DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 18/562,265 filed on November 17th, 2023.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 02/19/2026, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 1 – 30 are pending.
Claims 1 – 30 are rejected.
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/Remarks
Specification: The corrections to the specification is hereby acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16 – 18 of the Remarks, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 30, and dependent claims 2 – 14, 16, and 18 – 29, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 11/19/2025, particularly as regards the amended limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al. [US 20230308916 A1]. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
It should be noted that the scope of the previous claim 1 has been changed with the current amendment. The amended claim limitation recites “and based on two TRP-specific BFRs included in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE)” as recited in the amended claim 1 limitations. Therefore, this amendment changes the scope of the limitations as recited in amended claim 1, and it necessitates a new ground(s) of rejection.
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym TRP on line 11 is not correct. The claim limitation should not be “to initiate the cell-specific TRP” instead it should be “to initiate the cell-specific BFR”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 11, 13 – 14, 16 – 27, and 29 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia et al. [3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, e-Meeting, May 19th – 27th, 2021; R1-2105275; Agenda item: 8.1.2.3; Source: Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell; Title: Enhancements on Beam Management for Multi-TRP (as cited in IDS)] hereinafter Nokia, and further in view of Yi et al. [US 20200350972 A1] hereinafter Yi, and Zhang et al. [US 20230308916 A1] hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Nokia teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; in view of UE), comprising:
receive a configuration for a cell-specific beam failure report (BFR) procedure and a transmission reception point (TRP)-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein a UE has two sets of BFD-RS (BFD-RS set q0-0 for TRP 0, and BFD-RS set q0-1 for TRP 1) and is configured with simultaneous configuration of cell-specific and TRP-specific BFR on the same cell);
detect a first beam failure at a first transmission reception point (TRP) of a cell (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein the UE performs beam failure detection (BFD) on TRP 0 and TRP 0 fails);
detect a second beam failure at a second TRP of the cell (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein the UE performs beam failure detection (BFD) on TRP 1 and TRP 1 fails); and
initiate the cell-specific BFR procedure based at least on the first beam failure at the first TRP or the second beam failure at the second TRP (Nokia: Page 11 – 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure or both TRPs are in failure. In case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Although, having a memory and processor is implicit to any wireless terminal or device, Nokia does not explicitly describe a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform actions.
Referring to the invention of Yi, Yi teaches a user equipment (UE) (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 208; Wireless Device 110), comprising:
a memory (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 208; non-transitory memory 315); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform actions (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 208; wherein processor 314 is coupled to non-transitory memory 315 (which stores a set of program code instructions 316 that are executable by the at least one processor 314)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the explicit details regarding the UE or wireless device having a memory and a processor that is coupled to the memory as described by Yi into the Nokia UE device teachings because every UE or wireless device needs a memory and a processor in order to store the information received in the memory and to performs actions configured using the processor.
Nokia in view of Yi does not explicitly disclose initiating the cell-specific BFR based on two TRP-specific BFRs included in one single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE).
Referring to the invention of Zhang, Zhang teaches that a UE can initiate BFR based on two TRP-specific BFRs included in one single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (Zhang: ¶ 50 – 51; wherein one serving cell includes multiple TRPs… and the UE reports beam failure information using a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC-CE) when the UE detects beam failure for at least one serving cell. Therefore, when the serving cell includes multiple TRPs, each TRP will have its own TRP-specific BFR included in the UE beam failure report which is multiplexed and sent using one MAC-CE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sending of at least one TRP-specific BFR in one MAC-CE teachings of Zhang into the combined inventions of Nokia and Yi in order to recover individual or subsets of links between UE and TRP quickly, and to reduce signaling overhead, improve resource efficiency, simplify UE processing, and to enable more effective beam failure recovery coordination (Zhang: ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 2, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 213; wherein a transceiver is a device that comprises both a transmitter and a receiver and may be employed in a wireless device for communication using wireless links 330A and 30B).
Regarding claim 3, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated if the first TRP BFR and the second TRP BFR lack new beam information for a same component carrier of the cell (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein in case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Regarding claim 4, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit a contention-based physical random access channel (PRACH) to initiate the cell-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Proposal 3-1; wherein “in case UE cannot find any candidates for both of the failed TRPs, there should be a fallback option for UE to fallback to legacy BFR, e.g., Rel 15/16 random access based.” Similar to Nokia, Yi teaches that “wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station” (Yi: ¶ 385), and that “the wireless device may complete the random-access procedure (e.g., contention-free random-access or contention-based random-access) for the beam failure recovery successfully.” (Yi: ¶ 324)).
Regarding claim 5, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated if one of the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR lack new beam information for a same component carrier of the cell (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure and if either of the TRPs fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Regarding claim 6, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit a contention-free physical random access channel (PRACH) to initiate the cell-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-1, 3-2, and Proposal 3-1; wherein “in case UE cannot find any candidates for either of the failed TRPs, there should be a fallback option for UE to fallback to legacy BFR, e.g., Rel 15/16 random access based.” Similar to Nokia, Yi teaches that “wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station” (Yi: ¶ 385), and that “the wireless device may complete the random-access procedure (e.g., contention-free random-access or contention-based random-access) for the beam failure recovery successfully.” (Yi: ¶ 324)).
Regarding claim 7, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit at least one scheduling request (SR) for at least one of the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell).
Regarding claim 8, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to receipt of an uplink grant scheduling a transmission of the first TRP BFR (Yi: ¶ 367; wherein the wireless device may send a BFR request via one or more SR resources, then a base station may transmit an uplink grant in response to receiving the one or more SR resources comprising the BFR. Thus, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to the receipt of an uplink grant scheduling a transmission).
Regarding claim 9, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to transmission of the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may initiate a BFR via a second TRP (TRP2) for a first TRP, in response to detecting a beam failure for the first TRP (TRP1), and before sending a beam recovery information (e.g., a new candidate beam with a good quality, cell index, TRP index, a cell index) of the first TRP. Thus, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to the transmission of the first TRP BFR).
Regarding claim 10, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated in association with a multiplexing of the second TRP BFR with the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385-386; wherein “the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell. The base station may transmit an UL grant scheduling a PUSCH. The wireless device may transmit one or more second MAC CEs comprising the first new candidate beam for the first TRP and the second new candidate beam for the second TRP via the PUSCH.” Therefore, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated in association with a multiplexing of the second TRP BFR with the first TRP BFR on the same PUSCH).
Regarding claim 11, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to reception of a BFR confirmation from a base station (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385, Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station (e.g., via the first TRP). The base station, based on the PRACH, may determine a first new candidate beam for the wireless device. For example, the first new candidate beam is a new candidate beam of the first TRP. The base station may transmit a confirmation via a BFR CORESET/SS to complete the BFR).
Regarding claim 13, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
terminate the TRP-specific BFR procedure (Yi: Fig. 26, ¶ 415 and 419; wherein “if a wireless device has initiated a SR-based BFR for a second TRP via a first TRP, and then initiate a RACH-based BFR before the beam recovery of the second TRP is completed, the wireless device cancels the BFR procedure for the second TRP,” (i.e., the wireless device terminates the TRP-specific BFR procedure for the second TRP)).
Regarding claim 14, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein to terminate the TRP-specific BFR procedure, the at least one processor is further configured to:
cancel any pending scheduling request transmitted for the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 26, ¶ 415 and 419; wherein “if a wireless device has initiated a SR-based BFR for a second TRP via a first TRP, and then initiate a RACH-based BFR before the beam recovery of the second TRP is completed, the wireless device cancels the BFR procedure for the second TRP,” (i.e., the wireless device cancels the SR-based BFR for the second TRP)); or stop a respective timer corresponding to the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR.
Regarding claim 16, Nokia in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 15.
Nokia in view of Zhang does not explicitly teach the method of claim 15 further comprising: transmitting at least one scheduling request (SR) for at least one of the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR.
Referring to the invention of Yi, Yi teaches further comprising: transmitting at least one scheduling request (SR) for at least one of the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the scheduling request (SR) teachings by Yi into the Nokia and Zhang BFR teachings in order to improve performance, improve latency of data transmission, improve network coverage and improve transmission efficiency of a wireless network (Yi: ¶ 304).
Regarding claim 17, Nokia teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1; in view of network), comprising:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE) (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; in view of UE), a configuration for a cell-specific beam failure report (BFR) procedure and a transmission reception point (TRP)-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein a UE has two sets of BFD-RS (BFD-RS set q0-0 for TRP 0, and BFD-RS set q0-1 for TRP 1) and is configured with simultaneous configuration of cell-specific and TRP-specific BFR on the same cell);
receive, from the UE, a request to initiate a cell-specific BFR based at least on the first beam failure at the first TRP or a second beam failure at a second TRP of the cell (Nokia: Page 11 – 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure or both TRPs are in failure. In case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR. Therefore the UE will send a request to the network to initiate a cell-specific BFR).
Although, having a memory and processor is implicit to any wireless terminal or network device, Nokia does not explicitly describe a base station comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive, from the UE, a scheduling request to initiate a TRP-specific BFR procedure for at least a first beam failure at a first TRP of a cell; and transmit, to the UE, a BFR confirmation to initiate the cell-specific BFR.
Referring to the invention of Yi, Yi teaches a base station (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 195; Base station 1 (120A) or Base Station 2 (120B)), comprising: a memory (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 195; memory 322A or memory 322B); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 195; processor 321A coupled to memory 322A or processor 321B coupled to memory 322B) and configured to:
receive, from the UE, a scheduling request to initiate a TRP-specific BFR procedure for at least a first beam failure at a first TRP of a cell (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell); and
transmit, to the UE, a BFR confirmation to initiate the cell-specific BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385, Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station (e.g., via the first TRP). The base station, based on the PRACH, may determine a first new candidate beam for the wireless device. For example, the first new candidate beam is a new candidate beam of the first TRP. The base station may transmit a confirmation via a BFR CORESET/SS to complete the BFR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cell-specific BFR teachings of Yi into the BFR teachings of Nokia, in order to improve performance, improve latency of data transmission, improve network coverage and improve transmission efficiency of a wireless network (Yi: ¶ 304).
Nokia in view of Yi does not explicitly disclose initiating the cell-specific BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE).
Referring to the invention of Zhang, Zhang teaches that a UE can initiate BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (Zhang: ¶ 50 – 51; wherein one serving cell includes multiple TRPs… and the UE reports beam failure information using a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC-CE) when the UE detects beam failure for at least one serving cell. Therefore, when the serving cell includes multiple TRPs, each TRP will have its own TRP-specific BFR included in the UE beam failure report which is multiplexed and sent using one MAC-CE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sending of at least one TRP-specific BFR in one MAC-CE teachings of Zhang into the combined inventions of Nokia and Yi in order to recover individual or subsets of links between UE and TRP quickly, and to reduce signaling overhead, improve resource efficiency, simplify UE processing, and to enable more effective beam failure recovery coordination (Zhang: ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 18, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 213; wherein a transceiver is a device that comprises both a transmitter and a receiver and may be employed in a base station for communication using wireless links 330A and 30B).
Regarding claim 19, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the UE, an uplink grant to initiate the TRP-specific BFR procedure (Yi: ¶ 367; wherein the wireless device may send a BFR request via one or more SR resources, then a base station may transmit an uplink grant in response to receiving the one or more SR resources comprising the BFR. Thus, the base station sends the uplink grant to initiate the TRP-specific BFR procedure).
Regarding claim 20, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated if the first TRP BFR and the second TRP BFR lack new beam information for a same component carrier of the cell (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein in case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Regarding claim 21, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a contention-based physical random access channel (PRACH) to initiate the cell-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Proposal 3-1; wherein “in case UE cannot find any candidates for both of the failed TRPs, there should be a fallback option for UE to fallback to legacy BFR, e.g., Rel 15/16 random access based.” Similar to Nokia, Yi teaches that “wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station” (Yi: ¶ 385), and that “the wireless device may complete the random-access procedure (e.g., contention-free random-access or contention-based random-access) for the beam failure recovery successfully.” (Yi: ¶ 324)).
Regarding claim 22, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated if one of the first TRP BFR or the second TRP BFR lack new beam information for a same component carrier of the cell (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure and if either of the TRPs fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Regarding claim 23, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a contention-free physical random access channel (PRACH) to initiate the cell-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-1, 3-2, and Proposal 3-1; wherein “in case UE cannot find any candidates for either of the failed TRPs, there should be a fallback option for UE to fallback to legacy BFR, e.g., Rel 15/16 random access based.” Similar to Nokia, Yi teaches that “wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station” (Yi: ¶ 385), and that “the wireless device may complete the random-access procedure (e.g., contention-free random-access or contention-based random-access) for the beam failure recovery successfully.” (Yi: ¶ 324)).
Regarding claim 24, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to transmission of an uplink grant scheduling a transmission of the first TRP BFR (Yi: ¶ 367; wherein the wireless device may send a BFR request via one or more SR resources, then a base station may transmit an uplink grant in response to receiving the one or more SR resources comprising the BFR. Thus, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to the receipt of an uplink grant scheduling a transmission).
Regarding claim 25, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to reception of the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may initiate a BFR via a second TRP (TRP2) for a first TRP, in response to detecting a beam failure for the first TRP (TRP1), and before sending a beam recovery information (e.g., a new candidate beam with a good quality, cell index, TRP index, a cell index) of the first TRP. Thus, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to the transmission of the first TRP BFR).
Regarding claim 26, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated in association with a multiplexing of the second TRP BFR with the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385-386; wherein “the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell. The base station may transmit an UL grant scheduling a PUSCH. The wireless device may transmit one or more second MAC CEs comprising the first new candidate beam for the first TRP and the second new candidate beam for the second TRP via the PUSCH.” Therefore, the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated in association with a multiplexing of the second TRP BFR with the first TRP BFR on the same PUSCH).
Regarding claim 27, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated prior to transmission of a BFR confirmation to the UE (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385, Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station (e.g., via the first TRP). The base station, based on the PRACH, may determine a first new candidate beam for the wireless device. For example, the first new candidate beam is a new candidate beam of the first TRP. The base station may transmit a confirmation via a BFR CORESET/SS to complete the BFR).
Regarding claim 29, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive an indication to cancel any pending scheduling request to initiate the TRP-specific BFR procedure (Yi: Fig. 26, ¶ 415 and 419; wherein “if a wireless device has initiated a SR-based BFR for a second TRP via a first TRP, and then initiate a RACH-based BFR before the beam recovery of the second TRP is completed, the wireless device cancels the BFR procedure for the second TRP,” (i.e., the wireless device cancels the SR-based BFR for the second TRP)), wherein the indication terminates the TRP-specific BFR procedure (Yi: Fig. 26, ¶ 415 and 419; wherein “if a wireless device has initiated a SR-based BFR for a second TRP via a first TRP, and then initiate a RACH-based BFR before the beam recovery of the second TRP is completed, the wireless device cancels the BFR procedure for the second TRP,” (i.e., the wireless device terminates the TRP-specific BFR procedure for the second TRP)).
Regarding claim 30, Nokia teaches a method of wireless communication at a base station (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1; in view of network), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; in view of UE), a configuration for a cell-specific beam failure report (BFR) procedure and a transmission reception point (TRP)-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein a UE has two sets of BFD-RS (BFD-RS set q0-0 for TRP 0, and BFD-RS set q0-1 for TRP 1) and is configured with simultaneous configuration of cell-specific and TRP-specific BFR on the same cell);
receiving, from the UE, a request to initiate a cell-specific BFR based at least on the first beam failure at the first TRP or a second beam failure at a second TRP of the cell (Nokia: Page 11 – 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure or both TRPs are in failure. In case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR. Therefore the UE will send a request to the network to initiate a cell-specific BFR).
Nokia does not explicitly teach a base station comprising: receiving, from the UE, a scheduling request to initiate a TRP-specific BFR procedure for at least a first beam failure at a first TRP of a cell; and transmitting, to the UE, a BFR confirmation to initiate the cell-specific BFR.
Referring to the invention of Yi, Yi teaches a base station (Yi: Fig. 3, ¶ 195; Base station 1 (120A) or Base Station 2 (120B)), comprising:
receiving, from the UE, a scheduling request to initiate a TRP-specific BFR procedure for at least a first beam failure at a first TRP of a cell (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell); and
transmitting, to the UE, a BFR confirmation to initiate the cell-specific BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 385, Fig. 27, ¶ 416; wherein the wireless device may trigger a BFR process via transmitting a PRACH to the base station (e.g., via the first TRP). The base station, based on the PRACH, may determine a first new candidate beam for the wireless device. For example, the first new candidate beam is a new candidate beam of the first TRP. The base station may transmit a confirmation via a BFR CORESET/SS to complete the BFR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cell-specific BFR teachings of Yi into the BFR teachings of Nokia, in order to improve performance, improve latency of data transmission, improve network coverage and improve transmission efficiency of a wireless network (Yi: ¶ 304).
Nokia in view of Yi does not explicitly disclose initiating the cell-specific BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE).
Referring to the invention of Zhang, Zhang teaches that a UE can initiate BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (Zhang: ¶ 50 – 51; wherein one serving cell includes multiple TRPs… and the UE reports beam failure information using a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC-CE) when the UE detects beam failure for at least one serving cell. Therefore, when the serving cell includes multiple TRPs, each TRP will have its own TRP-specific BFR included in the UE beam failure report which is multiplexed and sent using one MAC-CE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sending of at least one TRP-specific BFR in one MAC-CE teachings of Zhang into the combined inventions of Nokia and Yi in order to recover individual or subsets of links between UE and TRP quickly, and to reduce signaling overhead, improve resource efficiency, simplify UE processing, and to enable more effective beam failure recovery coordination (Zhang: ¶ 50).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia et al. [3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, e-Meeting, May 19th – 27th, 2021; R1-2105275; Agenda item: 8.1.2.3; Source: Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell; Title: Enhancements on Beam Management for Multi-TRP (as cited in IDS)] hereinafter Nokia, and further in view of Zhang et al. [US 20230308916 A1] hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 15, Nokia teaches a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; in view of UE), comprising:
receiving a configuration for a cell-specific beam failure report (BFR) procedure and a transmission reception point (TRP)-specific BFR procedure (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein a UE has two sets of BFD-RS (BFD-RS set q0-0 for TRP 0, and BFD-RS set q0-1 for TRP 1) and is configured with simultaneous configuration of cell-specific and TRP-specific BFR on the same cell);
detecting a first beam failure at a first transmission reception point (TRP) of a cell (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein the UE performs beam failure detection (BFD) on TRP 0 and TRP 0 fails);
detecting a second beam failure at a second TRP of the cell (Nokia: Page 11, Section 3.1; wherein the UE performs beam failure detection (BFD) on TRP 1 and TRP 1 fails); and
initiating the cell-specific BFR procedure based at least on the first beam failure at the first TRP or the second beam failure at the second TRP (Nokia: Page 11 – 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein it is possible that either of the TRPs is in failure or both TRPs are in failure. In case both the TRP 0 and the TRP 1 fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR).
Nokia does not explicitly disclose initiating the cell-specific BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE).
Referring to the invention of Zhang, Zhang teaches that a UE can initiate BFR based on a multiplexing of two TRP-specific BFRs in a single medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (Zhang: ¶ 50 – 51; wherein one serving cell includes multiple TRPs… and the UE reports beam failure information using a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC-CE) when the UE detects beam failure for at least one serving cell. Therefore, when the serving cell includes multiple TRPs, each TRP will have its own TRP-specific BFR included in the UE beam failure report which is multiplexed and sent using one MAC-CE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sending of at least one TRP-specific BFR in one MAC-CE teachings of Zhang into the invention of Nokia in order to recover individual or subsets of links between UE and TRP quickly, and to reduce signaling overhead, improve resource efficiency, simplify UE processing, and to enable more effective beam failure recovery coordination (Zhang: ¶ 50).
Claims 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia et al., Yi et al., and Zhang et al., as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. [US 20210410062 A1] hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 12, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein if either of the TRPs fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR. Therefore the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated) from transmission of a scheduling request for the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell).
Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang does not explicitly teach that the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated based on a time offset from transmission of a scheduling request for a BFR.
Referring to the invention of Jiang, Jiang teaches that a cell-specific BFR procedure can be initiated based on a time offset from transmission of a scheduling request for a BFR (Jiang: ¶ 33; wherein when an uplink scheduling request (SR) is not triggered before the second timing (i.e., a timing offset), executing a step of delaying the execution of the BFR process to the second timing; when the SR is triggered before the second timing, immediately executing the BFR process. Therefore the BFR procedure is initiated based on a timing offset from the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) for the BFR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the timing offset or delay in the process of a BFR procedure as taught by Jiang into the combined invention of Nokia, Yi, and Zhang, in order to save power consumption, enhance reliability, avoid interference, and to provide flexibility in network operations.
Regarding claim 28, Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated (Nokia: Page 12, Section 3.1, Observation 3-3; wherein if either of the TRPs fails but no new candidate beam can be indicated, the UE could switch to cell-specific BFR. Therefore the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated) from reception of the scheduling request for the first TRP BFR (Yi: Fig. 20, ¶ 386; wherein the wireless device may trigger/transmit a dedicated scheduling request (SR) for the cell in response to the detection of the BF of the cell).
Nokia in view of Yi and Zhang does not explicitly teach that the cell-specific BFR procedure is initiated based on a time offset from transmission of a scheduling request for a BFR.
Referring to the invention of Jiang, Jiang teaches that a cell-specific BFR procedure can be initiated based on a time offset from transmission of a scheduling request for a BFR (Jiang: ¶ 33; wherein when an uplink scheduling request (SR) is not triggered before the second timing (i.e., a timing offset), executing a step of delaying the execution of the BFR process to the second timing; when the SR is triggered before the second timing, immediately executing the BFR process. Therefore the BFR procedure is initiated based on a timing offset from the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) for the BFR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the timing offset or delay in the process of a BFR procedure as taught by Jiang into the combined invention of Nokia, Yi, and Zhang, in order to save power consumption, enhance reliability, avoid interference, and to provide flexibility in network operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. [US 20240163065 A1]: Radio Link Management, Beam Failure Detection and Default Bean Enhancements for High Speed Train Deployments; Sun teaches a method for beam failure detection and recovery (BFD/BFR) in a single frequency network (SFN) deployment including multiple transmission and reception points (TRPs) and that the UE reports the beam failure and the detected candidate beam in UL MAC-CE.
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 HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414 /EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights