DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 14, 2023.
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on December 14, 2023 and February 5, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On December 14, 2023, the Applicant filed multiple documents of the specification. The document with 89 pages appears to be the most complete specification. However, in this document, page 7 is out of order. The order of page 5 to page 7 of this document, as filed, is page 5, page 7, and page 6, respectively.
Furthermore, the pre-grant publication (US 20240292232 A1) of the current application is missing the content of page 7 of the filed specification. In other words, the pre-grant publication is missing the description of Figs. 1-10. This omission may be due to the pre-grant publication being published based on the filed specification with 88 pages, which omits page 7.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant to file a complete substitute specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0336683 (hereinafter “Pezeshki”).
Pezeshki discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 7, a method of performing, by a user equipment (UE), a beam management in a wireless communication system, the UE (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraph 93, user equipment (UE)) and the method comprising:
at least one transceiver (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraphs 93-94, transceiver 908);
at least one processor operatively connected to the at least one transceiver (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraph 93, a processing system 902 including a processor 904 is coupled to the transceiver 908); and
at least one memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and configured to store instruction that allow the at least one processor to perform operations (see at least Fig. 9, and paragraphs 93-94, the processor 904 has circuitry configured to implement the code stored in the computer-readable medium/memory 912), wherein the operations comprise:
receiving, from a base station (BS), configuration information including i) resource information on a plurality of reference signals and ii) candidate beam determination algorithm information (see at least paragraphs 71, 74, 79, 86, and 88, the UE receives measurement configuration information from a gNB, where the measurement configuration information identifies at least a timing and duration for an SSB burst (i.e., a plurality of reference signals) and further includes information indicating proposed beams and one or more additional beams or information about various beams that can be measured during an SSB burst, where the UE receives information including conditions for reporting measurements for other beams in the configuration information received from a network entity);
determining N candidate beams for at least one serving beam based on the candidate beam determination algorithm information, the N candidate beams being related to N reference signals of the plurality of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 74, 75, 79, and 86, the UE performs measurements on the set of proposed beams and one or more additional beams not in the set of proposed beams, where the network entity is to transmit SSBs using the proposed set of beams and the one or more additional beams);
receiving, from the BS, the N reference signals of the plurality of reference signals based on the resource information on the plurality of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 75, 86, and 87, the UE receives the SSBs in the SSB burst during the timing and duration of the SSB burst); and
transmitting, to the BS, measurement information including at least one measurement value among the N reference signals (see at least paragraphs 76, 80, 87, and 88, the UE transmits, to the network entity, one or more reports including the measurements for the set of proposed beams and the additional beams, where the report may include a first report including measurements for the set of proposed beams and a second report including measurements for the additional beams (for example, the n best beams measured in an SSB burst));
regarding claim 2, based on the at least one serving beam being changed, new N candidate beams are determined based on the candidate beam determination algorithm information (see at least paragraphs 75, 79, 81, and 86, suppose that the network entity reports beams B1, B2, and B3 to the UE as the proposed beams and the UE indicates that the best beams, based on measurements at the UE, are beams B3, B4, and B5, where beams B4 and B5 are determined based on the UE receiving information including conditions for reporting measurements for other beams in the configuration information received from a network entity);
regarding claim 3, based on there being no reference signal whose measurement value exceeds a threshold among the measured N reference signals, a number of candidate beams for measurement is increased by +1 (see at least paragraph 81, the network entity reports beams B1, B2, and B3 as the proposed beams and, based on the best beams measured at the UE, being beams B3, B4, and B5, the network entity replaces the data set correlating to beams B1, B2, and B3 with a new entry correlating to beams B4, B5, and B6); and
regarding claim 4, the configuration information further includes at least one of information on N contention free random access (CFRA) resources and/or information on a number of candidate beams (see at least paragraphs 71, 74, 79, 86, and 88, the UE receives measurement configuration information from a gNB, where the measurement configuration information includes information indicating proposed beams and one or more additional beams or information about various beams that can be measured during an SSB burst).
Pezeshki discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding claim 8, a method of performing, by a base station (BS), a beam management in a wireless communication system (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph 95, a network entity, such as a gNB), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information including i) resource information on a plurality of reference signals and ii) candidate beam determination algorithm information (see at least paragraphs 71, 74, 79, 86, and 88, the UE receives measurement configuration information transmitted from a gNB, where the measurement configuration information identifies at least a timing and duration for an SSB burst (i.e., a plurality of reference signals) and further includes information indicating proposed beams and one or more additional beams or information about various beams that can be measured during an SSB burst, where the UE receives information including conditions for reporting measurements for other beams in the configuration information received from a network entity);
determining N candidate beams for at least one serving beam based on the candidate beam determination algorithm information, the N candidate beams being related to N reference signals of the plurality of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 86 and 87, the gNB can proceed to transmit an SSB burst to the UE, where the proposed beams and one or more other beams are used to transmit SSBs in the SSB burst, which includes the gNB determining the proposed beams and one or more other beams based on the measurement configuration information transmitted to the UE);
transmitting, to the UE, the N reference signals of the plurality of reference signals based on the resource information on the plurality of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 86 and 87, the gNB can proceed to transmit an SSB burst to the UE, where the proposed beams and one or more other beams are used to transmit SSBs in the SSB burst during the timing and duration of the SSB burst); and
receiving, from the UE, measurement information including at least one measurement value among the N reference signals (see at least paragraphs 76, 80, 87, and 88, the UE transmits, to the network entity, one or more reports including the measurements for the set of proposed beams and the additional beams, where the report may include a first report including measurements for the set of proposed beams and a second report including measurements for the additional beams (for example, the n best beams measured in an SSB burst));
regarding claim 9, based on the at least one serving beam being changed, new N candidate beams are determined based on the candidate beam determination algorithm information (see at least paragraphs 75, 79, 81, and 86, suppose that the network entity reports beams B1, B2, and B3 to the UE as the proposed beams and the UE indicates that the best beams, based on measurements at the UE, are beams B3, B4, and B5, where beams B4 and B5 are determined based on the UE receiving information including conditions for reporting measurements for other beams in the configuration information received from a network entity);
regarding claim 10, based on there being no reference signal whose measurement value exceeds a threshold among the measured N reference signals, a number of candidate beams for measurement is increased by +1 (see at least paragraph 81, the network entity reports beams B1, B2, and B3 as the proposed beams and, based on the best beams measured at the UE, being beams B3, B4, and B5, the network entity replaces the data set correlating to beams B1, B2, and B3 with a new entry correlating to beams B4, B5, and B6); and
regarding claim 11, the configuration information further includes at least one of information on N contention free random access (CFRA) resources and/or information on a number of candidate beams (see at least paragraphs 71, 74, 79, 86, and 88, the UE receives measurement configuration information from a gNB, where the measurement configuration information includes information indicating proposed beams and one or more additional beams or information about various beams that can be measured during an SSB burst).
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 (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.
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 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.
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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0064661 (hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Pezeshki discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 4 and 11 as described above but Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose, based on a pre-configured method, mapping the N CFRA resources to the N reference signals; and performing a beam failure recovery operation based on a CFRA resource related to one reference signal of the N reference signals.
However, in an analogous art, Zhou discloses, teaches, or suggests, based on a pre-configured method, mapping the N CFRA resources to the N reference signals; and performing a beam failure recovery operation based on a CFRA resource related to one reference signal of the N reference signals (see at least paragraphs 308-311, a base station semi-statically configure a wireless device with one or more CFRA resources for a beam failure recovery request associated with at least one of SS blocks and/or CSI-RS, where the wireless device may select a random access preamble index corresponding to a selected SS block or a CSI-RS from a set of one or more random access preambles for a beam failure recovery request).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the CFRA resource configuration as taught by Zhou in to the invention of Pezeshki in order to improve the communication quality using the beam failure recovery request technique as taught by Zhou.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0306057 (hereinafter “Thangarasa”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Pezeshki discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 8 as described above but Pezeshki does not explicitly disclose, based on a beam failure of the at least one serving beam being detected, measuring the N reference signals based on the resource information on the plurality of reference signals; and transmitting, to the BS, beam failure recovery (BFR) medium access control (MAC)- control element (CE) information, wherein the BFR MAC-CE information includes a bitmap representing a reference signal, whose a measurement value exceeds a threshold among the N reference signals, for at least one serving cell.
However, in an analogous art, Thangarasa discloses, teaches, or suggests, based on a beam failure of the at least one serving beam being detected, measuring the N reference signals based on the resource information on the plurality of reference signals (see at least paragraph 32, after BFD, the UE searches for candidate beams from the configured CSI-RS and/or SS/PBCH block resources for candidate beam detection (q1) in the serving cell); and transmitting, to the BS, beam failure recovery (BFR) medium access control (MAC)- control element (CE) information, wherein the BFR MAC-CE information includes a bitmap representing a reference signal, whose a measurement value exceeds a threshold among the N reference signals, for at least one serving cell (see at least paragraphs 32 and 33, after determining the new beam in q1, the UE reports the selected beam whose L1-RSRP exceeds the threshold with a BFR message in MAC-CE, where, based on 3GPP standards, MAC-CE is known to include bits of data corresponding to a bitmap).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the beam failure detection and recovery technique as taught by Thangarasa in to the invention of Pezeshki in order to improve the communication quality with the beam failure recovery technique.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0007122 (Furuskog et al.) – beam selection using a subset of candidate network node beams.
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037530 (Han et al.) – prediction beam search, where a terminal determines a subset of a beam candidate set for performing a beam search.
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0167875 (Shen et al.) – beam determination and beam selection using a machine learning model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 04/24/2026
Prosecution Insights