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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2021/079305 filed 03/05/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. There are two issues here.
First, claim 6 recites a “second request”. There is no first request claimed, and it is unclear to the Examiner if this limitation is intended to require another, separate first request, or this is in relation to the “obtaining” step in claim 1. The bounds of the claim are therefore unclear.
Second, claim 6 recites “wherein the communication with the terminal is performed through the first panel”. There are multiple “communications” prior to this limitation, and it is unclear to the Examiner which are required to be done through the first panel.
The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected along with its dependent claims.
3. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “wherein the second communication quality as received is greater that the second quality threshold”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “as received” means, here. It appears to distinguish over the “second communication quality” as it is, or as it is measured, but it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the case, or what that would entail. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected. Claim 11 recites similar “as received” language, and is treated in the same manner.
4. Claims 12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites activating the second panels “respectively”. It is unclear to the Examiner what this means, here—doing something0 “with respect to” requires reference to something else. It is unclear to the Examiner what is being referenced with respect to each of the second panels. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected. Claim 29 has similar issues, and is likewise rejected.
5. Claims 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 23 recites both determining second communication qualities for all of the beams, and also terminating the determining process partway through. It is unclear to the Examiner how both of these limitations can be fulfilled. Claim 28 has similar issues and is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 8, 16, 21 – 22, 25, 27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20210167821 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses subject matter relating to multi-panel panel management. Specifically, Chen discloses a method for capability acquisition (WTRU antenna panel capability info; see Abstract), comprising:
obtaining by a base station, capability information of a terminal (WTRU reports panel capability info to gNB; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5);
wherein the capability information is used for indicating whether the terminal has multi-panel beam collaborative management capability, and the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate second panel, wherein a first panel is used by the terminal for communication with the base station (capability info includes multi panel (ie first and second panel) capability; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5; gNB can configure which panel(s) to use for multi-panel cooperative uplink; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses
wherein the capability information is further used for indicating a panel the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability is applicable to (panel IDs; see paragraph [0112]);
the capability information is further used for indicating identification information of an alternate panel of a panel currently used for communication (panel IDs of all (incl. alternate) of the panels; see paragraph [0112]); and
the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability further refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate beam (beams can be IDed; see paragraphs [0112 – 0114]).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses
determining the terminal having the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability (WTRU reports panel capability info to gNB; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5; gNB can configure which panel(s) to use for multi-panel cooperative uplink; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5).
sending a second request to the terminal, wherein the communication with the terminal is performed through the first panel, and the second request is used for requesting to obtain information of the second panel (gNB triggers beam sweeping, and WTRU does so; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5; the Examiner understands beam sweeping to include reporting the results)
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses
sending the second request to the terminal wherein a first communication quality of the communication performed through the first panel is less than a first quality threshold (link quality between WTRU and TRP drops, WTRU may select panel with link quality below a certain threshold; see paragraph [0109]; the Examiner notes that this is necessarily true)
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Chen discloses wherein the information of the second panel comprises a second communication quality of communication performed by the terminal through the second panel (panels have associated link quality; see paragraph [0109]), and the method further comprises:
receiving the second communication quality sent by the terminal (gNB triggers beam sweeping, and WTRU does so; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5; the Examiner understands the second communication quality to be the quality for the second beam/panel)
sending a first indication to the terminal, wherein the second communication quality is greater than a second quality threshold, and the first indication is used for indicating the terminal to perform the communication with the base station by using the second panel (TRP can trigger selection of panel with higher quality signal when link quality drops; see paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses a method for capability reporting (WTRU antenna panel capability info; see Abstract), comprising:
sending, by a terminal, capability information to a base station (WTRU reports panel capability info to gNB; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5);
wherein the capability information is used for indicating whether the terminal has multi-panel beam collaborative management capability, and the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate second panel, wherein a first panel is used by the terminal for communication with the base station (capability info includes multi panel (ie first and second panel) capability; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5; gNB can configure which panel(s) to use for multi-panel cooperative uplink; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses wherein the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability further refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate beam (alternate beams can be IDed; see paragraphs [0112 – 0114]), and the method further comprises:
determining at least one of the second panel or the alternate beam based on a position of a panel, in the terminal, that the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability is applicable to and a direction of a beam on which a current communication is performed (panel/beam sweeping and selection is done based on position/orientation of the panel; see paragraph [0112 – 0114] and Figs. 5 and 7)
Regarding claim 27, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses wherein the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability further refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate beam (alternate beams can be IDed; see paragraphs [0112 – 0114]), and the method further comprises:
determining a position of the base station based on positioning information (panels/beams are selected based on position of base station; see paragraph [0115] and Fig. 7); and
determining at least one of the second panel or the alternate beam based on a position of a panel, in the terminal, that the capability is applicable to and the position of the base station (panel/beam sweeping and selection, along with panel/beam selection is done based on position/orientation of the panel; see paragraph [0112 – 0114] and Figs. 5 and 7)
Regarding claim 34, Chen discloses a communication device (eNB/WTRU; see Figs. 1B and 1C element 160), characterized in comprising:
a processor (eNB/WTRU; see Figs. 1B and 1C element 160; the Examiner understands these as having a processor); and
a memory, configured to store a computer program (eNB/WTRU; see Figs. 1B and 1C element 160; the Examiner understands these as having memory);
wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, enables the communication device to implement a method for capability acquisition (WTRU antenna panel capability info; see Abstract), wherein the method for capability acquisition comprises:
obtaining capability information of a terminal (WTRU reports panel capability info to gNB; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5); wherein the capability information is used for indicating whether the terminal has multi-panel beam collaborative management capability, and the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate second panel, wherein a first panel is used by the terminal for communication with the base station (capability info includes multi panel (ie first and second panel) capability; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5; gNB can configure which panel(s) to use for multi-panel cooperative uplink; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5); or
the computer program, when executed by the processor, enables the communication device to implement a method for capability reporting (WTRU antenna panel capability info; see Abstract), wherein the method for capability reporting comprises: sending capability information to a base station (WTRU reports panel capability info to gNB; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5); wherein the capability information is used for indicating whether the terminal has multi-panel beam collaborative management capability, and the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate second panel, wherein a first panel is used by the terminal for communication with the base station (capability info includes multi panel (ie first and second panel) capability; see paragraph [0112] and Fig. 5; gNB can configure which panel(s) to use for multi-panel cooperative uplink; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claim(s) 10, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20210167821 A1)
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses wherein the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability further refers to the terminal being capable of a plurality of alternate beams (plurality of alternate beams; see Figs. 5 and 7)
the information of the second panel further comprises priorities of the plurality of the alternate beams (beam sweeping can be done via explicit signaling via the TRP; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5; the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “priority” involves any indication of precedence or preference for a beam); and the second request is used for requesting the terminal to determine the second communication quality of communication performed on each of the alternate beams, and to send the second communication quality of the communication performed on each of the second beams to the base station (TRP requests beam sweeping (i.e. reporting of communication quality), which WTRU does; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5); and
the sending the first indication to the terminal comprises:
determining, among a plurality of second communication qualities as received, a target communication quality greater than the second quality threshold and corresponding to an alternate beam with a highest priority (alternate panel/beam is determined by beam sweeping; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5); and
sending to the terminal the first indication used for indicating the terminal to perform the communication on a target beam, corresponding to the target communication quality, among the alternate beams by using the second panel (alternate panel/beam is determined by beam sweeping; see paragraph [0114] and Fig. 5)
Chen does not explicitly disclose the target communication quality greater than a threshold corresponding to a beam with a highest priority.
However, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Chen by specifying that the target beam meets the communication quality threshold and hah the highest priority of the alternate beams. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to do so, as one obviously would want the chosen beam to meet quality standards, and using priorities to select preferential options is well known in the art. Doing so would produce optimal beam selection. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chen further discloses
wherein the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability further refers to the terminal being capable of determining an alternate beam (alternate beams can be IDed; see paragraphs [0112 – 0114]), and the method further comprises:
determining a position of the base station based on a direction of a beam on which a current communication is performed and path loss information of the current communication
determining at least one of the second panel or the alternate beam based on a position of a panel, in the terminal, that the multi-panel beam collaborative management capability is applicable to and the position of the base station (panel/beam sweeping and selection is done based on position/orientation of the panel relative to the trp; see paragraph [0112 – 0114] and Figs. 5 and 7); and
Chen does not explicitly disclose that the position of the base station is determined based on a direction of a beam on which a current communication is performed and path loss information of the current communication.
However, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Chen by specifying that the position of the base station is determined based on a direction of a beam on which a current communication is performed and path loss information of the current communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as both of these are known ways of determining location of communication endpoints, and would allow for easier selection of alternate beams. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) US20200322109A1 – Multi-panel transmission - Cheng
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464 /RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights