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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are partially persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification other than what is set forth below have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant's arguments
have been fully considered. It is acknowledged for record that the structure specified by the examiner in the non-final office action dated 01/16/2026 is an example of a corresponding structure of the features of claims.
With regard to the claim objections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the phrase, “Numerous other aspects are described” (last line), which can be implied. See MPEP § 608.01(b):
It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 27-29, 32, 34-35 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muru et al (US Publication No. 2024/0214142 A1)1 in view of Matsumura et al (US Publication No. 2023/0069636 A1)2 and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2021/0204155 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muru discloses, a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication [¶0119-0120, wireless device 22], comprising:
one or memories [FIG. 7; ¶0128, memory 88; note that every wireless device has at least one memory] (see also e.g., ¶0113 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories [FIG. 7; ¶0128, processor 86 coupled to the memory 88; note that every wireless device has at least processor coupled to the memory] (see also e.g., ¶0113 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), configured to:
select a set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals . . . for selecting the set of RLM reference signals from among RLM reference signals that are quasi-colocated (QCLed) with active transmission control indicator (TCI) states [¶0119-0120, the wireless device 22 determines/selects at least one beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) from at least one beam failure detection resource set, and each of the at least one BFD-RS being a quasi-colocation, QCL, Type D source RS in at least one of the at least two activated TCI states for at least one of the at least one CORESET] (see also e.g., ¶0104-0105 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733) for physical downlink control channel communications in one or more control resource sets (CORESETs) [¶0024, PDCCHs in CORESETs] (see also e.g., ¶0023 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), wherein the one or more CORESETs include at least one CORESET with at least two active TCI states [¶0119-0120, the at least one CORESET includes at least two activated TCI states] (see also e.g., ¶0104-0105 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), wherein the set of RLM reference signals is selected based on an . . . radio link quality [¶0022-0023 and 0155, the WD selects beam failure detection resource set q0 based on radio link quality] (see also e.g., ¶0020-0023 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733); and
monitor for the set of RLM reference signals [¶0119-0120, note that beam failure detection using a BFD-RS requires monitoring the BFD-RS; further see ¶0018, “For the purpose of BFD, the network configures the WD with BFD reference signals (synchronization signal block (SSB), channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) or both SSB/CSI-RS resources), and the WD declares beam failure when the number of beam failure instance indications from the physical layer reaches a configured threshold before a configured timer expires”] (see also e.g., ¶0016 and 0104-0105 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733);.
Although Muru discloses, “select a set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals . . . for selecting the set of RLM reference signals from among RLM reference signals” and “the set of RLM reference signals is selected based on an . . . radio link quality” as set forth above, Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), select a set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals according to a rule for selecting the set of RLM reference signals from among RLM reference signals.
However, Matsumura discloses, select a set of radio link monitoring (RLM) reference signals according to a rule for selecting the set of RLM reference signals from among RLM reference signals [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, the UE determines the RLM-RS from each of the different CORESET pools based on Rule R-1]; and
monitor for the set of RLM reference signals [¶0172, the UE selects TCI state 2 for PDCCH in CORESET0 associated with the search space set with the shortest monitoring periodicity 10 ms in CORESET pool 0 as the RLM-RS].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Muru with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Matsumura to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Matsumura into the system of Muru would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., reducing monitoring complexity and power consumption to ensure reliable radio link failure and radio link monitoring, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Further, Muru in view of Matsumura does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the set of RLM reference signals is selected based on an average radio link quality calculated from a weighted average of respective RLM reference signals of one or more reference signals pairs of the set of RLM reference signals.
However, Yang discloses, the set of RLM reference signals is selected based on an average radio link quality calculated from a weighted average of respective RLM reference signals of one or more reference signals pairs of the set of RLM reference signals [¶0069-0071, a beam group is indicated/selected based on measurement results of signal strength or quality (¶0071, “the measurement result may include information obtained by comparing or calculating the signal strength and/or the signal quality. For example, when the at least one beam belongs to multiple beam groups or multiple cells, signal strength and/or signal quality for signal transmission of the multiple beam groups or the multiple cells may be calculated at first, the beam group and/or cell with optimal signal strength and/or optimal signal quality for signal transmission is selected and an indication of the beam group or an indication of the cell is determined as the measurement result”; further see ¶0069, the signal strength or quality for the beam group may be average strength (or weighted average strength) and/or average signal quality (or weighted average quality) for all beams in the beam group].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Muru in view of Matsumura with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Yang into the system of Muru in view of Matsumura would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving link quality estimation by combining measurements from multiple signal instead of relying on a single source, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Muru discloses, wherein the set of RLM reference signals is a proper subset of the RLM reference signals that are QCLed with the active TCI states in the one or more CORESETs [¶0119-0120, note that the at least BFD-RS is a subset of the BFD-RS set].
Regarding claim 3, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Muru discloses, wherein the one or more CORESETs are used in a single frequency network [¶0035-0036, single frequency networks] (see also e.g., ¶0035-0036 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses, wherein the rule specifies that only RLM reference signals associated with CORESETs with only a single TCI state are selected [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, note that the RLM-RSes are determined from each CORESET having a single TCI state].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Matsumura in the system of Muru for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Muru discloses, wherein the one or more CORESETs are used in a single frequency network [¶0035-0036, single frequency networks] (see also e.g., ¶0035-0036 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses, wherein the rule specifies that either RLM reference signals associated with CORESETs with only a single TCI state [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, note that the RLM-RSes are determined from each CORESET having a single TCI state].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Matsumura in the system of Muru for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses, wherein the UE is configured with CORESETs of different CORESET pool indices index [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, the UE is configured with CORESETs of different CORESET pool indices 0 and 1], and wherein the one or more processors, to select the set of RLM reference signals, are configured to select RLM reference signals associated with a specified CORESET pool index [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, determine RLM-RSs associated with one of the CORESET pool indices 0 and 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Matsumura in the system of Muru for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses, wherein the UE is configured with CORESETs of different CORESET pool indices [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, the UE is configured with CORESETs of different CORESET pool indices 0 and 1], and wherein the one or more processors, to select the set of RLM reference signals, are configured to select RLM reference signals based at least in part on an associated CORESET pool identifier (ID) [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, determine RLM-RSs associated with one of the CORESET pool indices 0 and 1], an associated CORESET ID [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, determine RLM-RSs associated with one of the CORESETs 0 to 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Matsumura in the system of Muru for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Muru further discloses, wherein a radio link quality for an RLM reference signal is assessed based at least in part on a pairing of the RLM reference signal with another reference signal [¶0024, the set q0 is determined to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indices with same values as the RS indices in the RS sets (i.e., another reference signal) indicated by the activated TCI-state for respective control resource sets (CORESETs) that the WD uses for monitoring PDCCH; further see ¶0021, note that the set q0 being determined includes assessing a radio link quality according to the periodic CSI-RS resource configuration] (see also e.g., ¶0020-0023 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 27 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 38, Muru discloses, a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code recorded thereon, wherein the program code comprises:
code, when executed by a processor, causing a user equipment (UE) [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0128, memory storing program codes; note that every UE has at least one memory storing memory].
Since claim 38 recites similar features to claim 1 without further features, claim 38 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 41, Muru discloses, a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication [¶0119-0120, wireless device 22] (see also e.g., ¶0104-0105 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733).
Since claim 41 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 41 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claims 4-5 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muru et al (US Publication No. 2024/0214142 A1) in view of Matsumura et al (US Publication No. 2023/0069636 A1) and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2021/0204155 A1) and further in view of Kang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0164865 A1)3.
Regarding claim 4, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Muru discloses, wherein the one or more CORESETs are used in a single frequency network [¶0035-0036, single frequency networks] (see also e.g., ¶0035-0036 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), Muru does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsumura discloses, wherein the rule specifies that RLM reference signals associated with CORESETs with only a single TCI state [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0172-0174, note that the RLM-RSes are determined from each CORESET having a single TCI state].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Matsumura in the system of Muru for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Further, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kang discloses, wherein the rule specifies that RLM reference signals associated with CORESETs with only a single TCI state [¶0173, when a plurality of RSs are included in a single TCI state, the RS corresponding to QCL type-D is preferentially selected; further see ¶0218, when a plurality of RSs are included in a single TCI state (like the RLM RS/BFD RS selection method), the UE may preferentially select a QCL type-D RS for a beam-related QCL parameter among the plurality of RSs] (see, also e.g., pages 22 and 27 of KR Patent Application No. 10-2021-0001133) and CORESETs with at least two active TCI states are selected [¶0212, when a plurality of TCI states are configured for CORESET, the UE may select a TCI state according to the order of the plurality of TCI states (rule 7)] (see, also e.g., page 28 of KR Patent Application No. 10-2021-0001133).
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kang into the system of Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., reducing monitoring complexity and power consumption to ensure reliable radio link failure and radio link monitoring, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 5, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Muru discloses, wherein the one or more CORESETs are used in a single frequency network [¶0035-0036, single frequency networks] (see also e.g., ¶0035-0036 of US Provisional App. No. 63138733), Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kang discloses, wherein the rule specifies that only RLM reference signals associated with CORESETs with two TCI states are selected [¶0212, when a plurality of TCI states are configured for CORESET, the UE may select a TCI state according to the order of the plurality of TCI states (rule 7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kang in the system of Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muru et al (US Publication No. 2024/0214142 A1) in view of Matsumura et al (US Publication No. 2023/0069636 A1) and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2021/0204155 A1) and further in view of Kang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0164865 A1) and further in view of Shi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0274372 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang discloses, the UE of claim 6 as set forth above.
Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kang discloses, wherein one RLM reference signal associated with CORESETs with two TCI states [¶0212, when a plurality of TCI states are configured for CORESET, the UE may select a TCI state according to the order of the plurality of TCI states (rule 7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kang in the system of Muru in view of Matsumura and Yang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 4.
Further, Muru in view of Matsumura, Yang and Kang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Shi discloses, wherein one RLM reference signal associated with CORESETs with two TCI states is selected based at least in part on a TCI state identifier [¶0202, the terminal device first determines a plurality of reference signal resource groups in a same resource set based on the TCI state ID].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Shi in the system of Muru in view of Matsumura, Yang and Kang in order to cause the system to be able to efficiently perform beam training with multiple TRPs [e.g., ¶0005-0007 of Shi].
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryoo et al (US Publication No. 2018/0192426 A1) [see ¶0601, the terminal selects (1) N beams having the highest filtered signal strength among layer 1 filtering results by M base station beams and the signal strength corresponding thereto are selected in operation S4310, (2) they are removed not to consider the unnecessary beam in deriving the cell quality and the signal strength corresponding thereto based on the signal strength among the N beams selected in operation S4320, (3) an average value, a sum, or a weighted average value, or the like of the signal strength of the remaining beams excluding the beam selected in the second operation among the beams selected in the operation S4330 may be determined as the cell quality].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Muru claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63138733 filed on 01/20/2021, thus Muru is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 05/31/2021.
2 Since Matsumura is relying on WO 2021/161475 (see attached) to claim a priority date 02/13/2020, Matsumura is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 05/31/2021.
3 Kang claims priority of KR Application No. 10-2021-0001133 filed on 01/05/2021, thus Kang is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 05/31/2021.
Prosecution Insights