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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 23-29 in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 23, 24, 36, 37, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article “Millimeter Wave Base Stations with Cameras: Vision Aided Beam and Blockage Prediction” (hereinafter, Alrabeiah et al.), and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124) and Liau (US 2021/0159919).
Regarding claims 1, 23, 36 and 40, Tsai discloses a network entity (or gNB) and a method for wireless communications at the network entity, comprising: one or more memories or a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable code for wireless communication; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (paragraph 19, lines 1-3: “(gNB) may comprise a processor, communications circuitry, and a memory comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor cause the apparatus to perform on or more operations.”) to cause the network entity to perform:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first control message indicating (or reporting) a first beam from a plurality of available beams, the first beam for downlink communication with the UE (paragraphs 41, lines 1-3: “Beam selection: the gNB … sweeps beams and UE selects one or more best beams and report its selection to gNB. The UE selects a better beam (or set of beams) to set up a directional (and fully beamformed) communication link.”; The UE selecting one or more best beams and reporting its selection to the gNB corresponds to receiving from the UE a first control message indicating a first beam from a plurality of available beams. The first beam is for downlink communication with the UE because the gNB sweeps the beams and the UE selects the beam to set up a directional and fully beamformed communication link.).
Tsai fails to disclose receiving one or more signals associated with an object having a trajectory that is predicted to at least partially block the first beam.
However, in an analogous art, Alrabeiah discloses receiving one or more signals (over a sub-6 GHz band and RGB camera images at a base station (BS)) associated with an object (or a user) having a trajectory that is predicted to at least partially block the first beam (Abstract, lines 11-17: “we investigate the potential gains of employing cameras at the mmWave base stations and leveraging their visual data to help overcome the beam selection and blockage prediction challenges. To do that, this paper exploits computer vision and deep learning tools to predict mmWave beams and blockages directly from the camera RGB images and the sub-6GHz channels”; page 2, FIG. 1: “(b) shows an uplink communication scenario where control signaling between the user and the BS happens over the sub-6 GHz band. The user, here, is getting closer to a possible blockage.”; Page 3, Section IV. B., lines 1-4: “The blockage prediction problem is not very different from beam prediction in terms of the learning approach; it relies on detecting the user in the scene”; In FIG. 1, the user in a moving car getting closer to a possible blockage corresponds to having a trajectory that is predicted to at least partially block the first beam.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai by incorporating this feature taught in Alrabeiah for the purpose of allowing timely adaptation of beamforming or communication parameters before the first beam is obstructed..
The combination of Tsai and Alrabeiah fails to disclose transmitting, to the UE, a second control message indicating a time duration that the object is estimated to at least partially block the first beam.
However, in an analogous art, Sambhwani discloses transmitting, to a UE, a second control message indicating a time duration that an object is estimated to at least partially block a first beam (paragraph 7, lines 2-5: “The processing circuitry may be configured to … transmit the start time of the potential blockage and the duration of the potential blockage to an user equipment using the transmitter.”; Paragraph 110, lines 6-8: “Coordination between the user equipment 10 and the wireless network 102 may prevent unintended wireless network interruptions due to failure due to a temporary blockage or unintended beam failure.” Transmitting a duration of a potential blockage to a user equipment corresponds to transmitting to a UE a second control message indicating a time duration that an object is estimated to at least partially block a first beam.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai and Alrabeiah by incorporating this feature taught in Sambhwani for the purpose of enabling the UE to anticipate the blockage period, thereby reducing service interruption and improving link robustness.
The combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah and Sambhwani fails to disclose transmitting, to the UE, a second control message indicating an adjustment to one or more communication parameters associated with the time duration.
However, in an analogous art, Liau discloses transmitting, to a UE, a second control message indicating an adjustment to one or more communication parameters associated with a time duration (FIG. 5 and paragraph 115, lines 1-4: “The receiver determines, based on the blockage duration and the blockage interval, a second set of communication parameters … This second set of communication parameters can be a desired or optimized set that provides the appropriate balance of robustness in the face of the recurring blockage and high throughput.”; Paragraph 117, lines 1-2: “The receiver communicates the second set of communication parameters to the transmitter for subsequent transmissions by the transmitter to the receiver”; Communicating a second set of communication parameters to a transmitter corresponds to transmitting to a UE a second control message. Determining the second set of communication parameters based on the blockage duration and blockage interval corresponds to the one more communication parameters being associated with a time duration. Desiring or optimizing the second set of communication parameters corresponds to an adjusting to one or more communication parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah and Sambhwani by incorporating this feature taught in Liau for the purpose of enabling the UE to adjust its transmission or reception behavior for a known time interval, thereby maintaining communication performance despite changing conditions.
Regarding claims 2, 24, 37 and 41, Liau further discloses that one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code (paragraph 135, lines 9-11: “The apparatus can include … code that creates an execution environment … that constitutes processor firmware”) to cause the network entity to: transmit, during the time duration, one or more messages (or code blocks) to the UE in accordance with the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters (paragraph 128, lines 1-2: “the first unit transmits to the second unit using the second set of communication parameters”; Claim 2, lines 2-3: “sending, to a receiver coupled to the transmitter, additional code blocks according to the second set of communication parameters.” The purpose of the second set of communication parameters is to maintain throughput despite blockage. Therefore, the first unit transmits to the second unit during the time duration of the blockage in accordance with the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Liau for the purpose of ensuring continued data transmission during the duration by using parameters optimized for that period.
Claims 3, 25 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Pang et al. (US 2020/0351946).
Regarding claims 3, 25 and 38, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters is to change from a first beam index of the first beam to a second beam index of a second beam that is different from the first beam, and wherein the one or more messages are transmitted via the second beam.
However, in an analogous art, Pang discloses that an adjustment to one or more communication parameters is to change from a first beam index of a first beam to a second beam index of a second beam that is different from the first beam, and wherein one or more messages are transmitted via the second beam (paragraph 271, lines 7-9: “when the UE receives switching indication information and switching, by the UE, from the first transmit beam to the second transmit beam, where the second transmit beam is different from the first transmit beam.”; Paragraph 291, lines 5-6: “The UE switches to the second transmit beam, so that the UE can obtain a better reception gain”; One or more messages are transmitted via the second beam after the UE switches to the second beam.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Pang for the purpose of maintaining reliable communication under changing channel conditions.
Claims 4, 26 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Zhang et al. (US 10,135,562).
Regarding claims 4, 26 and 39, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters is to change from a first modulation and coding scheme to a second modulation and coding scheme, and wherein the one or more messages are transmitted in accordance with the second modulation and coding scheme.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang discloses that an adjustment to one or more communication parameters is to change from a first modulation and coding scheme (a first MCS) to a second modulation and coding scheme (a second MCS), and wherein one or more messages are transmitted in accordance with the second modulation and coding scheme (claim 1, lines 3-5: “signaling, by the TP to the UE, an indication to change from the first MCS to a second MCS … and receiving … a second packet encoded using the second MCS different from the first MCS.” One or more messages are transmitted in accordance with the second MCS after the change from the first MCS to the second MCS.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Zhang for the purpose of improving link performance by selecting an appropriate modulation and coding scheme based on current communication conditions.
Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Cetinoneri et al. (US 2020/0300996).
Regarding claims 5 and 27, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit one or more reference signals via one or more beams; and monitor for one or more reflections of the one or more reference signals for identifying the object.
However, in an analogous art, Cetinoneri discloses that one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code (paragraph 32, lines 2-3: “the processor core complex 18 may execute instruction stored in local memory 16 and/or the main memory storage device 20 to perform operations”) to cause a network entity to: transmit one or more reference signals (or transmitted signals) via one or more beams; and monitor for one or more reflections (or reflected signals) of the one or more reference signals for identifying an object (paragraph 80, lines 1-4: “the processor core complex 18 may instruct the modem 644 to perform a comparison between the transmitted signal and the reflected signal (process block 908). For example, the modem 644 may perform the cross-correlation measurement on the transmitted signal and the reflected signal. Once the comparison is complete, the electronic device 10 may determine whether the object is within proximity of the radio frequency system 12”; Determining whether an object is within close proximity corresponds to identifying an object that is present.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Cetinoneri for the purpose of detecting the presence or location of an object using existing radio-frequency signaling.
Claims 6 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919), Cetinoneri et al. (US 2020/0300996) and Adib et al. (US 2017/0074980).
Regarding claims 6 and 28, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri fails to disclose that the trajectory of the object is predicted based at least in part on the one or more reflections of the one or more reference signals.
However, in an analogous art,, Adib discloses that a trajectory of an object is predicted based at least in part on one or more reflections of one or more reference signals (paragraph 11, lines 11-13: “track (e.g., localize and/or monitor motion of) one or more objects in the environment according to propagation delays of reflections of the transmitted modified reference signals from locations of the one or more objects.”; Paragraph 57, line 1: “Traffic tracking in a retail space”; Tracking the motion of an object corresponds to predicting the trajectory of the object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri by incorporating this feature further taught in Adib for the purpose of enhancing situational awareness by predicting the trajectory of the object using reflected reference signals.
Claims 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919), Cetinoneri et al. (US 2020/0300996) and Lohmeier et al. (US 2009/0243912).
Regarding claims 7 and 29, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri fails to disclose that the time duration that the object is estimated to at least partially block the first beam is based at least in part on the one or more reflections of the one or more reference signals.
However, in an analogous art, Lohmeier discloses that a time duration that an object is estimated to at least partially block a first beam is based at least in part on one or more reflections of one or more reference signals (Abstract, lines 2-4: “The sensor emits signals and receives return signals (i.e. reflected signals) from a passing object. If the passing object is within a virtual detection zone, the sensor uses the information from the passing object to determine if a blockage condition exists in the sensor.”; Paragraph 90, lines 1-4: “Once a blockage alert signal is generated if, at a later time, it does not appear that the blockage condition still exists … then the blockage alert signal is allowed to expire”; The period during which the blockage alert signal is first generated until it is allowed to expire corresponds to the time duration that an object is estimated to at least partially block a first beam.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri by incorporating this feature further taught in Lohmeier for the purpose of providing timely mitigation of the signal based on the duration of the beam blockage.
Claims 8 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919), Cetinoneri et al. (US 2020/0300996) and Abbasi et al. (US 2015/0117371).
Regarding claims 8 and 31, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri fails to disclose that the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters is based at least in part on the one or more reflections of the one or more reference signals.
However, in an analogous art, Abbasi discloses that an adjustment to one or more communication parameters is based at least in part on one or more reflections of one or more reference signals (FIG. 22 and paragraph 93, lines 3-6: “In step 822 the transmitter is then activated to transmit a frequency modulated radar signal. The receiver receives the reflected radar signal which is reflected off of at least one object in step 823 and mixes the reflected radar signal with the varying frequency signal to generate the received signal. Step 824 applies the previously stored compensation signal to the received signal to create the compensated received signal.” Applying the previously stored compensation signal to the received signal corresponds to adjusting one or more communication parameters. The frequency modulated radar signal corresponds to the reference signal. The reflected radar signal corresponds to one or more reflections of one or more reference signals.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani, Liau and Cetinoneri by incorporating this feature further taught in Abbasi for the purpose of improving reliability and throughput by adjusting transmission settings according to detected reflections of the reference signals.
Claims 9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Wang et al. (US 2022/0052738).
Regarding claims 9 and 32, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit a request for the UE to perform one or more signal measurements associated with the first beam during the time duration; transmit, via the first beam, one or more signals during the time duration; and receive, from the UE, a report indicating the one or more signal measurements.
However, in an analogous art, Wang discloses that one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code (paragraph 95, lines 1-5: “The signal processing techniques disclosed herein … are preferably implemented on one or more digital signal processors (DSPs) or other microprocessors … Further, it is appreciated by those of skill in the art that certain well known digital processing techniques are mathematically equivalent to one another and can be represented in different ways depending on choice of implementation.”) to cause a network entity to: transmit a request for a UE to perform one or more signal measurements associated with a first beam during a time duration (paragraph 86, lines 1-2: “TRP sends the UE a specific reference signal and the UE use the reference signal to measure the radio link quality.”); transmit, via the first beam, one or more signals during the time duration (paragraph 142, lines 3-4: “indicating or causing to indicate to a user equipment (UE) a downlink transmission beam to be used by the UE; delivering or causing to deliver downlink transmission beams grouping information to the UE”); and receive, from the UE, a report indicating the one or more signal measurements (paragraph 86, lines 2-4: “After measurement, the UE may report to the TRP which Tx beams are better for communications”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Wang for the purpose of assessing the feedback or performance of the first beam during active transmission to support beam management or link optimization.
Claims 10 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Futaki et al. (US 2016/0007332).
Regarding claims 10 and 33, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters associated with the time duration indicates that data transmission with the UE is paused during at least a portion of the time duration.
However, in an analogous art, Futaki discloses that an adjustment to one or more communication parameters associated with a time duration indicates that data transmission with a UE is paused during at least a portion of the time duration (paragraph 14, lines 3-4: “the UE suspends the reception of the DL data in the SCell while the UE is changing radio parameters”; Suspending the reception of the DL data corresponds to pausing the data transmission.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Futaki for the purpose of conserving network and UE resources during periods of expected degradation or interruption.
Claims 11 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Wu et al. (US 2022/0217616).
Regarding claims 11 and 34, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit, to the UE, an indication to stop applying the adjustment to the one or more communication parameters subsequent to transmission of the second control message.
However, in an analogous art, Wu discloses that one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute code (paragraph 100, lines 2-4: “The corresponding devices can implement these methods using any suitable processing hardware, e.g., one or more processors executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory”) to cause a network entity to: transmit, to a UE, an indication to stop applying an adjustment to one or more communication parameters subsequent to transmission of a second control message. (FIG. 16 and paragraph 112, line 3: “At block 1610, the UE 102 receives second system that includes new barring information for the access category.”; Paragraph 112, line 5: “At block 1612, the UE 102 stops the barring timer for the access category.” The second system corresponds to the second control message. Stopping the barring timer for the access category corresponds to stopping applying an adjustment to one or more communication parameters.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Wu for the purpose of enabling timely resumption of data transmission under standard communication parameters.
Claims 12 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2024/0015741) in view of the article Alrabeiah et al., and further in view of Sambhwani et al. (US 2023/0354124), Liau (US 2021/0159919) and Chen et al. (US 2023/0038022).
Regarding claims 12 and 35, the combination of Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau fails to disclose that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit the second control message via a physical downlink control channel, a medium access control-control element, or both.
However, in an analogous art, Chen discloses that one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute a code (paragraph 277, lines 1-2: “ the first communication device 450 comprises a memory that stores a computer readable instruction program, the computer readable instruction program generates actions … executed by at least one processor”) to cause a network entity to: transmit a second control message via a physical downlink control channel, a medium access control-control element, or both (paragraph 141, lines 1-2: “a physical channel occupied by the first signaling comprises a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH).”; Paragraph 343, line 1: “the second signaling comprises a MAC Control Element (CE).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Tsai, Alrabeiah, Sambhwani and Liau by incorporating this feature further taught in Chen for the purpose of providing flexibility in how control messages are delivered to the UE.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first control message indicating a first beam from a plurality of available beams, the first beam for downlink communication with the UE; receiving one or more signals associated with an object having a trajectory that is predicted to at least partially block the first beam; and transmitting, to the UE, a second control message indicating a time duration that the object is estimated to at least partially block the first beam and an adjustment to one or more communication parameters associated with the time duration, as in claim 36.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koo (US 2022/0263590) discloses that real-time feedback information is based on estimating whether an obstruction is a transient blockage or a non-transient blockage.
Bishwarup (US 2022/0158715) discloses configuring a UE to switch from a first PDSCH beam to a second PDSCH beam, different from the first PDSCH beam, based at least in part on one or more TCI states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646