DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
No claim of foreign priority or domestic benefit have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 29 are unpersuasive because they fail to rebut why the primary UE, of a group of UEs, that handles all BFD procedures for the group at the MAC or PHY layer, does not teach the most recent claim amendments to claims 1 and 29.
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, 2, 9, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhamri (US 20240146384).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Bhamri teaches an apparatus and method for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Bhamri, figure 7) and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the first UE to:
receive a multi-device aggregation (MDA) indication from a network entity (Bhamri, figure 4 – step 405), wherein the MDA indication indicates an inclusion of the first UE in an aggregation of multiple UEs associated with an object (Bhamri, ¶104 – UE 205 receives the association of a beam failure detection reference signal [BFD RS] set and a beam failure instance [BFI] counter for a beam group; Bhamri, ¶¶99-101, 213 – UEs are grouped based on their geographical region, position relative to a RAN node, TRP [e.g. an object] association, or absolute position of UE, and share a common counter for BFI); and
perform, based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs, an MDA operation via physical (PHY) or medium access control (MAC) layer procedures shared among the multiple UEs (Bhamri, ¶¶38, 100 (a single counter for BFI is used across all UEs within the group; Bhamri, ¶¶118-119, 127-128 - BFI counter for the group is associated with either PHY or MAC),
wherein the first UE is configured to perform the MDA operation on behalf of at least a second UE of the multiple UEs based on shared PHY layer information or MAC layer information without sharing higher-layer data between the first UE and the second UE. Bharmi, ¶¶38, 113 (a primary UE [i.e. claimed “first UE”] is designated to handle all BFD procedures for a group of UEs); Bhamri, ¶¶118-119, 127-128 (BFI counter for the group of UEs is associated with either a PHY or MAC layer [i.e. no signaling shared with a layer above the RRC layer is mentioned in a BFD situation]).
Regarding claim 2, Bhamri also teaches the first UE to receive (and the network entity to transmit) the MDA indication via the transceiver (Bhamri, figure 7’s element 725 and figure 8’s element 825), and wherein the MDA operation includes one or more of: beam management based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, channel state information (CSI) measurement or reporting based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, radio resource management (RRM) based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, cell selection or reselection based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, or a positioning operation based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object. Bhamri, ¶232-233 (when a beam failure based on a BFI counter, shared amongst a group of UE, is declared constitutes beam management).
Regarding claim 9, Bhamri also teaches wherein the MDA indication further indicates the first UE as a primary UE of the aggregation of the multiple UEs (Bhamri, ¶113 – one or more UEs in the group may be explicitly configured to be primary UEs; Bhamri, figure 4 – RAN node provides configuration to UE), and wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the network entity to: receive, from the first UE, channel state information (CSI) for a channel between the first UE and the network entity. Bhamri, figure 5 and ¶110 (in step 405, the RAN node transmits a BFD configuration, which includes csi-RS-index, to the UE); Bhamri, ¶93 (UE then measures the configured CSI-RSs); Bhamri, figure 4 (in step 430, the UE transmits a beam failure MAC CE, which indicates the state of the channel between the UE and RAN node).
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 3-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri (US 20240146384) in view of Alawieh (US 20250056488).
