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
2. Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 29, and 30 under 35 USC § 102 (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 18-20, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2024/031684 A1 by Zhang et al. (previously cited, hereafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches A user equipment (see at least Fig. 7), comprising:
one or more memories (see at least Fig. 7 (724)) storing computer-executable code thereon; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (see at least Fig. 7 (724)) and configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer executable code and cause the user equipment to:
perform a beam management procedure with a repeater (see at least ¶ [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”);
detect a failure of a beam used for communicating with the repeater (see at least ¶ [0077]; Beam failure); and
send a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) message indicating failure of the beam and indicating a replacement beam (see at least ¶ [0077]; Beam failure).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein performing the beam management procedure with the repeater comprises:
receiving signals from the repeater, during a time period, transmitted with a plurality of different transmit beams using a same receive beam (see at least ¶ [0050]; “The beam measurement and reporting procedure might be based on the UE 102 measuring a plurality of downlink reference signals (e.g. synchronization signal block (SSB) and/or channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) ) , where different beams of the base station 104 can be associated with different signals. For example, the UE 102 might perform a beam sweeping operation to measure signal strength and/or interference of reference signals (e.g., SSB/CSI-RS) at different time instances/different symbols associated with the downlink reference signal and report the measurement results.”); and
sending a report indicating one or more of the plurality of different transmit beams (see at least Fig. 3A-D (390); Beam measurement, Beam report).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 19. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein sending the report comprises sending the report to the repeater, a network entity associated with the repeater, or both (see at least Fig. 3A-D (390); Beam measurement, Beam report).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18. In addition, Zhang further teaches wherein performing the beam management procedure with the repeater comprises sending signals to the repeater, during a time period, with a plurality of different transmit beams using uplink beam sweeping (see at least ¶ [0050]; “The beam measurement and reporting procedure might be based on the UE 102 measuring a plurality of downlink reference signals (e.g. synchronization signal block (SSB) and/or channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) ) , where different beams of the base station 104 can be associated with different signals. For example, the UE 102 might perform a beam sweeping operation to measure signal strength and/or interference of reference signals (e.g., SSB/CSI-RS) at different time instances/different symbols associated with the downlink reference signal and report the measurement results.”).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein performing the beam management procedure includes: inputting beam measurement information to a machine learning model (see at least ¶ [0055]; artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)); and obtaining a predicted beam for communicating with the repeater from the machine learning model in response to the inputting (see at least ¶ [0039], and [0055]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-10, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of WO 2022/254407 A1 by Wanuga et al. (hereafter referred to as Wanuga).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A repeater (see at least ¶ [0040]; “the base station 104 or an entity at the base station 104 can be implemented as an IAB node, a relay node, a sidelink node, an aggregated (monolithic) base station with an RU 106 and a BBU that includes a DU 108 and a CU 110, or as a disaggregated base station 104b including one or more of the RU 106, the DU 108, and/or the CU 110.”), comprising:
one or more memories (see at least Fig. 8) storing computer executable code thereon; and
one or more processors (see at least Fig. 8) coupled with the one or more memories and configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer executable code and cause the repeater to:
… the DCI indicating a time period for beam management (see at least Fig. 2C and ¶ [0026], [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “A beam selection procedure for the beam pair activated by the base station 104 and the UE 102 might include the UE 102 performing a beam measurement and reporting procedure, followed by the base station 104 performing a beam indication procedure.”);
perform a beam management procedure with a user equipment (UE) during the time period (see at least ¶ [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”);
determine a beam for communicating with the UE based on the beam management procedure (see at least ¶ [0052], [0059]-[0060]; The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”); and
communicate with the UE using the beam (see at least Figs. 3A, B (326) and Figs. 3C-3D (328); communicate based on indicated beam).
Zhang does not appear to specifically teach receive downlink control information (DCI) from a network entity via a backhaul link.
In the same field of endeavor, Wanuga teaches receive downlink control information (DCI) from a network entity via a backhaul link (see at least ¶ [0106]; “The repeater 1604 may receive the DCIs, Msg2, and Msg4 over its backhaul link beam, may amplify and may forward them over the corresponding configured access link transmit beams, as illustrated at 1610 and 1612.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Wanuga in order to provide adaptive beamforming capabilities.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang further teaches wherein: performing the beam management procedure with the UE comprises: transmitting signals to the UE during the time period with a plurality of different transmit beams using downlink beam sweeping (see at least ¶ [0050]; The beam measurement and reporting procedure might be based on the UE 102 measuring a plurality of downlink reference signals (e.g. synchronization signal b lock (SSB) and/or channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS)) , where different beams of the base station 104 can be associated with different signals. For example, the UE 102 might perform a beam sweeping operation to measure signal strength and/or interference of reference signals (e.g., SSB/CSI-RS) at different time instances/different symbols associated with the downlink reference signal and report the measurement results.”); and decoding a report from the UE indicating one or more of the transmit beams (see at least Fig. 3A-D (390); Beam measurement, Beam report); and determining the beam for communicating with the UE comprises determining a beam based on the report from the UE (see at least Fig. 3A-D (314); Beam prediction).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein: performing the beam management procedure with the UE comprises measuring signals from the UE during the time period with a plurality of different transmit beams using uplink beam sweeping; and determining the beam for communicating with the UE comprises determining a beam based on the measuring (see at least ¶ [0052] and [0053]; uplink TCI).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to:
receive signaling …, the signaling scheduling the repeater to forward a downlink or an uplink transmission to or from the UE, wherein the signaling indicates an identification information of the UE (see at least Fig. 2C and ¶ [0026], [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “A beam selection procedure for the beam pair activated by the base station 104 and the UE 102 might include the UE 102 performing a beam measurement and reporting procedure, followed by the base station 104 performing a beam indication procedure.”); and
communicate with the UE using the beam comprises forwarding the downlink or the uplink transmission to or from the UE using the beam based on the signaling indicating the identification information of the UE (see at least Figs. 3A, B (326) and Figs. 3C-3D (328); communicate based on indicated beam).
In the obvious combination, Wanuga teaches from the network entity via the backhaul link (see at least ¶ [0106]; “The repeater 1604 may receive the DCIs, Msg2, and Msg4 over its backhaul link beam, may amplify and may forward them over the corresponding configured access link transmit beams, as illustrated at 1610 and 1612.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Wanuga in order to provide adaptive beamforming capabilities.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the determining the beam for communicating with the UE comprises determining the beam using a machine learning model (see at least Fig. 2B and ¶ [0013], [0056], and [0130]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 5. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to: receive beam measurement training from the network entity; and input the beam training information to train the machine learning model (see at least ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 5. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to:
input beam measurement information to the machine learning model; and obtain a predicted beam for communicating with the UE from the machine learning model in response to the inputting (see at least ¶ [0039], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 5. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to:
during one or more measurement gaps, perform one or more beam management procedures with the UE (see at least ¶ [0076]; “In other words, there is a time gap between 325 and 326. If the UE 102 detects that the predicted beam does not satisfy the activation condition, the UE 102 may transmit an indication to the network entity 304 on an uplink beam associated to the current serving beam to indicate to the network entity 304 that the predicted beam does not satisfy the activation condition.”); and
train the machine learning model based on the one or more beam management procedures (see at least ¶ [0055]; artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to: report beam training data to the network entity; and receive signaling from the network entity indicating the beam (see at least Figs. 3A-3D (390, 314); Beam measurement, Beam report, Beam prediction).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1. In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to obtain a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) message from the UE, the BFRQ message indicating failure of the beam and indicating a replacement beam (see at least ¶ [0077]; beam failure).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches A network entity (see at least Fig. 8), comprising:
one or more memories (see at least Fig. 8)storing computer executable code thereon; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (see at least Fig. 8)and configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer executable code and cause the network entity to:
… the DCI indicating a time period for beam management (see at least Fig. 2C and ¶ [0026], [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “A beam selection procedure for the beam pair activated by the base station 104 and the UE 102 might include the UE 102 performing a beam measurement and reporting procedure, followed by the base station 104 performing a beam indication procedure.”);
configure one or more resources for the repeater to perform a beam management procedure with a user equipment (UE) (see at least ¶ [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”); and
obtain an indication of a beam used for communications between the repeater and the UE (see at least ¶ [0052], [0058]-[0060]; The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”).
Zhang does not appear to specifically teach output downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to a repeater via a backhaul link.
In the same field of endeavor, Wanuga teaches output downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to a repeater via a backhaul link (see at least ¶ [0106]; “The repeater 1604 may receive the DCIs, Msg2, and Msg4 over its backhaul link beam, may amplify and may forward them over the corresponding configured access link transmit beams, as illustrated at 1610 and 1612.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Wanuga in order to provide adaptive beamforming capabilities.
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches A method for wireless communications by a repeater, the method comprising:
… the DCI indicating a time period for beam management (see at least Fig. 2C and ¶ [0026], [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “A beam selection procedure for the beam pair activated by the base station 104 and the UE 102 might include the UE 102 performing a beam measurement and reporting procedure, followed by the base station 104 performing a beam indication procedure.”);
performing a beam management procedure with a user equipment (UE) during the time period (see at least ¶ [0051], [0058]-[0059]; “The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”);
determining a beam for communicating with the UE based on the beam management procedure (see at least ¶ [0052], [0058]-[0060]; The base station 104 may transmit DCI to the UE 102 in a manner that implicitly or explicitly indicates whether a second beam indication 242b for the UE 102 “overwrites” (i.e., is to be used in place of) a first beam indication 242a for the UE 102.”); and
communicating with the UE using the beam (see at least Figs. 3A, B (326) and Figs. 3C-3D (328); communicate based on indicated beam).
Zhang does not appear to specifically teach receive downlink control information (DCI) from a network entity via a backhaul link.
In the same field of endeavor, Wanuga teaches receive downlink control information (DCI) from a network entity via a backhaul link (see at least ¶ [0106]; “The repeater 1604 may receive the DCIs, Msg2, and Msg4 over its backhaul link beam, may amplify and may forward them over the corresponding configured access link transmit beams, as illustrated at 1610 and 1612.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Wanuga in order to provide adaptive beamforming capabilities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wanuga as applied to claim 10 above, in view of US 2018/0368124 A1 by Liu et al. (hereafter referred to as Liu).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 10.
Zhang in view of Wanuga does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the replacement beam comprises a second beam of the repeater on a same component carrier as the failed beam.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the replacement beam comprises a second beam of the repeater on a same component carrier as the failed beam (see at least ¶ [0082]; “If the receiving device is an access node, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the access node setting up a new channel in a new beam, while if the receiving device is a UE, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the UE detecting a new beam and recovering the link along the newly detected beam. In either situation, a new connection may be established between the receiving device and the transmitting device on the new beam to replace the failed beam. The receiving device returns to block 505 to continue monitoring a transmission on the new beam.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang in view of Wanuga with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 10.
Zhang in view of Wanuga does not appear to specifically disclose wherein obtaining the BFRQ message from the UE comprises receiving the BFRQ message forwarded by the network entity.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein obtaining the BFRQ message from the UE comprises receiving the BFRQ message forwarded by the network entity (see at least ¶ [0080]- [0081]; “In a situation where the receiving device is a UE, the UE may monitor downlink control channels, downlink data channels, or reference signals, such as SS, CSI-RS, PDCCH DMRS, and so on. In a situation where the receiving device is an access node, the access node may monitor uplink control channels, uplink data channels, or uplink reference signals, such as sounding reference signals (SRS). The receiving device derives a reliability measure of the monitored one or more beams (block 507).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang in view of Wanuga with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 10.
Zhang in view Wanuga does not appear to specifically teach wherein obtaining the BFRQ message from the UE comprises receiving the BFRQ message from the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein obtaining the BFRQ message from the UE comprises receiving the BFRQ message from the UE (see at least ¶ [0077]-[0082]; “UE 410 may use a PUCCH resource for BFRQ reporting.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang in view of Wanuga with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Wanuga and Liu teaches the repeater of claim 13. In the obvious combination, Liu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to forward the BFRQ message to the network entity (see at least ¶ [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang in view of Wanuga with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Wanuga and Liu teaches the repeater of claim 13. In the obvious combination, Liu teaches wherein receiving the BFRQ message from the UE comprises receiving the BFRQ message from the UE on a first component carrier, wherein the failed beam is on a second component carrier (see at least ¶ [0107]; “The index of the failed component carrier can also be reported late in a PUSCH resource together with candidate beams or a BSR in the second component carrier scheduled by access node in a BFRQ response, for example. Candidate beam information of the first component carrier (the failed component carrier) may also be reported in the second component carrier (or any other available component carrier).” ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
14. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wanuga as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0053072 A1 by Kundargi et al. (hereafter referred to as Kundargi).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Wanuga teaches the repeater of claim 1.
Zhang in view of Wanuga does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the determined beam comprises a coarse beam, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to: determine one or more refined beams within the coarse beam; and switch to the refined beam without signaling the refined beam to the network entity or the user equipment.
In the same field of endeavor, Kundargi teaches wherein the determined beam comprises a coarse beam (see at least ¶ [0030]-[0033], [0037], and [0039]; coarse beam), and wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to: determine one or more refined beams within the coarse beam; and switch to the refined beam without signaling the refined beam to the network entity or the user equipment (see at least ¶ [0030]-[0033], [0037], and [0039]; coarse beam selected via beam sweeping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang in view of Wanuga with Kundargi in order to aid in performing radio frequency beam management and recovery in communication.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Wanuga and Kundargi teaches the repeater of claim 16. In the obvious combination, Kundargi teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the repeater to: transmit first one or more tracking reference signals (TRSs) to the UE, wherein the first one or more TRSs are associated with a first beam for data transmission to the UE; and after determining the refined beam, transmit second one or more TRSs to the UE, wherein the second one or more PTRSs are associated with the determined beam, wherein the first one or more TRSs and the second one or more TRSs are associated with a same coarse beam (see at least ¶ [0041] and [0077]-[0079]; coarse beams and PTRS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Kundargi in order to aid in performing radio frequency beam management and recovery in communication.
15. Claim(s) 21 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 18, and 19 above, in view of US 2018/0368124 A1 by Liu et al. (hereafter referred to as Liu).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 19.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein sending the report comprises sending the report to the network entity, and wherein the report further comprises measurements of beams associated with one or more other repeaters of the network entity.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein sending the report comprises sending the report to the network entity, and wherein the report further comprises measurements of beams associated with one or more other repeaters of the network entity(see at least ¶ [0082]; “If the receiving device is an access node, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the access node setting up a new channel in a new beam, while if the receiving device is a UE, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the UE detecting a new beam and recovering the link along the newly detected beam. In either situation, a new connection may be established between the receiving device and the transmitting device on the new beam to replace the failed beam. The receiving device returns to block 505 to continue monitoring a transmission on the new beam.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18.
Zhang does not appear to specifically teach wherein sending the BFRQ message comprises sending the BFRQ message to the repeater, a network entity associated with the repeater, or both.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein sending the BFRQ message comprises sending the BFRQ message to the repeater, a network entity associated with the repeater, or both (see at least ¶ [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 25, Zhang in view of Liu teaches the user equipment of claim 24. In the obvious combination, Liu teaches wherein the replacement beam comprises a second downlink beam of the repeater on a same component carrier as the failed beam (see at least ¶ [0107]; “The index of the failed component carrier can also be reported late in a PUSCH resource together with candidate beams or a BSR in the second component carrier scheduled by access node in a BFRQ response, for example.” ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 26, Zhang in view of Liu teaches the user equipment of claim 24. In the obvious combination, Liu teaches wherein the sending the BFRQ message comprises sending the BFRQ message to the repeater on a first component carrier, wherein the failed beam is on a second component carrier (see at least ¶ [0107]; “The index of the failed component carrier can also be reported late in a PUSCH resource together with candidate beams or a BSR in the second component carrier scheduled by access node in a BFRQ response, for example. Candidate beam information of the first component carrier (the failed component carrier) may also be reported in the second component carrier (or any other available component carrier).” ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18.
Zhang does not appear to specifically teach wherein the replacement beam comprises a beam of another repeater or the network entity.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the replacement beam comprises a beam of another repeater or the network entity (see at least ¶ [0082]; “If the receiving device is an access node, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the access node setting up a new channel in a new beam, while if the receiving device is a UE, completing the beam failure recovery procedure may include the UE detecting a new beam and recovering the link along the newly detected beam. In either situation, a new connection may be established between the receiving device and the transmitting device on the new beam to replace the failed beam. The receiving device returns to block 505 to continue monitoring a transmission on the new beam.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the failure taught by Zhang with the failure taught by Liu in order to provide mechanisms for supporting BFRQ reporting.
16. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 18 above, in view of US 2019/0053072 A1 by Kundargi et al. (hereafter referred to as Kundargi).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang teaches the user equipment of claim 18.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising: receiving first one or more tracking reference signals (TRSs) from the repeater; and applying a time/frequency tracking or a beam associated with the TRSs after a preconfigured delay.
In the same field of endeavor, Kundargi teaches receiving first one or more tracking reference signals (TRSs) from the repeater (see at least ¶ [0077]-[0079]); and applying a time/frequency tracking or a beam associated with the TRSs after a preconfigured delay (see at least ¶ [0244]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Kundargi in order to aid in performing radio frequency beam management and recovery in communication.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights