DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 08 May 2024, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+5, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are fully covered by the patent claims.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1+5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches a method:
receiving, by a wireless device, at least one configuration parameter that indicates at least one reference signal (RS) for a channel as in the application corresponds to the limitation “receiving, by a wireless .. reference signal (RS)” (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 2-4);
performing, based on a plurality of failures of a secondary cell, a failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determining a beam … secondary cell” (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 5-6); and
based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, stopping at least one of: uplink transmission via a bandwidth part of the secondary cell; or monitoring at least one downlink control channel of the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “stopping, by the wireless … secondary cell” (claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches measuring an RS received power (RSRP) of the at least one RS (claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches the at least one configuration parameter is received via at least one of: a primary cell; or another secondary cell different from the secondary cell (claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches receiving at least one configuration parameter indicating a cell deactivation timer associated with the secondary cell, wherein the stopping comprises stopping, before expiration of the cell deactivation timer and based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, at least one of: the uplink transmission; or the monitoring (claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches determining that the failure recovery procedure is unsuccessful based on at least one of: an expiration of a timer associated with the secondary cell; or a maximum quantity of failure instances for the failure recovery procedure (claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,350 teaches the at least one RS comprises at least one of: an RS of a primary cell; or an RS of the secondary cell (lines 1-4).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+5, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14+18, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are fully covered by the patent claims.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1+5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches a method.
receiving, by a wireless device, at least one configuration parameter that indicates at least one reference signal (RS) for a channel as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determining, by a wireless … unsuccessful” (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-4);
performing, based on a plurality of failures of a secondary cell, a failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determining, by a wireless … unsuccessful” (claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-4); and
based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, stopping at least one of: uplink transmission via a bandwidth part of the secondary cell; or monitoring at least one downlink control channel of the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “stopping, based on … with the cell” (claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches measuring an RS received power (RSRP) of the at least one RS (claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches the at least one configuration parameter is received via at least one of: a primary cell; or another secondary cell different from the secondary cell (claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches receiving at least one configuration parameter indicating a cell deactivation timer associated with the secondary cell, wherein the stopping comprises stopping, before expiration of the cell deactivation timer and based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, at least one of: the uplink transmission; or the monitoring (claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-9).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches determining that the failure recovery procedure is unsuccessful based on at least one of: an expiration of a timer associated with the secondary cell; or a maximum quantity of failure instances for the failure recovery procedure (claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 8, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches the at least one RS comprises at least one of: an RS of a primary cell; or an RS of the secondary cell (claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, claim 14+18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches a wireless device.
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: receive at least one configuration parameter that indicates at least one reference signal (RS) for a channel as in the application corresponds to the limitation “one or more processors … is unsuccessful” (claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-7);
perform, based on a plurality of failures of a secondary cell, a failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determine that a … unsuccessful” (claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 2-7); and
based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, stop at least one of: uplink transmission via a bandwidth part of the secondary cell; or monitoring at least one downlink control channel of the secondary cell as in the application corresponds to the limitation “stop, based on the … with the cell” (claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 17, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches measure an RS received power (RSRP) of the at least one RS (claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches the at least one configuration parameter is received via at least one of: a primary cell; or another secondary cell different from the secondary cell (claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 21, claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches receive at least one configuration parameter indicating a cell deactivation timer associated with the secondary cell; and stop, before expiration of the cell deactivation timer and based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, at least one of: the uplink transmission; or the monitoring (claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 22, claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches determine that the failure recovery procedure is unsuccessful based on at least one of: an expiration of a timer associated with the secondary cell; or a maximum quantity of failure instances for the failure recovery procedure (claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 23, claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 teaches the at least one RS comprises at least one of: an RS of a primary cell; or an RS of the secondary cell (claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,488 lines 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al. (PG Pub US 2019/0200248 A1) in view of Agiwal et al. (PG Pub US 2021/0068162 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 16, 24, Basu discloses a method, a method, a wireless device, and a base station.
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to (figs. 3-4):
receive/transmit at least one configuration parameter that indicates at least one reference signal (RS) for a channel (“the transceiver 325 receives a configuration for the beam revival procedure” [0064], “beam failure for each beam in the first set of beams based on measurements on one or more beam failure detection reference signals” [0063], “During candidate beam identification, a configurable L1-RSRP .. could be used for Candidate Beam identification” [0089]);
perform, based on a plurality of failures, a failure recovery procedure (“Having detected the beam failure, the procedure 500 implements for beam recovery and beam revival in parallel” [0088], “configured maximum number of BFRR transmission” [0096]); and
based on the failure recovery procedure being unsuccessful (“Unsuccessful recovery from beam failure is declared upon reaching the configured maximum number of BFRR transmission, or upon expiry of the beam failure recovery timer, e.g., when the beam failure recovery timer starts upon beam failure detection” [0096]), stop at least one of: uplink transmission via a bandwidth part; or monitoring at least one downlink control channel (“the UE no longer monitors previously configured CORESET(s) upon unsuccessful recovery from beam failure” [0096], “if the beam revival is not successful and a corresponding timer, such as the T310 timer, expires (see block 630), then the beam revival procedure 600 stops UL transmissions” [0103], “Once the Beam Failure is detected, the UE may stop monitoring the corresponding CORESET(s) and stop using all grant-free and SPS allocations on the failed beams .. the UE may not make any PUCCH transmissions on the current beam set, e.g., HARQ ACK/NACK, once Beam Failure has been declared” [0109]).
However, Basu does not explicitly disclose for the secondary cell.
Nevertheless, Agiwal discloses “receive first configuration information on a SpCell and second configuration information on a SCell from the base station, to detect beam failure on the Scell” [0025], “PRACH preamble(s) and/or PRACH occasion(s) of SCell for beam failure recovery are associated to beams (i.e., synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) or Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI RSs)) of that Scell” [0079].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the secondary cell because “As a result beam failure on SCell can be detected and recovered quickly unlike the existing method wherein beam failure recovery on SCell is not performed by a terminal leading to data interruption” [0030].
Regarding claims 2, 10, 17, 25, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses measuring an RS received power (RSRP) of the at least one RS (“a RSRP measurement value of the active beam” [0064]).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 18, 26, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses the failure recovery procedure is a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure, and wherein the plurality of failures of the secondary cell is a plurality of beam failures of the secondary cell (“Unsuccessful recovery from beam failure is declared upon reaching the configured maximum number of BFRR transmission” [0096], “beam failure recovery” [0061]).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 19, 27, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses the at least one configuration parameter is received via at least one of: a primary cell; or another secondary cell different from the secondary cell (“a UE may be configured, for a serving cell, with a set q.sub.0 of periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes by a first higher layer parameter, e.g., Beam-Failure-Detection-RS-ResourceConfig, and with a set q.sub.1 of CSI-RS resource configuration indexes and/or SS/PBCH block indexes by another higher layer parameter, e.g., Candidate-Beam-RS-List, for radio link quality measurements on the serving cell” [0037]). In addition, Agiwal discloses “In case UE is configured with multiple SCells, this configuration can be provided independently for each SCell on which beam failure recovery is needed” [0079], [0025].
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20, 28, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses measuring at least one signal associated with the channel to determine the plurality of failures of the secondary cell (“the beam revival procedure is determined to be successful for an active beam of the first set in response to a RSRP measurement value of the active beam being above the configured RSRP threshold value for the first number of consecutive beam revival instances” [0099]).
Regarding claims 6, 14, 21, 29, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses receiving at least one configuration parameter indicating a cell deactivation timer associated with the secondary cell (“A Beam-Failure-Recovery-Timer is used to control the amount of BFRR that the UE should make before giving up” [0092]), wherein the stopping comprises stopping, before expiration of the cell deactivation timer and based on the failure recovery procedure for the secondary cell being unsuccessful, at least one of: the uplink transmission; or the monitoring (“Unsuccessful recovery from beam failure is declared upon reaching the configured maximum number of BFRR transmission .. In one embodiment, the UE no longer monitors previously configured CORESET(s) upon unsuccessful recovery from beam failure” [0096], “when one of the procedure recovers/revives successfully while the other one is still running, then the still running procedure is stopped” [0106], “within a window configured by higher layer parameter Beam-failure-recovery-request-window” [0040]).
Regarding claims 7, 22, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Basu discloses determining that the failure recovery procedure is unsuccessful based on at least one of: an expiration of a timer associated with the secondary cell; or a maximum quantity of failure instances for the failure recovery procedure (“Unsuccessful recovery from beam failure is declared upon reaching the configured maximum number of BFRR transmission, or upon expiry of the beam failure recovery timer, e.g., when the beam failure recovery timer starts upon beam failure detection” [0096]).
Regarding claims 8, 15, 23, 30, Basu, Agiwal discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Agiwal discloses the at least one RS comprises at least one of: an RS of a primary cell; or an RS of the secondary cell (“receive first configuration information on a SpCell and second configuration information on a SCell from the base station, to detect beam failure on the Scell” [0025], “PRACH preamble(s) and/or PRACH occasion(s) of SCell for beam failure recovery are associated to beams (i.e., synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) or Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI RSs)) of that Scell” [0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 12/04/2025