Regarding claim 3, Bhamri teaches the apparatuses of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the first UE to: receive, from the network entity, an MDA inquiry inquiring UE information of the first UE; and transmit, to the network entity in response to the MDA inquiry, the UE information of the first UE, wherein the UE information of the first UE includes one or more of: a device identifier (ID) of the first UE, position information of the first UE, a sidelink (SL) capability of the first UE, a battery status of the first UE, or a hardware type of the first UE.”1
However, Alawieh teaches a network entity transmitting a request for information to a UE. Alawieh, ¶¶119, 370. And in response, the UE provides its position and/or capabilities. Ibid. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the RAN node, taught by Bhamri, to inquire about the UE’s position, as taught by Alawieh, in order to train, at the network side, one or more models for estimating positions of UEs in a network. Id. at ¶¶351, 359.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches the network entity to: transmit, to the first UE, a sensing reference signal (RS) for the first UE to evaluate a validity of the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, figure 4 (in steps 405, 410, and 430, the UE receives RS from the RAN node and based on the measurements of RS set, may declare a beam failure); Bhamri, ¶114 (the primary UE 205 may be configured with UE-specific BFD RS, it which its failure is not applied to the entire group, but just to the primary UE of the group [i.e. the primary UE is no longer receiving the beam(s) for the group of UEs, which is exclusion of the primary UE]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches wherein, to manage the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the first UE to: indicate, in response to the measurement result being lower than a link quality threshold, a failure report indicating an invalidity of the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, ¶¶106, 118 (if signal strength is below the configured threshold, the BFI counter is incremented and beam failure may be reported); Bhamri, ¶114 (the primary UE 205 may be configured with UE-specific BFD RS, it which its failure is not applied to the entire group, but just to the primary UE of the group [i.e. the primary UE is no longer receiving the beam(s) for the group of UEs, which is exclusion of the primary UE]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches the first UE to: receive, from the network entity, a fallback configuration (Bhamri, figure 10 and ¶193 – if beam failure is declared, the RAN node configures new beams for the group of UEs, where the new configuration will be transmitted to the UE), and wherein to manage the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the first UE to: perform, based on the fallback configuration in response to the measurement result being lower than the link quality threshold, a fallback operation not involving the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, ¶114, last sentence (if beam failure was declared based on RSRP being below a threshold [see claim 5 for citations] and UE-specific RS is configured for the primary UE, then beam failure procedure for the updated new beams is not shared with the other UEs).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches wherein the link quality threshold is a reference signal received power (RSRP) at the first UE or a relative RSRP back off at the first UE. Bhamri, ¶¶91, 93 (RSRP of layer 1 reference signals are used).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches wherein the failure report further includes one or more of: a first request to trigger a fallback beam management (BM), or a second request to reconstruct the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, ¶135 (when beam failure is determined, the UE can request new candidate beams for the group of UEs); Bhamri, figure 4 (beam failure reported in step 430).
Regarding claim 11, Bhamri taches the apparatuses of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the first UE to:
receive, from the network entity, a positioning configuration indicating an MDA positioning mode (Bhamri, figure 4 – in step 405, the UE receives a beam failure detection configuration),
wherein the positioning configuration includes one or more of: sidelink information, a measuring periodicity, positioning request information for a positioning operation, or a positioning accuracy for the positioning operation (Bhamri, ¶91 – as part of detecting a beam failure, the UE assesses [i.e. measures] link quality according to a periodic CSI-RS configuration [i.e. measuring periodicity]), and
. . . wherein the position information is based on a position of the object. Bhamri, ¶¶132, 213 (UE position is based on its relation to the position of the RAN node).
Bhamri does not explicitly teach “wherein to perform the MDA operation, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the first UE to: perform, in response to the positioning configuration, the positioning operation to obtain position information.” However, Alawieh teaches a network entity transmitting a request for information to a UE. Alawieh, ¶ 370. And in response, the UE provides its position. Ibid. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the RAN node, taught by Bhamri, to learn the UE’s position, as taught by Alawieh, in order to train, at the network side, one or more models for estimating positions of UEs in a network. Id. at ¶¶351, 359.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bhamri and Alawieh also teaches the first UE to: transmit, to the network entity in response to the positioning accuracy lower than an accuracy threshold, a low-accuracy indication indicating an inadequacy to perform the positioning operation. Alawieh, ¶¶130-131 (accuracy is used by a user equipment when determining whether to act as a temporal anchor UE); Alawieh, ¶146 (the user equipment will report that it will not act as a temporal anchor UE to a network entity).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri (US 20240146384) in view of Mazzarese (US 20150244444).
Regarding claim 10, Bhamri teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “the first UE to: receive, from the network entity, a first channel state information (CSI) configuration comprising a first report offset and a first report periodicity for reporting first CSI; and transmit, to the network entity, the first CSI for a channel between the first UE and the network entity based on the first report offset and the first report periodicity” or the complementary limitation requiring “the network entity to: transmit, to the first UE, a first channel state information (CSI) configuration comprising a first report offset and a first report periodicity for reporting first CSI; and receive, from the first UE, first CSI for a first channel between the first UE and the network entity based on the first report offset and the first report periodicity.”
However, Mazzarese teaches a UE configured for periodic CSI reporting. Mazzarese, ¶228. When configured for periodic CSI reporting, the UE executes a report based on the reporting period and subframe offset configured by a higher layer. Ibid. The higher layer signaling is transmitted by the base station to the UE. Id. at ¶¶235, 343. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the primary UE, taught by Bhamri, for periodic CSI reporting, as taught by Mazzarese, in order to prevent the unnecessary consumption of network resources created by aperiodic CSI reporting. Id. at ¶6.
Claims 14, 15, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri (US 20240146384) in view of Sha (US 20240214869).
Regarding claim 14 and 30, Bhamri teaches an apparatus and a method for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Bhamri, figure 8) and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the network entity to:
transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), a multi-device aggregation (MDA) indication (Bhamri, figure 4 – step 405), wherein the MDA indication indicates an inclusion of the first UE in an aggregation of multiple UEs associated with an object (Bhamri, ¶104 – UE 205 receives the association of a beam failure detection reference signal [BFD RS] set and a beam failure instance [BFI] counter for a beam group; Bhamri, ¶¶99-101 – UEs are grouped based on their geographical region, including a TRP [e.g. an object], and share a common counter for BFI); and
communicate with the multiple UEs via a physical (PHY) or medium access control (MAC) layer procedures shared among the multiple UEs based on an MDA operation . . . the association of the multiple UEs with the object. Bhamri, ¶51 and figure 2 (base station communicates with remote units, where both types of devices utilize a PHY 211 and MAC 213); Bhamri, ¶¶136, 193 (if BFD is declared based on the BFI counter for the group for a particular TRP, the RAN node can still communicate with the group of UEs using another TRP); see also id. at ¶122 (using RAN-based UL/DL signaling to share information with all UEs within the group).
Bhamri does not explicitly teach “wherein the MDA operation is based on a combination of first information from the first UE and second information from a second UE in the multiple UEs based on the association.” However, Sha teaches each UE reporting its aggregation capability to a NodeB, where the aggregation capability indicates that the primary UE of a group can perform UE aggregation. Sha, ¶57. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a UE’s aggregation capability, as taught by Sha, when defining a group of UEs for beam failure detection, as taught by Bhamri, in order to prevent grouping dissimilar UEs together. Id. at ¶69 (feasibility of UE aggregation or grouping).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bhamri and Sha also teaches the first UE to receive (and the network entity to transmit) the MDA indication via the transceiver (Bhamri, figure 7’s element 725 and figure 8’s element 825), and wherein the MDA operation includes one or more of: beam management based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, channel state information (CSI) measurement or reporting based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, radio resource management (RRM) based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, cell selection or reselection based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object, or a positioning operation based on the aggregation of the multiple UEs with the object. Bhamri, ¶232-233 (when a beam failure based on a BFI counter, shared amongst a group of UE, is declared constitutes beam management).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Bhamri and Sha also teaches wherein the MDA indication further indicates the first UE as a primary UE of the aggregation of the multiple UEs (Bhamri, ¶113 – one or more UEs in the group may be explicitly configured to be primary UEs; Bhamri, figure 4 – RAN node provides configuration to UE), and wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the network entity to: receive, from the first UE, channel state information (CSI) for a channel between the first UE and the network entity. Bhamri, figure 5 and ¶110 (in step 405, the RAN node transmits a BFD configuration, which includes csi-RS-index, to the UE); Bhamri, ¶93 (UE then measures the configured CSI-RSs); Bhamri, figure 4 (in step 430, the UE transmits a beam failure MAC CE, which indicates the state of the channel between the UE and RAN node).
Claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri and Sha (both of record), further in view of Alawieh (US 20250056488).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bhamri and Sha teaches the apparatus of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the first UE to: receive, from the network entity, an MDA inquiry inquiring UE information of the first UE; and transmit, to the network entity in response to the MDA inquiry, the UE information of the first UE, wherein the UE information of the first UE includes one or more of: a device identifier (ID) of the first UE, position information of the first UE, a sidelink (SL) capability of the first UE, a battery status of the first UE, or a hardware type of the first UE.”2
However, Alawieh teaches a network entity transmitting a request for information to a UE. Alawieh, ¶¶119, 370. And in response, the UE provides its position and/or capabilities. Ibid. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the RAN node, taught by the combination of Bhamri and Sha, to inquire about the UE’s position, as taught by Alawieh, in order to train, at the network side, one or more models for estimating positions of UEs in a network. Id. at ¶¶351, 359.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bhamri, Sha, and Alawieh also teaches the network entity to: transmit, to the first UE, a sensing reference signal (RS) for the first UE to evaluate a validity of the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, figure 4 (in steps 405, 410, and 430, the UE receives RS from the RAN node and based on the measurements of RS set, may declare a beam failure); Bhamri, ¶114 (the primary UE 205 may be configured with UE-specific BFD RS, it which its failure is not applied to the entire group, but just to the primary UE of the group [i.e. the primary UE is no longer receiving the beam(s) for the group of UEs, which is exclusion of the primary UE]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Bhamri and Sha teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the first UE to:
receive, from the network entity, a positioning configuration indicating an MDA positioning mode (Bhamri, figure 4 – in step 405, the UE receives a beam failure detection configuration),
wherein the positioning configuration includes one or more of: sidelink information, a measuring periodicity, positioning request information for a positioning operation, or a positioning accuracy for the positioning operation (Bhamri, ¶91 – as part of detecting a beam failure, the UE assesses [i.e. measures] link quality according to a periodic CSI-RS configuration [i.e. measuring periodicity]), and
. . . wherein the position information is based on a position of the object. Bhamri, ¶¶132, 213 (UE position is based on its relation to the position of the RAN node).
Bhamri does not explicitly teach “wherein to perform the MDA operation, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the first UE to: perform, in response to the positioning configuration, the positioning operation to obtain position information.” However, Alawieh teaches a network entity transmitting a request for information to a UE. Alawieh, ¶ 370. And in response, the UE provides its position. Ibid. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the RAN node, taught by the combination of Bhamri and Sha, to learn the UE’s position, as taught by Alawieh, in order to train, at the network side, one or more models for estimating positions of UEs in a network. Id. at ¶¶351, 359.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bhamri, Sha, and Alawieh also teaches wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the network entity to: indicate, based on the UE information, a primary UE for the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Alawieh, ¶¶151-153 (network entity request a UE to be an anchor UE for sidelink measurements of nearby UEs).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bhamri, Sha, and Alawieh also teaches the network entity to: receive, from the first UE, a failure report based on a measurement result on the sensing RS (Bhamri, figure 4 and ¶109 – RAN node receives beam failure MAC CE), wherein the failure report indicates an invalidity of the inclusion of the first UE in the aggregation of the multiple UEs. Bhamri, ¶64 and figure 4 (beam failure is based on signal measurements of BFD RSs).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bhamri, Sha, and Alawieh also teaches wherein the measurement result is based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the sensing RS at the first UE or a relative RSRP back off of the sensing RS at the first UE. Bhamri, ¶¶91, 93 (RSRP of layer 1 reference signals are used).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bhamri, Sha, and Alawieh also teaches the network entity to: transmit, to the first UE, a link quality threshold related to the measurement result on the sensing RS, wherein the invalidity of the inclusion of the first UE is based on a comparison of the measurement result with the link quality threshold. Bhamri, ¶¶179, 180, 183 (RAN node configures a UE for a set of BFD RSs, and the configuration may include a threshold value for determining beam failure); Bhamri, ¶¶91, 93 (threshold may be for RSRP).
Claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhamri and Sha (both of record), and further in view of Mazzarese (US 20150244444).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Bhamri and Sha teaches the apparatuses of claim 24, but does not explicitly teach “the first UE to: receive, from the network entity, a first channel state information (CSI) configuration comprising a first report offset and a first report periodicity for reporting first CSI; and transmit, to the network entity, the first CSI for a channel between the first UE and the network entity based on the first report offset and the first report periodicity” or the complementary limitation requiring “the network entity to: transmit, to the first UE, a first channel state information (CSI) configuration comprising a first report offset and a first report periodicity for reporting first CSI; and receive, from the first UE, first CSI for a first channel between the first UE and the network entity based on the first report offset and the first report periodicity.”
However, Mazzarese teaches a UE configured for periodic CSI reporting. Mazzarese, ¶228. When configured for periodic CSI reporting, the UE executes a report based on the reporting period and subframe offset configured by a higher layer. Ibid. The higher layer signaling is transmitted by the base station to the UE. Id. at ¶¶235, 343. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the primary UE, taught by the combination of Bhamri and Sha, for periodic CSI reporting, as taught by Mazzarese, in order to prevent the unnecessary consumption of network resources created by aperiodic CSI reporting. Id. at ¶6.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03, which allows for written authorization via the USPTO electronic filing system or mail, but not via email). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
1 Claim 16 is the same claim concept as claim 3 but from the perspective of a network entity instead of a user equipment. Claim 16 is rendered obvious for the same reasons provided for claim 3, despite differences in how the claimed invention are phrased. Other rejections in this Office action group other similarly situated claims together for the same reasons.
2 Claim 16 is the same claim concept as claim 3 but from the perspective of a network entity instead of a user equipment. Claim 16 is rendered obvious for the same reasons provided for claim 3, despite differences in how the claimed invention are phrased. Other rejections in this Office action group other similarly situated claims together for the same reasons.