at least in part on the indication of the switch, a beam switching operation [Communication then continues on beam B] (see col. 13, lines 7-8).
As to claim 2, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network node beam is associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure and the second network node beam is associated with a fourth network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 3, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first network node beam and the second network node beam are associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 4, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: switch, based at least in part on the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam, to a first UE beam from a second UE beam [change the labels of the beams] (see col. 8, lines 4-8).
As to claim 6, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: receive, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via a third network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); and switch, based at least in part on a timer, from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 9, lines 2-20).
As to claim 9, Koskela discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (see col. 8, lines 56-58).
As to claim 10, Koskela discloses network node [770] for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories [755]; and one or more processors [752], coupled to the one or more memories (see fig. 7), which are, individually or in any combination, configured to:
perform a beam selection procedure (see col. 3, lines 20-30; col. 16, lines 28-30);
output, after the beam selection procedure and for a UE beam refinement procedure, a reference signal [BRS or BRRS] via a first network node beam associated with a network node beam refinement procedure (see col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 5; col. 6, lines 35-41); and
output, after the UE beam refinement procedure, an indication of a switch to the first network node beam from a second network node beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8), wherein a UE performs a beam switching operation based at least in part on the indication of the switch [Communication then continues on beam B] (see col. 13, lines 7-8).
As to claim 11, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the first network node beam is associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure and the second network node beam is associated with a fourth network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure. [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 12, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the first network node beam and the second network node beam are associated with a third network node beam associated with the beam selection procedure. [Please see examiner notes about associations, beam has no measurable difference] (see fig. 1-3).
As to claim 13, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein to perform the beam switching operation the UE switches, based at least in part on the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam, to a first UE beam from a second UE beam. [change the labels of the beams] (see col. 8, lines 4-8).
As to claim 15, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: output, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via a third network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); wherein to perform the beam switching operation the UE switch, based at least in part on a timer, from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 13, lines 7-8; col. 9, lines 2-20).
As to claim 18, Koskela discloses the network node of claim 10, wherein the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (see col. 8, lines 56-58).
Regarding claims 19-21 and 23, they are the corresponding method claims of user equipment claims 1-4 and 6. Therefore, 19-21 and 23 claims are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 25-27 and 29, they are the corresponding method claims of network node claims 10-13 and 15. Therefore, 25-27 and 29 claims are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, 16, 22, 24, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Zhu 20210058131.
As to claims 5, 14, 22 and 28 Koskela discloses wherein a configuration indication of the UE beam refinement procedure indicates a third network node beam associated with the first network node beam, wherein the third network node beam is associated with the beam selection procedure [change the labels of the beams] (see col. 8, lines 4-8). Koskela fails to disclose TCI. In an analogous art, Zhu discloses wherein a transmission configuration indication (TCI) state (see par. 0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TCI for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
As to claim 7, 16, 24 and 30 Koskela discloses wherein the UE beam refinement procedure is a first UE beam refinement procedure, and wherein the reference signal is a first reference signal (see col. 6, lines 35-41), and wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to: receive, for a second UE beam refinement procedure, a second reference signal via the first network node beam [procedure repeats] (see col. 16-19); and switch, based at least in part on the second UE beam refinement procedure, from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8; col. 9, lines 2-20). Koskela fails to disclose autonomously. In an analogous art, Zhu discloses switch, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure, autonomously from a first UE beam to a second UE beam (see par. 0230). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be autonomous for a faster switch and improvement of the communication.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of John Wilson 20200220585.
As to claim 8 and 17, Koskela discloses wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in any combination, further configured to:
receive, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure (see col. 6, lines 35-41);
transmit, based at least in part on the reception, a feedback report (see col. 6, lines 51-58) and
wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam, are, individually or in any combination, configured to: receive the indication of the switch to the first network node beam from the second network node beam (see col. 8, lines 4-8). Koskela fails to disclose a channel state information reference signal or a channel state feedback report. In an analogous art, John Wilson discloses receive, based at least in part on the UE beam refinement procedure, a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS); and transmit, based at least in part on the CSI-RS, a channel state feedback (CSF) report (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills on the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TCI for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards.
Conclusion
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights