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 .
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 1-7, 14-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (Patent No: US 2023/0023041 A1), hereinafter, Yi, in view of Rugeland et al. (Patent No: US 2019/0289510 A1), hereinafter, Rugeland.
Regarding Claim 1, Yi teaches,
A method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a reference signal from a base station; -Paragraph [0226] ([0226] recites, “a wireless device may perform a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurements in an active BWP of a primary cell based on one or more reference signals such as SSB (synchronization signal and PBCH block) and/or CSI-RS. The wireless device may measure signal qualities of the one or more reference signals and compare the measured signal qualities with one or more signal quality thresholds configured by a base station. The base station may configure one or more SSBs as the reference signals for a case where an initial downlink BWP of the primary cell is the active BWP of the primary cell, and the initial downlink BWP comprises the one or more SSBs. “)
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
determining multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications in response to the reference signal; and triggering a radio link monitoring (RLM) timer in response to determining the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications.
However, in an analogous invention, Rugeland teaches,
determining multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications in response to the reference signal; -Paragraph [0168] ( [0168] recites, “There are some discussions to make RLF based on a group of beams instead of one beam. Then from RAN2 perspective, we need to know whether this will have impact on wireless device L3 or not. There are two possibilities: The first alternative is that the wireless device L1 send in-sync and out-of-sync indication per beam, and then L3 need to maintain multiple set of N310, N311, T310 etc…. Whether L3 will be impacted or not depends on which RS will be used for RLM which need decision from RAN1. Therefore, we think whether L3 need to maintain one or multiple in-sync/out-of-sync counter and timer can be studies later when which RS to be used for RLM is decided in RAN1.” As described above for multi beam configuration there can me multiple groups (sets) of consecutive out-of-sync indication in the form of multiple sets out-of-sync counters and timers in response to RS for RLM)
and triggering a radio link monitoring (RLM) timer in response to determining the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications. -Paragraph [0185] ([0185] recites, “Proposal 2 In NR, whether L3 need to maintain one or multiple in-sync/out-of-sync indicator should be studied once RAN1 has decided which RS is used for RLM”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “determining multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications in response to the reference signal; and triggering a radio link monitoring (RLM) timer in response to determining the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications. ” of Rugeland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve performance of the wireless communication network when using dual connectivity in the wireless communication network [0021].
Regarding Claim 2, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a synchronization signal block (SSB). -Paragraph [0226] ([0226] recites, “ a wireless device may perform a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurements in an active BWP of a primary cell based on one or more reference signals such as SSB (synchronization signal and PBCH block) and/or CSI-RS.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS). -Paragraph [0226] ([0226] recites, “ a wireless device may perform a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurements in an active BWP of a primary cell based on one or more reference signals such as SSB (synchronization signal and PBCH block) and/or CSI-RS.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the consecutive out-of-sync indications are determined based on a threshold (Qout) corresponding to an out-of-sync block error rate. -Paragraph [0242] ([0242] recites, “In an example, the wireless device may indicate, in radio frames, where the radio link quality is measured/assessed, an out-of-sync to the wireless device's higher layer (e.g., RRC layer), wherein the link qualities of the all one or more RLM-RSs are worse than the second threshold (e.g., Qout).”
Regarding Claim 5, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining one or more in-sync indications before expiration of the RLM timer based on a threshold (Qin) corresponding to an in-sync block error rate. -Fig. 19; Paragraph [0242, 0246] ([0242] recites, “The wireless device may indicate, in the radio frames, where the radio link quality is measured/assessed, an in-sync to the wireless device's higher layer (e.g., RRC layer), wherein link qualities of at least one RLM-RS from the one or more RLM-RSs are better than the first threshold (e.g., Qin).” [0246] recites,” FIG. 19 illustrates an example of cancelling the first timer based on in-sync event(s). In response to the starting of the first timer (e.g., T310), the wireless device may set the in-sync counter (e.g., N311 counter) as zero. The wireless device may increment the in-sync counter in response to receiving an in-sync event from the lower layer. When the in-sync counter reaches a second counter (e.g., N311) or a second threshold, the wireless device may stop the first timer. For example, the in-sync counter becomes N311 at a time of 4T in FIG. 19. The wireless device stops T310 timer (the first timer) so that the wireless device may not declare a RLF.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a different cell. -Fig.30; Paragraph [0356][0316-0317] ( Fig. 30 shows RLM measurements on two cells and RLF determination based on consecutive out-of-sync indications and Timers. [0356] recites, “….The wireless device may perform a first RLM based on the first RLM-RS and the second RLM-RS for the first cell. The wireless device may perform a second RLM based on the third RLM-RS and the fourth RLM-RS for the second cell. The wireless device may perform the first RLM and the second RLM independently….”[0316-0317] recites, “In an example, the first cell may be a primary cell of a cell group (e.g., PCell, PSCell) or a cell supporting a radio link monitoring (e.g., a PUCCH cell). In an example, the second cell may be a secondary cell of the cell group. Based on the out-of-sync events/measurements, the wireless device may determine/declare a radio link failure (RLF) for the first cell.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Yi further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a different carrier. -Fig. 22, 23; Paragraph [0282-0284] (Fig. 22, 23 show cross-carrier and multi-carrier scheduling [0028-0029]. [0282] recites, “ FIG. 22 illustrates an example of a cell (Cell 1) configured with both self-carrier and cross-carrier scheduling. The base station configures cross-carrier scheduling for a first cell (Cell 0), wherein a scheduling cell is a second cell (Cell 1)….”)
Claims 14-20 are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1-7. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claims 1-7 above which are rejected. Claims 14-20 are rejected under the same rational as Claims 1-7.
Yi further teaches,
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the apparatus to: -Fig. 15 (Wireless device (1502), Processing System (1518), Memory (1524))
Regarding Claim 24, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Yi further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a same carrier. -Paragraph [0376][0286]([0376] recites, “…For example, the wireless device may start a first timer (e.g., T310) in response to triggering a number of consecutive out-of-sync events…” [0286] recites, “The wireless device may monitor/measure radio link qualities of one or more reference signals transmitted via the primary cell. The wireless device may be configured for self-carrier scheduling of the primary cell.” This implies group of consecutive out-of-sync events corresponds to same carrier)
Claims 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Rugeland and further in view of SHI ZHIHUA et al. (Patent No: CN 109644361A), hereinafter, SHI.
Regarding Claim 21, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups correspond to a different cell.
However, in an analogous invention SHI teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups correspond to a different cell. -Paragraph [0030] ([0030] recites, “Optionally, if the measurement result of all target reference signals in the first QCL group is less than OOS BLER, the terminal device can continue to perform RLM measurement on the target reference signals in other unmeasured QCL groups. When the measurement results of the target reference signals in all QCL groups meet the second condition, the terminal device can report OOS to the network device.” As explained above, RLM measurement can continue on multiple QCL groups (can be greater than two or any number) if the target reference signal in the first QCL group is less that OOS BLER. Also, it is well understood by an ordinary person knowledgeable in the field of the art that different QCL groups corresponds to different cells.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups correspond to a different cell.” of SHI . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently perform RLM measurement based on reference signals that satisfy the QCL relationships on multiple BWPs [0007].
Regarding Claim 22, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Yi further teaches,
groups correspond to a different carrier. -Fig. 22, 23; Paragraph [0282-0284] (Fig. 22, 23 show cross-carrier and multi-carrier scheduling [0028-0029]. [0282] recites, “ FIG. 22 illustrates an example of a cell (Cell 1) configured with both self-carrier and cross-carrier scheduling. The base station configures cross-carrier scheduling for a first cell (Cell 0), wherein a scheduling cell is a second cell (Cell 1)….”)
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups
However, in an analogous invention, SHI teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups . -Paragraph [0030] ([0030] recites, “Optionally, if the measurement result of all target reference signals in the first QCL group is less than OOS BLER, the terminal device can continue to perform RLM measurement on the target reference signals in other unmeasured QCL groups. When the measurement results of the target reference signals in all QCL groups meet the second condition, the terminal device can report OOS to the network device.” As explained above, RLM measurement can continue on multiple QCL groups (can be greater than two or any number) if the target reference signal in the first QCL group is less that OOS BLER)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “the multiple groups comprise more than two groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications, and wherein each of the more than two groups correspond to a different cell.” of SHI . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently perform RLM measurement based on reference signals that satisfy the QCL relationships on multiple BWPs [0007].
Claims 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Rugeland and further in view of XIANG et al. (Patent No: US 2021/0014717 A1), hereinafter, XIANG.
Regarding Claim 23, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a same cell.
However, in an analogous invention XIANG teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a same cell. -Fig. 4; Paragraph [0224-0225] (Fig. 4 show multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indication of BWP #1, 2 which belong to the same cell. [0224-0225] recites, “As shown in FIG. 4, if the measurement result includes the quantity of all the consecutive OOS states that are counted by the terminal device by performing RLM in the BWP #2, N1=Q1 and P1=0. In this case, the terminal device removes the Q OOS states, and re-counts, starting from 0, a quantity of consecutive OOS states. In a possible implementation, the counter may be set to zero, so that the terminal device re-counts, starting from 0 by using the counter, the quantity of OOS states that are reported by performing RLM in the BWP #1.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “the multiple groups of consecutive out-of-sync indications correspond to a same cell.” of XIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the RLM [0007].
Regarding Claim 25, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein each of the multiple groups includes a different number of out-of-sync indications.
However, in an analogous invention XIANG teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein each of the multiple groups includes a different number of out-of-sync indications. -Paragraph [0005-0007][0010-0015] ([0005] recites, “In an application scenario, in a first time period, the terminal device performs RLM in a BWP #A, to generate a corresponding measurement result #A. In a second time period, the terminal device needs to switch from the BWP #A to a BWP #B, and when performing RLM in the BWP #B, the terminal device continues to perform RLM based on the measurement result #A.” [0016-0017] recites, “In a possible implementation, the removing, by the terminal device, a measurement result obtained by performing RLM in the second BWP includes: counting, by the terminal device starting from P1, a quantity of consecutive OOS states, where the measurement result includes the quantity N1 of at least some OOS states, P1=Q1−N1. Q1 is a quantity of consecutive OOS states that is counted by the terminal device by performing RLM in the second BWP, and N1 is less than or equal to Q1; “ It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that for different BWPs the value of number of out-of-sync can be different depending on the configuration and design choice.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “each of the multiple groups includes a different number of out-of-sync indications.” of XIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the RLM [0007].
Regarding Claim 26, Yi and Rugeland teach the limitations of Claim 14.
Although implicit, Yi does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein each of the multiple groups includes a same number of out-of-sync indications.
However, in an analogous invention XIANG teaches,
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein each of the multiple groups includes a same number of out-of-sync indications. -Paragraph [0005-0007][0010-0015] ([0005] recites, “In an application scenario, in a first time period, the terminal device performs RLM in a BWP #A, to generate a corresponding measurement result #A. In a second time period, the terminal device needs to switch from the BWP #A to a BWP #B, and when performing RLM in the BWP #B, the terminal device continues to perform RLM based on the measurement result #A.” [0016-0017] recites, “In a possible implementation, the removing, by the terminal device, a measurement result obtained by performing RLM in the second BWP includes: counting, by the terminal device starting from P1, a quantity of consecutive OOS states, where the measurement result includes the quantity N1 of at least some OOS states, P1=Q1−N1. Q1 is a quantity of consecutive OOS states that is counted by the terminal device by performing RLM in the second BWP, and N1 is less than or equal to Q1; “ It is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that for different BWPs the value of number of out-of-sync can be same depending on the configuration and design choice.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “RADIO LINK MONITORING” proposed by Yi to include the concept of “each of the multiple groups includes a same number of out-of-sync indications” of XIANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the RLM [0007].
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights