DEATAILED 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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 04/23/26.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
5. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 05/15/26 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawing
6. The drawings filed on 12/11/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Claims Objections
7. Claims 1-8 & 17-20 are objected to because of minor informalities:
8. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…performance metric…in line 9. For consistency and clarification with “performance metric” recited in claim 1, line 3, it is suggested to change “the need” in line 9, to “the performance metric”.
9. Claim 17 is also objected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
10. Claims 2-8 & 18-20 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's amendment filed on 04/23/26, regarding a specification objection (title, claims 4 & 6) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn.
12. Applicant's arguments/remarks filed on 04/23/26, regarding a claim objection (1, 9 & 17) has been considered and is persuasive . Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
13. Applicant's arguments and amendment filed on 04/23/26, regarding to a 102 & 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are moot with the new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (hereinafter referred as Bai) US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0243630 A1, in view of Pezeshki et al. (hereinafter referred as Pezeshki) US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0376757 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 17: Bai discloses a user equipment (UE)/method (See FIG. 7 & Para. 0083; an apparatus (i.e., UE) 702) comprising:
a processor (See FIG. 7 & Para. 0083; an apparatus (i.e., UE) 702 includes communication manager) configured to determine an occurrence of an event (See Para. 0067; “the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504); and
a transceiver (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0049; a User Equipment (UE) 350 includes a reception component 730 and Transmission component 734) operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to;
transmit, based on the occurrence of the event, including at least one of (i) a trigger indicating a need for transmitting a report (See Para. 0067; “the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504. In response to detecting the occurrence of the event at 511, the UE 502 may transmit the uplink beam report 513 to the base station 515”); and
transmit the report including one or more indicators (ii) content associated with the determined performance metric (See Para. 0067 & 0069; wherein the uplink beam report includes a beam quality metric for each beam reported in the uplink beam report),
wherein performance metric is related to a channel between the UE and a network entity (See Para. 0067 & 0069; the beam quality metric for each beam reported in the uplink beam report is between the UE and the base station).
Bai does not explicitly discloses determine an occurrence of an event based on comparison of a determined performance metric to a threshold.
However, Pezeshki from the same field of endeavor discloses determine an occurrence of an event based on comparison of a determined performance metric to a threshold (See Para. 0089, 0091 & 0094; the UE transmits an event-triggered report to the network entity based on any of the new parameters being different from the old parameters (e.g., by a threshold value). In some cases, the UE may report none of the second set of metrics if none of such metrics have changed (e.g., by a threshold value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine an occurrence of an event based on comparison of a determined performance metric to a threshold as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claims 2 & 18: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Pezeshki discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the determined performance metric is a reference signal receive power for a reference signal received from the network (See Para. 0094 & 0104; RSRP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the determined performance metric is a reference signal receive power for a reference signal received from the network as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claims 3 & 19: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Bai discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the event corresponds to an event type from at least one of the following event types: (iii) a beam-related event type including at least one of a beam switch and a beam indication (See Para. 0068; the event may include a change in a set of one or more best beams. The set of one or more best beams may include a first number of beams having highest beam measurements among a larger number of beams measured by the UE).
Regarding claims 4 & 20: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Bai discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the determined performance metric is based on at least one of: a failure event associated with the channel (See Para. 0072; the base station may configure one or more metrics and/or one or more thresholds for the UE to use in determining whether a particular beam has suffered from a beam failure. Therefore, the indication of whether or not a particular beam suffers from beam failure in the uplink beam report 513 may be based on one or more metrics configured by the base station 504 for the UE to determine beam failure).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Bai discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the trigger in response to an identification of the event (See Para. 0067; the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504. In response to detecting the occurrence of the event at 511, the UE 502 may transmit the uplink beam report 513 to the base station 515).
Regarding claims 6 & 14: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Pezeshki discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the report is transmitted after the trigger (See Para. 0094; the report is transmitted after the detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the report is transmitted after the trigger as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Bai discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein, the report corresponds to a beam-related report type including at least one of a beam metric (See Para. 0072; the base station may configure one or more metrics and/or one or more thresholds for the UE to use in determining whether a particular beam has suffered from a beam failure. Therefore, the indication of whether or not a particular beam suffers from beam failure in the uplink beam report 513 may be based on one or more metrics configured by the base station 504 for the UE to determine beam failure).
Regarding claims 8 & 16: The combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose the user equipment (UE)/method.
Furthermore, Pezeshki discloses the user equipment (UE)/method, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive at least one reference signal (RS) resource. The processor is configured to measure the at least one RS resources for determining the determined performance metric (See Para. 0085-0088; the network entity transmits reference signals (RS) for the UE to measure and calculate parameters based on the configuration. At 915, the network entity receives an event-triggered report with the partial update of the parameters from the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the transceiver is configured to receive at least one reference signal (RS) resource. The processor is configured to measure the at least one RS resources for determining the determined performance metric as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 9: Bai discloses a base station (BS) (See FIG. 9 & Para. 0094; an apparatus (e.g., base station)) comprising:
a processor (See FIG. 9 & Para. 0094; an apparatus (e.g., base station) includes communication manager 932); and
a transceiver (See FIG. 9 & Para. 0094; an apparatus (e.g., base station) includes reception/transmission component 930 & 934) operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to:
receive a trigger indicating a need for transmitting transmission of a report (See Para. 0067; “the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504. In response to detecting the occurrence of the event at 511, the UE 502 may transmit the uplink beam report 513 to the base station 515”); and
receive the report including one or more indicators associated with a performance metric (See Para. 0067 & 0069; wherein the uplink beam report includes a beam quality metric for each beam reported in the uplink beam report),
wherein:
the performance metric is related to a channel between a user equipment (UE) and the BS (See Para. 0067 & 0069; the beam quality metric for each beam reported in the uplink beam report is between the UE and the base station), and
the trigger is received based on an occurrence of an event (See Para. 0067; “the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504).
Bai does not explicitly discloses the trigger is received based on an occurrence of an event determined based on comparison of the performance metric to a threshold.
However, Pezeshki from the same field of endeavor discloses the trigger is received based on an occurrence of an event determined based on comparison of the performance metric to a threshold (See Para. 0089, 0091 & 0094; the UE transmits an event-triggered report to the network entity based on any of the new parameters being different from the old parameters (e.g., by a threshold value). In some cases, the UE may report none of the second set of metrics if none of such metrics have changed (e.g., by a threshold value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the trigger is received based on an occurrence of an event determined based on comparison of the performance metric to a threshold as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 10: the combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose a base station (BS).
Furthermore, Bai discloses the base station (BS), wherein performance metric is a reference signal received power for a reference signal transmitted by the BS (See Para. 0094 & 0104; RSRP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein performance metric is a reference signal received power for a reference signal transmitted by the BS as taught by Pezeshki in the system of Bai to provide advantages that include improved efficiency for reference signal (RS) based reporting (See Para. 0006; lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 11: the combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose a base station (BS).
Furthermore, Bai discloses the base station (BS), wherein the event corresponds to an event type from at least one of the following event types: (iii) a beam-related event type including at least one of a beam switch and a beam indication (See Para. 0068; the event may include a change in a set of one or more best beams. The set of one or more best beams may include a first number of beams having highest beam measurements among a larger number of beams measured by the UE).
Regarding claim 12: the combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose a base station (BS).
Furthermore, Bai discloses the base station (BS), wherein the performance metric is based on at least one of: a failure event associated with the channel (See Para. 0072; the base station may configure one or more metrics and/or one or more thresholds for the UE to use in determining whether a particular beam has suffered from a beam failure. Therefore, the indication of whether or not a particular beam suffers from beam failure in the uplink beam report 513 may be based on one or more metrics configured by the base station 504 for the UE to determine beam failure).
Regarding claim 13: the combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose a base station (BS).
Furthermore, Bai discloses the base station (BS), wherein the trigger is in response to an identification of the event (See Para. 0067; the UE 502 may detect that an event has occurred that triggers an uplink beam report to be sent by the UE 502 to the base station 504. In response to detecting the occurrence of the event at 511, the UE 502 may transmit the uplink beam report 513 to the base station 515).
Regarding claim 15: the combination of Bai and Pezeshki disclose a base station (BS).
Furthermore, Bai discloses the base station (BS), wherein, the report corresponds to a beam-related report type including at least one of a beam metric (See Para. 0072; the base station may configure one or more metrics and/or one or more thresholds for the UE to use in determining whether a particular beam has suffered from a beam failure. Therefore, the indication of whether or not a particular beam suffers from beam failure in the uplink beam report 513 may be based on one or more metrics configured by the base station 504 for the UE to determine beam failure).
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Chen et al. 2025/0253910 A1 (Title: Method and device for channel state information..) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Li et al. 2025/0167902 A1 (Title: Method for measuring and reporting cross-link..) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Shabara et al. 2025/0159525 A1 (Title: Apparatus and method for fast beam recovery) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights