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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed REMARKS have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 7 last paragraph, that Yuki does not disclose a MAC CE comprising candidate beam indexes for both the first TRP and the second TRP that are indices in a respective candidate beam list, nor does it disclose a MAC CE comprising identities of a first BFD-RS set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP, as recited by claims 26 and 32 of the Applicant. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant did not consider the previous rejection using Yi et al. citations. Yi et al. Fig. 25 configuration 3 and paragraph [0408] teach a MAC CE comprising candidate beam indexes for both the first TRP and the second TRP that are indices in a respective candidate beam list. Yuki teaches a MAC CE comprising identities of a first BFD-RS set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP. Therefore, the combination of Yi et al. and Yuki et al. teaches all the argued limitations of claim 26. 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).
The applicant added “Methods in the Applicant's claims 26 and 32 enable the UE to encode the candidate beams by reference to their indices in a respective list of candidate beams, as the lists of candidate beams are in one-to-one association with the BFD-RS sets indicated in the MAC CE, thereby resulting in a substantial reduction of the payload size of the MAC CE”. However, the feature “the lists of candidate beams are in one-to-one association with the BFD-RS sets indicated in the MAC CE” is not recited in the claim. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the lists of candidate beams are in one-to-one association with the BFD-RS sets indicated in the MAC CE) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, on page 8 first paragraph, that Yuki proposes to encode a candidate beam in the MAC CE by first indicating the RS type of the reported candidate beam, i.e., SSB RS type or CSI-RS type, and then the configured RS ID for this particular RS type, without any reference to an index in a respective list of candidate beams. However, Yi et al. Fig. 25 configuration 4 and its corresponding explaining paragraph [0408] teaches an index in a respective list of candidate beams. 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).
Applicant argues, on page 8 third paragraph, that in Yuki, there is no mention that the MAC CE comprises the identities of a first BFD-RS set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP, and candidate beam indexes for the first TRP and the second TRP, which candidate beam indexes being indices in a respective candidate beam list (i.e., a candidate beam list associated with a respective indicated BFD-RS set), as recited by claims 26 and 32. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Yi et al. et al. teach a MAC CE comprising candidate beam indexes for both the first TRP and the second TRP that are indices in a respective candidate beam list. Yuki teaches a MAC CE comprising identities of a first BFD-RS set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP. Therefore, the combination of Yi et al. and Yuki et al. teaches all the argued limitations of claim 26. 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).
Applicant argues, on page 8 last paragraph, that the number of bits required to encode the candidate beam indexes in the MAC CE is bounded by the size of the candidate beam list. However, this feature is not recited in the claim.
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.
Claims 26, 28-32, 34-37 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20200350972 A1) in view of YUKI et al. (WO2021029066 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Yi et al. teach A user equipment (UE) (Yi [0195] A wireless device may be called an UE) comprising:
a transceiving unit (Yi [0208] one communication interface 310 (e.g. a wireless modem, an antenna, and/or the like));
at least one storage unit configured to store processor-executable instructions (Yi [0208] one set of program code instructions 316 stored in non-transitory memory 315 and executable by the at least one processor 314); and
at least one processor (Yi [0209] The processor 314 of the wireless device 110) coupled to the at least one storage unit (Yi Fig. 3 showing Processor 314 connected to memory 315) and configured, when executing the processor-executable instructions (Yi [0208] one set of program code instructions 316 stored in non-transitory memory 315 and executable by the at least one processor 314), to cause the UE at least to:
perform wireless communications with a first transmission reception point (TRP) (Yi [0368] A wireless device may be associated/served with/by a first TRP (TRP1) and a second TRP (TRP2) ) by using at least one first serving beam (Yi [0368] The first TRP may operate beamA, beamB, . . . , beam E shown emanating from the first TRP.) and with a second TRP by using at least one second serving beam (Yi [0368] The second TRP may operate beamP, beamQ, . . . , beamU shown emanating from the second TR);
assign a first counter (Yi [0312] The BFI_COUNTER may be a counter for a beam failure instance indication) and a first timer to the first TRP (Yi [0305] a configured timer (e.g., beamFailureDetectionTimer).), increment a counter value of the first counter by 1 whenever a beam failure instance (BFI) for the first TRP occurs (Yi [0313] Based on the receiving the BFI indication, the MAC entity of the wireless device may increment BFI_ COUNTER by one), the BFI for the first TRP meaning that the at least one first serving beam becomes unable to provide a predefined communication quality (Yi [0341] A physical layer in the wireless device may provide a BFI indication to a higher layer (e.g. MAC) of the wireless device when the first radio link quality is worse than the first threshold), trigger the first timer in response to the BFI for the first TRP (Yi [0313] Based on the receiving the BFI indication, the MAC entity of the wireless device may start or restart the beamFailureDetectionTimer), and reset the first counter when the first timer expires (Yi [0322] Based on the beamFailureDetectionTimer expiring, the MAC entity of the wireless device may set the BFI_ COUNTER to zero);and
assign a second counter (Yi [0392] a second beam failure counter)and a second timer to the second TRP (Yi [0305] a configured timer (e.g., beamFailureDetectionTimer).),, increment a counter value of the second counter by 1 whenever a BFI for the second TRP occurs (Yi [0392] The wireless device may increase a second beam failure counter upon detecting/assessing the one or more first reference signals with a quality lower (e.g., higher BLER, lower SINR, lower RSRP, etc.) than a second threshold), the BFI for the second TRP meaning that the at least one second serving beam becomes unable to provide the predefined communication quality (Yi [0392] The wireless device may increase a second beam failure counter upon detecting/assessing the one or more first reference signals with a quality lower (e.g., higher BLER, lower SINR, lower RSRP, etc.) than a second threshold), trigger the second timer in response to the BFI for the second TRP (Yi [0313] Based on the receiving the BFI indication, the MAC entity of the wireless device may start or restart the beamFailureDetectionTimer), and reset the second counter when the second timer expires (Yi [0322] Based on the beamFailureDetectionTimer expiring, the MAC entity of the wireless device may set the BFI_ COUNTER to zero),
wherein the first counter and the second counter each have a maximum counter value (Yi [0314] the BFI_COUNTER may be equal to or greater than the beamFailureInstanceMaxCount);
and wherein the UE is further caused to:
initiate a beam failure recovery (BFR) mechanism for both the first TRP and the second TRP (Yi [0455] In response to a detection of both the first and the second beam failure, the wireless device may initiate a third beam failure recovery procedure) if the current counter value of the first counter is equal to the maximum counter value of the first counter (Yi]0380] In response to detecting a number of beam failure incidents, based on the first beam measurement, reaching a first beam failure instance max counter configured/indicated for the first TRP, the wireless device may detect a beam failure of the first TRP), and if the current counter value of the second counter is equal to a predefined counter value (Yi [0380] In response to detecting a number of beam failure incidents, based on the second beam measurement, reaching a beam failure instance max counter configured/indicated for the second TRP, the wireless device may detect a beam failure of the second TRP), the predefined counter value being less than or equal to the maximum counter value of the second counter (Yi [0445] The first beam failure indication max counter and the second beam failure indication max counter may be the same value or different values);
initiate the BFR mechanism by triggering a contention-based random access procedure (Yi [0279]-[0282] the Msg1 1220 may be one or more transmissions of a random access preamble. For a contention based random access procedure, a UE may select a SS block with a RSRP above the RSRP threshold... A UE may perform one or more Msg1 1220 transmissions by transmitting the selected random access preamble... For beam failure recovery request, a base station may configure a UE with a different time window (e.g., bfr-ResponseWindow) to monitor response on beam failure recovery request) ; and
provide a medium access control control element (MAC CE) indicating failure of a serving primary cell (Yi [0367] the wireless device may send the second BFR request via MAC CEs in a PUSCH to the first TRP, Yi [0392] the wireless device may transmit a beam failure recovery request to the second TRP using/via one or more uplink resources (e.g., MAC-CE on UL-grant PUSCH ) and candidate beam indexes (Yi [0399] a MAC-CE or UCI may be used to deliver a new candidate beam index) and for both the first TRP and the second TRP (Yi Fig. 25 showing MAC CE format comprising New candidate beam index, Yi [0394] a new candidate beam information of the second TRP may be transmitted by the wireless device via one or more MAC CEs, Yi [0407]-[0408] The MAC CE of Configuration 2 may comprise {a new candidate beam index, Yi [0463] The MAC-CE may comprise the candidate beam for the first TRP. For example, the second uplink data may comprise a second MAC-CE , where the second MAC-CE comprises the candidate beam for the second TRP... To convey a TRP ID, instead of adding a new field, extending of new candidate beam index field may be supported as shown in Configuration 3. From 0 to maximum beam index−1 for a TRP may be used for the first TRP, and from max beam index to 2*max beam index−1 may be used for the second TRP, and so on),
and wherein the candidate beam indexes are indices in a respective candidate beam list (Yi Fig. 25 configuration 3, Yi [0408] To convey a TRP ID, instead of adding a new field, extending of new candidate beam index field may be supported as shown in Configuration 3. From 0 to maximum beam index−1 for a TRP may be used for the first TRP, and from max beam index to 2*max beam index−1 may be used for the second TRP, and so on)
Yi et al. do not teach
wherein the MAC CE further comprises identities of a first beam failure detection-reference signal (BFD-RS) set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP.
YUKI et al. teach
wherein the MAC CE further comprises identities of a first beam failure detection-reference signal (BFD-RS) set of the first TRP and of a second BFD-RS set of the second TRP (YUKI [0108] In the MAC CE format shown in Figure 8, . . . the second field for SSB and the second field for CSI-RS may be set only for cells in which a beam failure occurs (e.g., Ci = 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Yi et al. MAC CE by incorporating MAC CE fields of YUKI et al. to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have identified the positions of the weak reference signals.
Claim 32 sis rejected similarly to claim 26
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Yi et al. and YUKI et al. teaches the UE of claim 26, wherein the UE is further caused to:
initiate the BFR mechanism for both the first TRP and the second TRP (Yi [0421] when both TRPs fail, a RACH-based BFR may be triggered) if the current counter value of the first counter reaches the maximum counter value of the first counter at a time instant (Yi [0420] a wireless device monitors a BFR-CORESET at a first time m and a time o for a first TRP and a second TRP respectively... The wireless device detects a beam failure for TRP1 ) , and the current counter value of the second counter reaches the maximum counter value of the second counter (Yi [0421] The wireless device detects a BFR for the TRP2) within a predefined time interval from the time instant (Yi Fig. 27 the time interval between m and o).
Claim 34 is rejected similarly to claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Yi et al. and YUKI et al. teaches the UE of claim 26, wherein the UE is further caused to:
initiate the BFR mechanism for both the first TRP and the second TRP (Yi [0421] when both TRPs fail, a RACH-based BFR may be triggered) if:
the current counter value of the first counter is equal to the maximum counter value of the first counter (Yi [0420] The wireless device detects a beam failure for TRP1);
a new BFI for the second TRP occurs before the second timer expires (Yi [0421] The wireless device detects a BFR for the TRP2); and
the new BFI makes the current counter value of the second counter equal to the maximum counter value of the second counter (YI [0380] In response to detecting a number of beam failure incidents, based on the second beam measurement, reaching a beam failure instance max counter configured/indicated for the second TRP, the wireless device may detect a beam failure of the second TRP).
Claim 35 is rejected similarly to claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Yi et al. and YUKI et al. teaches the UE of claim 26, wherein the UE is further caused to:
initiate the BFR mechanism for both the first TRP and the second TRP (Yi [0421] when both TRPs fail, a RACH-based BFR may be triggered) if:
the current counter value of the first counter is equal to the maximum counter value of the first counter (Yi [0420] The wireless device detects a beam failure for TRP1);
a new BFI for the second TRP occurs before the second timer expires (Yi [0421] The wireless device detects a BFR for the TRP2); and
the new BFI makes the current counter value of the second counter equal to the predefined counter value (Yi [0380] In response to detecting a number of beam failure incidents, based on the second beam measurement, reaching a beam failure instance max counter configured/indicated for the second TRP, the wireless device may detect a beam failure of the second TRP).
Claim 36 is rejected similarly to claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Yi et al. and YUKI et al. teaches the UE of claim 26, wherein the first TRP and the second TRP are arranged in a single cell (Yi [0368] the first TRP and the second TRP are associated with a same cell).
Claim 37 is rejected similarly to claim 31.
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Yi et al. and YUKI et al. teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon (Yi [0208] one set of program code instructions 316 stored in non-transitory memory 315 and executable by the at least one processor 314)that, when executed by at least one processor (Yi [0208] one set of program code instructions 316 stored in non-transitory memory 315 and executable by the at least one processor 314), are configured to cause an apparatus to perform the method of claim 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/SAID M ELNOUBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2644