DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
37 CFR 1.71(a) requires the claims to be to be in full, clear, concise, and exact terms.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the acronym “BLER” without clarifying what is meant. From the specification, it appears that BLER refers to “block error rate.” Claims 12 and 18 have the same informality. These claims should use clear and exact terms. Appropriate correction is required.
PRIOR ART
The following references are prior art:
1. Appl. No.: 18/546,928 (“Zheng”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) since it published as US 2024/0137096 A1, names another inventor (Ruiming ZHENG for Qualcomm), and was effectively filed Apr. 19, 2021 before Dec. 8, 2022 the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. (11/21/2023 IDS) 3GPP TS 38.321 titled “5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification.”
3. (11/21/2023 IDS) 3GPP TS 38.331 titled “5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification.”
2. Appl. No.: 18/744,162 (“Murray”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) since it published as US 2024/ 0357390 A1, names another inventor (Joseph M. Murray for InterDigital Patent Holdings), and was effectively filed by Feb. 4, 2021 before Dec. 8, 2022 the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 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:
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
CLAIMS 1-5, 7-11, AND 13-17
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2024/0137096 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 38.321 and 3GPP TS 38.331.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Zheng taught:
A method of operating a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving first information for a first set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals (RSs) and a first set of parameters associated with an evaluation of the first set of RLM RSs, wherein the first set of RLM RSs corresponds to a first subset of slots from a set of slots on a cell; receiving second information for a second set of RLM RSs and a second set of parameters associated with an evaluation of the second set of RLM RSs, wherein the second set of RLM RSs corresponds to a second subset of slots from the set of slots on the cell ([0078] As further shown in FIG. 5, example 510 shows an example of sub-band full duplex, which may also be referred to as "sub-band frequency division duplex (FDD)" or "flexible duplex." In sub-band full duplex, a UE may transmit uplink communications to a base station and receive downlink communications from the base station at the same time. [0100] FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example 800 associated with [beam failure detection] BFD in full-duplex operation, in accordance with the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 8, example 800 includes communication between a base station 110 and a UE 120. [0101] As shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 805, the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a first BFD resource configuration for the fullduplex mode and a second BFD resource configuration for the half-duplex mode. The first and second BFD resource configurations may include information that configures separate parameters relating to BFD and BFR for the fullduplex mode and for the half-duplex mode. For example, different BFD reference signal resources, beam failure thresholds, beam failure instance counter thresholds, BFD timer durations, and/or BFR resources may be configured for the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. [0102] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may indicate first BFD reference signal resources for a first BFD reference signal set, and the second BFD resource configuration may indicate second BFD reference signal resources for a second BFD reference signal set. The first BFD reference signal resources may indicate time and frequency resources to be used for transmitting the first BFD reference signal set from the base station 110 to the UE 120 in full-duplex slots. The first BFD reference signal set may include one or more reference signals (e.g., SSB and/or CSI-RS). The second BFD reference signal resources may indicate time and frequency resources to be used for transmitting the second BFD reference signal set from the base station 110 to the UE 120 in half-duplex slots. The second BFD reference signal set may include one or more reference signals (e.g., SSB and/or CSI-RS). [0103] As shown in FIG. 8, in some aspects, the first BFD reference signal set may include a first reference signal subset (Al) and a second reference signal subset (A2). The first reference signal subset (Al), of the first BFD reference signal set, may include one or more reference signals having the same frequency domain resource allocation as the frequency domain resource allocation of one or more reference signals in the second BFD reference signal set (Bl). The second reference signal subset (A2), of the first BFD reference signal set, may include one or more reference signals having a different frequency domain resource allocation from the frequency domain resource allocation of the reference signals in the second BFD reference signal set (Bl). [0104] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may also indicate a first beam failure threshold, a first beam failure instance counter threshold, a first BFD timer duration, and/or first BFR resources. The first beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the full-duplex mode. [0105] In some aspects, the second BFD resource configuration may also indicate a second beam failure threshold, a second beam failure instance counter threshold, a second BFD timer duration, and/or second BFR resources. The second beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the half-duplex mode. The Examiner finds that Zheng taught A method of operating a user equipment (UE) (i.e., US 120 in the example process 800), the method comprising: receiving first information (i.e., second BFD reference set, note in Zheng “first” and “second” are switched compared to the claim because in Zheng the “first” is for full duplex and “second” is for half duplex, while in the claim “first” is for non-simultaneous/non-full duplex, and “second” is for simultaneous/full duplex) for a first set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals (RSs) (i.e., the RS set includes B1) and a first set of parameters associated with an evaluation of the first set of RLM RSs (i.e., threshold, counter, timer duration, etc.), wherein the first set of RLM RSs corresponds to a first subset of slots from a set of slots on a cell (e.g., the half-duplex slots shown with either DL and UL in FIG. 6 and FIG. 8 ); receiving second information for a second set of RLM RSs (i.e., first BFD reference set, the RS set includes subsets A1 and A2) and a second set of parameters associated with an evaluation of the second set of RLM RSs (i.e., threshold, counter, timer duration, etc.), wherein the second set of RLM RSs corresponds to a second subset of slots from the set of slots on the cell (e.g., the full duplex slots shown as DL and UL in FIG. 8));
determining, based on the first set of parameters, a first reception quality for the first set of RLM RSs; determining a radio link failure for the first subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the first set of RLM RSs is below a first reception quality threshold for a first time period; determining, based on the second set of parameters, a second reception quality for the second set of RLM RSs; and determining a radio link failure for the second subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the second set of RLM RSs is below a second reception quality threshold for a second time period ([0066] in a case in which a BFR timer, which starts upon detection of beam failure, expires prior to receiving a BFR response, the UE may declare a radio link failure. [0104] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may also indicate a first beam failure threshold, a first beam failure instance counter threshold, a first BFD timer duration, and/or first BFR resources. The first beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement (e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the full-duplex mode. The first beam failure instance counter threshold may be a threshold for a beam failure instance counter that is used, by the UE 120, to determine when beam failure is detected in the full-duplex mode. The first BFD timer duration may be a time duration during which a beam failure may be detected in the fullduplex mode, in a case in which a number of beam failure instances exceeds the first beam failure instance counter threshold. [0105] In some aspects, the second BFD resource configuration may also indicate a second beam failure threshold, a second beam failure instance counter threshold, a second BFD timer duration, and/or second BFR resources. The second beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the half-duplex mode. The second beam failure instance counter threshold may be a threshold for a beam failure instance counter that is used, by the UE 120, to determine when beam failure is detected in the half-duplex mode. [0108] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 815, the UE 120 may detect beam failure in the full-duplex mode, and/or the UE 120 may detect beam failure in the half-duplex mode. In some aspects, the UE 120 may separately perform radio link monitoring and BFD in the full-duplex mode and in the half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may be configured with separate beam failure instance counters and BFD timers for the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. In this case, the UE 120 may stop or suspend the respective BFD timer when the UE 120 switches from one duplex mode to another. The BFD, performed by the UE 120, in the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode is illustrated in FIG. 9, and described in greater detail below in connection with FIG. 9. [0109] In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform measurements on the first BFD reference signal set received in full-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may perform received signal strength measurements ( e.g., RSRP measurements) and/or quality measurements (e.g., SINR measurements and/or RSRQ measurements) on the first BFD reference signal set received in the one or more slots in the full-duplex mode. In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform BFD in the full-duplex mode based at least in part on the measurements performed on the first BFD reference signal set. For example, the UE 120 may compare RSRP measurements on the first BFD reference signal set to the first beam failure threshold, and the UE 120 may detect a beam failure instance in the full-duplex mode based at least in part on an RSRP measurement failing to satisfy the first beam failure threshold. [0110] In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform measurements on the second BFD reference signal set received in half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may perform received signal strength measurements ( e.g., RSRP measurements) and/or quality measurements (e.g., SINR measurements and/or RSRQ measurements) on the second BFD reference signal set received in the one or more slots in the half-duplex mode. In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform BFD in the half-duplex mode based at least in part on the measurements performed on the second BFD reference signal set. For example, the UE 120 may compare RSRP measurements on the second BFD reference signal set to the second beam failure threshold, and the UE 120 may detect a beam failure instance in the half-duplex mode based at least in part on an RSRP measurement failing to satisfy the second beam failure threshold. [0111] , the UE 120 may detect that the cause of the beam failure in the full-duplex mode is one of the first cause (e.g., degraded link quality) or the second cause (e.g., self-interference) based on the measurements of the first BFD reference signal set and the measurements of the second BFD reference signal set. [0112] In some aspects, the UE 120 may detect the cause of the beam failure in the full-duplex mode based at least in part on a comparison of a first beam measurement ( e.g., a first SINR measurement) on the first reference signal subset (Al) of the first BFD reference signal set in one or more full-duplex slots and a second beam measurement (e.g., second SINR measurement) on the second BFD reference signal set (B1) in one or more half-duplex slots. [0113] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 825, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110, a BFR MAC-CE that includes an indication of the cause of the beam failure. In a case in which the beam failure is detected on an Scell, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110 on a Pcell or an SPcell, an LRR (or other scheduling request) for an uplink grant that allocates resources for the UE 120 to use to transmit the BFR MAC-CE. [0114] the MAC-CE may include a bit field dedicated for indicating the cause of beam failure. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a bit in an S bit field (S0, S1, ... , S7) may be used to indicate the cause of a beam failure on a respective component carrier (SP, C1 , ... , C7). The Examiner finds that Zheng taught determining, based on the first set of parameters (i.e., the threshold, counter, timer duration parameters for the second set in Zheng), a first reception quality for the first set of RLM RSs (i.e., the RSs using resource B1); determining a radio link failure for the first subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the first set of RLM RSs is below a first reception quality threshold (i.e., RSRP, SINR) for a first time period (i.e., determining beam failure using counts/duration, which leads to beam failure recovery, which can lead to radio link failure when the BFR timer expires); determining, based on the second set of parameters (i.e., the threshold, counter, timer duration parameters for the first set in Zheng), a second reception quality (i.e., RSRP, SINR) for the second set of RLM RSs (i.e., RSs using resources A1 and A2); and determining a radio link failure for the second subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the second set of RLM RSs is below a second reception quality threshold for a second time period (i.e., determining beam failure using counts/duration, which leads to beam failure recovery, which can lead to radio link failure when the BFR timer expires. The beam failure cause can indicate beam failure on a respective component carrier)),
wherein: the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for symbol type ‘subband-full-duplex’ (SBFD) on the cell, and the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for symbol type ‘subband-full-duplex’ (SBFD) on the cell ([0078] As further shown in FIG. 5, example 510 shows an example of sub-band full duplex, which may also be referred to as "sub-band frequency division duplex (FDD)" or "flexible duplex." In sub-band full duplex, a UE may transmit uplink communications to a base station and receive downlink communications from the base station at the same time, but on different frequency resources. In this case, the downlink resource may be separated from the uplink resource, in the frequency domain, by a guard band. [0080] FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example 600 of a slot format for sub-band full-duplex (e.g., sub-band FDD) communication, in accordance with the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 6, example 600 includes a downlink slot (DL slot), downlink and uplink slots (D+U slots), and an uplink slot (UL slot). A D+U slot is a slot in which the frequency band may be used for both uplink ( e.g., PUSCH) and downlink ( e.g., PDSCH) transmissions. In IBFD, the uplink and downlink transmissions in a D+U slot may occur in overlapping frequency bands. In sub-band full-duplex (as shown in FIG. 6), the uplink and downlink transmissions in a D+U slot may occur in different frequency bands. In some examples, the uplink and downlink frequency bands may be adjacent frequency bands and/or frequency bands separated by a guard band. [0081] A D+U slot may include multiple D+U symbols. In a given D+U symbol or slot, a full-duplex UE (e.g., a UE operating in a full-duplex mode) may transmit an uplink communication in the uplink frequency band and/or receive a downlink communication in the downlink frequency band in the same symbol or slot. However, in a given D+U symbol or slot, a half-duplex UE (e.g., a UE operating in a halfduplex mode) may either transmit an uplink communication in the uplink frequency band or receive a downlink com munication in the downlink frequency band. A D+ U slot may include downlink only symbols, uplink only symbols, and/or full-duplex symbols. [0082] As shown in FIG. 6, in some examples, an operating mode for sub-band full-duplex communication may utilize FDD in unpaired spectrum bands for downlink and uplink communications. As shown in FIG. 6, the D+U slots may include uplink and downlink resources for a first UE (UEI) operating in a full-duplex mode and may include resources (e.g., downlink resources) for a second UE (UE2) operating in a half-duplex mode. [0107] As shown in FIG. 8, in one or more half-duplex slots (e.g., DL slots), the UE 120 may receive the one or more reference signals in the second BFD reference signal set (B1). In some aspects, in one or more full-duplex slots (e.g., D+U slots), the UE 120 (e.g., UE) may receive the first BFD reference signal set that includes the first reference signal subset (A1) and the second reference signal subset (A2). The Examiner finds that Zheng taught the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for symbol type SBFD on the cell (i.e., the half-duplex slots are not for SBFD symbols), and the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for symbol type SBFD on the cell (i.e., the full duplex slots are for SBDF symbols as shown in and describes with respect to FIG. 6 and FIG. 8)).
With respect to claim 1, 3GPP TS 38.321 titled “5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification” taught beam failure detection and recovery (see section 5.17 and related discussion).
With respect to claim 1, 3GPP TS 38.331 titled “5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification” taught radio link failure (see section 5.3.10 and related discussion).
The Examiner finds that while the claimed invention is not identically disclosed by the prior art as set forth in section 102, 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. Zheng’s disclosure is focused on beam failure detection and beam failure recovery for full duplex slots and half duplex slots rather than “radio link failure” as claimed. However, as described in Zheng, radio link failure can be determined to occur when the beam failure recovery timer expires after beam failure has been detected.
Specifically, the claimed invention is obvious because it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Zheng described that beam failure detection and beam failure recovery can lead to determination of radio link failure, which is a known technique and standard practice under 3GPP wireless communication technical specification as described in 3GPP TS 38.321 titled “5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification” (see section 5.17 and related discussion on beam failure detection and recovery) and 3GPP TS 38.331 titled “5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification” (see section 5.3.10 and related discussion on radio link failure), both disclosed by Applicant in their information disclosure statement filed 11/21/2023. (2) The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., the methods in the 3GPP TSs), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., each element performs according to the 3GPP standard). The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., performing radio link failure in response to beam failure detection and recovery is predictable).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Zheng in view of 38.321 and 38.331 taught:
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 2, Zheng taught:
further comprising determining a radio link failure for the cell based on the determination for the radio link failure for the first subset of slots and for the radio link failure the second subset of slots ([0066] in a case in which a BFR timer, which starts upon detection of beam failure, expires prior to receiving a BFR response, the UE may declare a radio link failure. [0084] In some case, a UE operating in a full-duplex mode may perform BFD and BFR, as described above. However, when operating in the full-duplex mode, the UE may not be able to determine a cause of a detected beam failure. For example, the UE may not be able to distinguish between beam failure caused by self-interference due to simultaneous uplink and downlink communications in the full-duplex mode and beam failure caused by degraded link quality between the UE and the base station. This may lead the UE to unnecessarily request BFR (e.g., in a case in which the BFD is due to self-interference caused by full-duplex communication) and may cause the base station to unnecessarily reconfigure the beam for communicating with the UE. mode. [0111] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 820, the UE 120 may detect a cause of the beam failure. In some aspects, the UE 120 may detect whether the cause of the beam failure is a first cause associated with degraded link quality or a second cause associated with self-interference. In some aspects, the UE 120 may determine that the cause of the beam failure is the first cause (e.g., degraded link quality) based at least in part on detecting the beam failure in the half-duplex mode. In some aspects, the UE 120 may detect the cause of a beam failure in the full-duplex mode based at least in part on measurements of the first BFD reference signal set in the full-duplex mode and measurements of the second BFD reference signal set in the half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may detect that the cause of the beam failure in the full-duplex mode is one of the first cause (e.g., degraded link quality) or the second cause (e.g., self-interference) based on the measurements of the first BFD reference signal set and the measurements of the second BFD reference signal set. [0113] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 825, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110, a BFR MAC-CE that includes an indication of the cause of the beam failure. In a case in which the beam failure is detected on an Scell, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110 on a Pcell or an SPcell, an LRR (or other scheduling request) for an uplink grant that allocates resources for the UE 120 to use to transmit the BFR MAC-CE. [0114] the MAC-CE may include a bit field dedicated for indicating the cause of beam failure. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a bit in an S bit field (S0, S1, ... , S7) may be used to indicate the cause of a beam failure on a respective component carrier (SP, C1 , ... , C7). The Examiner finds that Zheng taught determining a radio link failure for the cell (i.e., which is determined to occur when beam failure recovery timer expires) based on the determination for the radio link failure for the first subset of slots (i.e.,) and for the radio link failure the second subset of slots (i.e., when beam failure occurs in the half duplex slots due to degraded link quality, which leads to radio link failure for the half duplex slots, which implies that there would also be radio link failure on the full duplex slots since they are subject to greater interreference due to self-interference. The beam failure cause can indicate failure of respective component carriers of the cell)).
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Zheng in view of 38.321 and 38.331 taught:
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 3, Zheng taught:
further comprising: determining a secondary radio link failure based on the determination for the radio link failure on the second subset of slots; and transmitting a signaling message associated with the radio link failure for the second subset of slots using an uplink (UL) signal or channel ([0066] in a case in which a BFR timer, which starts upon detection of beam failure, expires prior to receiving a BFR response, the UE may declare a radio link failure. [0111] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 820, the UE 120 may detect a cause of the beam failure. In some aspects, the UE 120 may detect whether the cause of the beam failure is a first cause associated with degraded link quality or a second cause associated with self-interference. In some aspects, the UE 120 may determine that the cause of the beam failure is the first cause (e.g., degraded link quality) based at least in part on detecting the beam failure in the half-duplex mode. In some aspects, the UE 120 may detect the cause of a beam failure in the full-duplex mode based at least in part on measurements of the first BFD reference signal set in the full-duplex mode and measurements of the second BFD reference signal set in the half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may detect that the cause of the beam failure in the full-duplex mode is one of the first cause (e.g., degraded link quality) or the second cause (e.g., self-interference) based on the measurements of the first BFD reference signal set and the measurements of the second BFD reference signal set. [0113] As further shown in FIG. 8, and by reference number 825, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110, a BFR MAC-CE that includes an indication of the cause of the beam failure. In a case in which the beam failure is detected on an Scell, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110 on a Peel! or an SPcell, an LRR (or other scheduling request) for an uplink grant that allocates resources for the UE 120 to use to transmit the BFR MAC-CE. In this case, the BFR MAC-CE may include an indication of the cause of the beam failure. In a case in which the beam failure is detected on a Pcell or SPcell, the UE 120 may perform a RACH procedure for BFR. In this case, in some aspects, the UE 120 may transmit, to the base station 110, a BFR MAC-CE including an indication of the cause of the beam failure on an uplink resource granted in the RACH procedure. [0114] the MAC-CE may include a bit field dedicated for indicating the cause of beam failure. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, a bit in an S bit field (S0, S1, ... , S7) may be used to indicate the cause of a beam failure on a respective component carrier (SP, C1 , ... , C7).).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Zheng in view of 38.321 and 38.331 taught:
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 4, Zheng taught:
further comprising determining the second reception quality based on the first reception quality and an adjustment value ([0061] As shown by reference number 310, the UE may detect a beam failure based at least in part on the BFD reference signals. The physical layer in the UE may assess radio link quality by measuring RSRP of the BFD reference signals and comparing the RSRP measurements with a threshold (Qout). [0091] In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform measurements on the BFD reference signal set received in full-duplex mode and half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may perform received signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP measurements) and/or quality measurements (e.g., signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements and/or RSRQ measurements) on the received BFD reference signals in the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a first BFD resource configuration for the fullduplex mode and a second BFD resource configuration for the half-duplex mode. The first and second BFD resource configurations may include information that configures separate parameters relating to BFD and BFR for the fullduplex mode and for the half-duplex mode. For example, different BFD reference signal resources, beam failure thresholds, beam failure instance counter thresholds, BFD timer durations, and/or BFR resources may be configured for the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. [0104] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may also indicate a first beam failure threshold, a first beam failure instance counter threshold, a first BFD timer duration, and/or first BFR resources. The first beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the full-duplex mode.).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Zheng in view of 38.321 and 38.331 taught:
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 5, Zheng taught:
wherein: the first set of parameters include a first T_evaluate_out, the second set of parameters include a second T_evaluate_out, and the first time period and the second time period correspond to the first T_evaluate_out and the second T_evaluate_out, respectively ([0061] As shown by reference number 310, the UE may detect a beam failure based at least in part on the BFD reference signals. The physical layer in the UE may assess radio link quality by measuring RSRP of the BFD reference signals and comparing the RSRP measurements with a threshold (Qout). [0091] In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform measurements on the BFD reference signal set received in full-duplex mode and half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may perform received signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP measurements) and/or quality measurements (e.g., signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements and/or RSRQ measurements) on the received BFD reference signals in the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a first BFD resource configuration for the fullduplex mode and a second BFD resource configuration for the half-duplex mode. The first and second BFD resource configurations may include information that configures separate parameters relating to BFD and BFR for the fullduplex mode and for the half-duplex mode. For example, different BFD reference signal resources, beam failure thresholds, beam failure instance counter thresholds, BFD timer durations, and/or BFR resources may be configured for the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. [0104] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may also indicate a first beam failure threshold, a first beam failure instance counter threshold, a first BFD timer duration, and/or first BFR resources. The first beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the full-duplex mode. [0105] In some aspects, the second BFD resource configuration may also indicate a second beam failure threshold, a second beam failure instance counter threshold, a second BFD timer duration, and/or second BFR resources. The second beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement (e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the half-duplex mode).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites limitations similar to claim 1 except that it additionally recites “A user equipment (UE) comprising: a transceiver configured to” perform functionality similar to claim 1. Zheng [0051] taught that the UE 120 includes a transceiver. Claim 7 is rejected for this reason along with the reasoning given above for claim 1.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites limitations similar to claim 3 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to claim 1 except that it is from the perspective of a “base station” in communication with the “user equipment” of claim 1 and it additionally recites “A base station (BS) comprising: a transceiver configured to” perform operations similar to those of claim 1, accounting for the change in perspective. Zheng [0046] taught a base station 110 in communication with a UE 120 in a wireless network 100 and [0052] the base station 110 includes a transceiver. Claim 13 is rejected for these reasons along with the reasoning given above for claim 1.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 3 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
CLAIMS 6, 12, AND 18
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 2024/0137096 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 38.321 and 3GPP TS 38.331, and Murray (US 2024/0357390 A1).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Zheng in view of 38.321 and 38.331 taught:
The method of Claim 1 (see rejection above).
With respect to claim 6, Zheng taught:
wherein: the first set of parameters include a first Q_out, the second set of parameters include a second Q_out, and the first reception quality threshold and the second reception quality threshold correspond to the first Q_out and the second Q_out, respectively ([0061] As shown by reference number 310, the UE may detect a beam failure based at least in part on the BFD reference signals. The physical layer in the UE may assess radio link quality by measuring RSRP of the BFD reference signals and comparing the RSRP measurements with a threshold (Qout). [0091] In some aspects, the UE 120 may perform measurements on the BFD reference signal set received in full-duplex mode and half-duplex mode. For example, the UE 120 may perform received signal strength measurements (e.g., RSRP measurements) and/or quality measurements (e.g., signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements and/or RSRQ measurements) on the received BFD reference signals in the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a first BFD resource configuration for the fullduplex mode and a second BFD resource configuration for the half-duplex mode. The first and second BFD resource configurations may include information that configures separate parameters relating to BFD and BFR for the fullduplex mode and for the half-duplex mode. For example, different BFD reference signal resources, beam failure thresholds, beam failure instance counter thresholds, BFD timer durations, and/or BFR resources may be configured for the full-duplex mode and the half-duplex mode. [0104] In some aspects, the first BFD resource configuration may also indicate a first beam failure threshold, a first beam failure instance counter threshold, a first BFD timer duration, and/or first BFR resources. The first beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement ( e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the full-duplex mode. [0105] In some aspects, the second BFD resource configuration may also indicate a second beam failure threshold, a second beam failure instance counter threshold, a second BFD timer duration, and/or second BFR resources. The second beam failure threshold may be a threshold for a measurement (e.g., RSRP measurement) of a BFD reference signal that is used, by the UE 120, to determine whether a beam failure instance has occurred in the half-duplex mode.)
Zheng taught the limitations of claim 6 discussed above, and taught RSRP measurements against a threshold (Qout), which is a reception quality threshold, but did not specifically teach that this RSRP measurement threshold (Qout) was related to Block Error Rate “BLER_out” as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, Murray taught:
Defining link quality threshold Qout based on BLERout ([0048] As discussed herein, detection of RLF for NR-U may be based on in-sync or out-of-sync indications that are based on the estimated radio link quality in combination with missed RLM-RS TXOPs. On each RLM-RS resource, the UE estimates the downlink radio link quality and compares it to the thresholds Q.out and Qin for the purpose of monitoring downlink radio link quality of the cell. The threshold Qout may be defined as the level at which the downlink radio link cannot be reliably received, e.g. an out-of-sync Block Error Rate (BLERout) of 10%. The threshold Q.sub.in may be defined as the level at which the downlink radio link quality can be significantly more reliably received than at Qout, e.g. an in-sync Block Error Rate (BLER.sub.in) of 2%. The use of other values for BLERout and BLER.sub.in are not precluded, wherein the values may be determined by the gNB, based on measurements performed by or reported to the gNB (e.g., channel occupancy), and signaled to the UE via higher layers, e.g. SI broadcast or dedicated signaling. [0175] The UE may estimate the downlink radio link quality and compare it to the thresholds Qout, ( e.g., out-of-sync) and Qin ( e.g., in-sync) for the purpose of monitoring downlink radio link quality of the cell. In an example, Qin is the threshold above which in-sync is declared and Qout, is the threshold below which out-of-sync is declared The gNB may make use of other reference signals ( e.g. SRS or DMRS to determine the UL quality). The quality measurements may correspond to an RSRP or RSRQ measurement as defined per the 3GPP specs.)
The Examiner finds that while the claimed invention is not identically disclosed by the prior art as set forth in section 102, 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.
Specifically, the claimed invention is obvious because it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Zheng described the use of the threshold Qout and Murray taught that Qout could be related to BLERout. (2) The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., the methods in the 3GPP TSs), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., as explained by Murray, the quality measurements may correspond to an RSRP or RSRQ measurement as defined per the 3GPP specs, and Qout can be related to BLERout as taught by Murray). The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., defining the threshold Qout in Zheng based on BLERout as taught by Murray is predictable since BLER is a known and predictable metric used in 3GPP specifications).
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to claim 6 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 6 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 12 Applicant points out that “Zheng discusses measurements on a BFD reference signal set to detect a beam failure instance” but only once mentions Radio Link Failure. The Examiner recognized that fact as discussed above and on page 9 of the previous rejection (the rejection states: Zheng's disclosure is focused on beam failure detection and beam failure recovery for full duplex slots and half duplex slots rather than "radio link failure" as claimed). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does not rely on Zheng specifically teaching “radio link failure” since, as presented in the rejection, radio link failure can obviously result from beam failure.
On page 12-13 Applicant argued “There is no disclosure in Zheng that the UE would determine a radio link failure for a subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the set of RLM RSs is below a reception quality threshold for a time period as recited in Claim 1.” Again, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does not rely on Zheng specifically teaching that.
On page 13, Applicant argued “there is not any disclosure of RLM RSs in Zheng.” The Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above and the in the previous non-final rejection, the Reference signal set that includes B1 reads on the claimed “RLM RS.” The reference signal set in Zheng (e.g., SSB and/or CSI-RS) is used for monitoring the radio link to detect beam failure.
On page 13, Applicant argued “while 3GPP TS 38.331 mentions radio link failure, there is no disclosure that a radio link failure is determined for a subset of slots when a reception quality of any RLM RS from the set of RLM RS s ( that correspond to the subset of slots) is below a reception quality threshold for a time period.” Of course 3GPP TS 38.331 does not disclose that. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does not rely on 3GPP TS 38.331 disclosing that.
The Examiner presented a rationale for obviousness that involves combining the teachings of the prior art. Applicant presented arguments against the references individually but did not specifically address the Examiner’s reasoning regarding the combination. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Should Applicant maintain their arguments, the Examiner requests Applicant to attempt to rebut the Examiner’s actual rationale for obviousness which is copied below (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that while the claimed invention is not identically disclosed by the prior art as set forth in section 102, 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. Zheng’s disclosure is focused on beam failure detection and beam failure recovery for full duplex slots and half duplex slots rather than “radio link failure” as claimed. However, as described in Zheng, radio link failure can be determined to occur when the beam failure recovery timer expires after beam failure has been detected.
Specifically, the claimed invention is obvious because it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Zheng described that beam failure detection and beam failure recovery can lead to determination of radio link failure, which is a known technique and standard practice under 3GPP wireless communication technical specification as described in 3GPP TS 38.321 titled “5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification” (see section 5.17 and related discussion on beam failure detection and recovery) and 3GPP TS 38.331 titled “5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification” (see section 5.3.10 and related discussion on radio link failure), both disclosed by Applicant in their information disclosure statement filed 11/21/2023. (2) The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., the methods in the 3GPP TSs), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e., each element performs according to the 3GPP standard). The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., performing radio link failure in response to beam failure detection and recovery is predictable).
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights