DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 12/20/2023. Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “FL summary of potential extension(s) to Rel-16 DCI-based power saving adaptation during DRX ActiveTime”, R1-2007065 to VIVO (hereafter Vivo) in view of US 2021/0084507 to Takeda et al. (hereafter Takeda).
Regarding claim 1, Vivo discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) including information that indicates skipping physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring for a first duration (see Vivo, section 2.2.1.1.2);
detecting a beam failure (see Vivo, performing radio link monitoring (e.g., beam failure detection; section 2.1.5);
Vivo does not explicitly disclose triggering a beam failure recovery; and
monitoring a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration.
However, Takeda discloses detecting a beam failure (see Takeda, ¶ 0026: When certain conditions are satisfied, the UE detects a beam failure); triggering a beam failure recovery (see Takeda, ¶ 0026: When there is no notification from the UE, or when the base station receives a certain signal (beam recovery request in Step S104) from the UE, the base station may determine that the UE has detected the beam failure; ¶ 0030: the UE that has identified the new candidate beam transmits a beam recovery request (BFRQ (Beam Failure Recovery reQuest)). The beam recovery request may be referred to as a beam recovery request signal, a beam failure recovery request signal); and
monitoring a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration (see Takeda, ¶ 0077: During the period of BFR (from the occurrence of a beam failure to beam recovery success), the UE may monitor a PDCCH; ¶ 0087: perform monitoring of the PDCCH at the time of the beam recovery procedure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 2, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of The method of wherein the second duration is same as the first duration, and wherein the PDCCH monitoring is not skipped for the first duration (see Vivo, section 4: Observation 1: Existing DRX mechanism (including MAC-CE based termination of inactivity timer), WUS indication and dormancy adaptation cannot skip PDCCH monitoring in certain short durations).
Regarding claim 3, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of claim 1, Vivo discloses further comprising: skipping the PDCCH monitoring from after the PDCCH is received within the first duration (see Vivo, section 2.2.1.1.2: skipped PDCCH monitoring for a certain duration) but does not explicitly disclose in case that the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery is received before end of the first duration.
However, Takeda discloses the PDCCH is associated with the beam failure recovery is received before end of the first duration (see Takeda, ¶ 0102: The UE may monitor a PDCCH with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) bits masked (scrambled) with a C-RNTI corresponding to the UE, in a certain period (which may be referred to as a monitoring window)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 4, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of claim 1, Vivo does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring of the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery comprises monitoring the PDCCH on all serving cells of a cell group during the second duration.
However, Takeda discloses wherein the monitoring of the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery comprises monitoring the PDCCH on all serving cells of a cell group during the second duration (see Takeda, ¶ 0077: During the period of BFR (from the occurrence of a beam failure to beam recovery success), the UE may monitor a PDCCH; ¶ 0087: perform monitoring of the PDCCH at the time of the beam recovery procedure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 5, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: identifying that a secondary discontinuous reception (DRX) group and a non-secondary DRX group are configured, wherein the cell group is one of the secondary DRX group or the non- secondary DRX group (see Vivo, section 4: Proposal 4: UE behavior on simultaneous configuration of secondary DRX group, WUS and dormancy indication should be clarified with minimum specification impact; section 2.2.2: the following can be considered to dynamic trigger DCI-based power saving adaptation during DRX ActiveTime: - Scheduling DCI: The indication of PDCCH monitoring behavior adaptation can be, Explicit/implicit indicated by scheduling DCI, Joint indication of the PDCCH monitoring adaptation with: cross-slot scheduling defined in Rel-16, Scell dormancy).
Regarding claim 6, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of wherein the monitoring of the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery comprises monitoring the PDCCH on a specific cell among a plurality of serving cells of a cell group during the second duration (see Vivo, section 2.2.2: Besides independent indication of the Rel-17 DCI based power saving schemes in active time, some companies propose to joint indication of the PDCCH monitoring adaptation with -cross-slot scheduling defined in Rel-16 -Scell dormancy), and Vivo does not explicitly disclose wherein the specific cell is a cell on which a medium access control- control element (MAC-CE) for triggering the beam failure recovery is transmitted or a cell for which the beam failure is not detected.
However, Takeda discloses wherein the specific cell is a cell on which a medium access control- control element (MAC-CE) for triggering the beam failure recovery is transmitted or a cell for which the beam failure is not detected (see Takeda, ¶ 0077: During the period of BFR (from occurrence of a beam failure to beam recovery success), the UE may monitor a PDCCH; ¶ 0204: Note that message 3 may be a signal transmitted by using a PUSCH, based on a UL grant (message 3 grant) included in a PDSCH of message 2 (MAC CEs for a RA response) in CB-BFR).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 7, Vivo discloses a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), downlink control information (DCI) including information that indicates skipping physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring for a first duration (see Vivo, section 2.2.1.1.2);
Vivo does not explicitly disclose identifying that a beam failure recovery is triggered; and transmitting a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration.
However, Takeda discloses identifying that a beam failure recovery is triggered (see Takeda, Fig 1; ¶ 0026: when the base station receives a certain signal (beam recovery request in Step S104) from the UE, the base station may determine that the UE has detected the beam failure; ¶ 0033: In Step S105, the base station that has detected the beam recovery request transmits a response signal for the beam recovery request from the UE. The response signal may include reconfiguration information (for example, configuration information of DL-RS resources) related to one or a plurality of beams. For example, the response signal may be transmitted in a UE-common search space for a PDCCH); and transmitting a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration (see Takeda, ¶ 0087: perform monitoring of the PDCCH at the time of the beam recovery procedure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 8, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of claim 7, wherein in case that the second duration is same as the first duration, the PDCCH monitoring is not skipped for the first duration (see Vivo, section 4: Observation 1: Existing DRX mechanism (including MAC-CE based termination of inactivity timer), WUS indication and dormancy adaptation cannot skip PDCCH monitoring in certain short durations), and the PDCCH monitoring is skipped from after the PDCCH is received by the UE within the first duration (see Vivo, section 2.2.1.1.2: skipped PDCCH monitoring for a certain duration), but Vivo does not explicitly disclose wherein in case that the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery is transmitted before end of the first duration.
However, Takeda discloses the PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery is transmitted before end of the first duration (see Takeda, ¶ 0102: The UE may monitor a PDCCH with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) bits masked (scrambled) with a C-RNTI corresponding to the UE, in a certain period (which may be referred to as a monitoring window)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Takeda and incorporate it into the system of Vivo to achieve improved beam recovery in the communication system (see Takeda, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 9, Vivo in view of Takeda discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: transmitting, to the UE, information configuring a secondary dis- continuous reception (DRX) group and a non-secondary DRX group, wherein the PDCCH is transmitted based on all serving cells of a cell group during the second duration, and wherein the cell group is one of the secondary DRX group or the non- secondary DRX group (see Vivo, section 4: Proposal 4: UE behavior on simultaneous configuration of secondary DRX group, WUS and dormancy indication should be clarified with minimum specification impact; section 2.2.2: the following can be considered to dynamic trigger DCI-based power saving adaptation during DRX ActiveTime: - Scheduling DCI: The indication of PDCCH monitoring behavior adaptation can be, Explicit/implicit indicated by scheduling DCI, Joint indication of the PDCCH monitoring adaptation with: cross-slot scheduling defined in Rel-16, Scell dormancy).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4 and 5. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 7.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0369231 to MA et al. (hereafter Ma) in view of US 2023/0209532 to Zhou et al. (hereafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (see Ma, Fig 5), the method comprising:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) including information that indicates skipping physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring for a first duration (see Ma, ¶ 0065: If the mobile station 102 receives a DCI triggering a PDCCH monitoring skipping, the mobile station 102 does the PDCCH skipping after a second application delay (e.g., related to an application delay of minimum applicable scheduling offset restriction)….);
detecting a beam failure (see Ma, ¶ 0057: Beam failure recovery);
triggering a beam failure recovery (see Ma, ¶ 0057: Beam failure recovery); and
Ma does not explicitly disclose monitoring a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration.
However, Zhou discloses detecting a beam failure (see Zhou, ¶ 0176: A UE may initiate a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure based on detecting a beam failure….. The UE may detect the beam failure based on a determination that a quality of beam pair link(s) of an associated control channel is unsatisfactory);
triggering a beam failure recovery (see Zhou, ¶ 0176: A UE may initiate a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure based on detecting a beam failure. The UE may transmit a BFR request (e.g., a preamble, a UCI, an SR, a MAC CE, and/or the like) based on the initiating of the BFR procedure); and
monitoring a PDCCH associated with the beam failure recovery during a second duration within the first duration (see Zhou, ¶ 0192: In the event of a beam failure recovery request, the base station may configure the UE with a separate time window and/or a separate PDCCH in a search space indicated by an RRC message (e.g., recoverySearchSpaceId). The UE may monitor for a PDCCH transmission addressed to a Cell RNTI (C-RNTI) on the search space).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Zhou and incorporate it into the system of Ma to improve power consumption in the communication system (see Zhou, ¶ 0236).
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Zhou discloses method of claim 1, Ma does not explicitly disclose but Zhou discloses wherein the second duration is same as the first duration, and wherein the PDCCH monitoring is not skipped for the first duration In response to the first PS indication(s) indicating not skipping PDCCH monitoring for one or more cells of the first cell group, the wireless device may start PDCCH monitoring on the one or more cells of the first cell group.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Zhou and incorporate it into the system of Ma to improve power consumption in the communication system (see Zhou, ¶ 0236).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons as et forth in claim 1. Applicant is merely claiming the transmitting side of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0396684 to Lin et al. discloses receiving an indication in a DCI format to skip PDCCH monitoring in a next one or more DRX ON duration(s). The UE can be configured with PUCCH resources for SR transmission. In operation 1404, PDCCH monitoring is skipped during associated DRX ON duration(s).
US 2023/0134762 to KOSKELA et al. discloses the DCI may command a UE to skip PDCCH monitoring on one or more occasions. It has been left for further study how the extent of skipping PDCCH monitoring is indicated (number of occasions, time period, etc.) and if the extent of skipping PDCCH monitoring is radio resource control (RRC) configured and/or dynamically indicated in the DCI.
US 2024/0023130 to Schober et al. discloses with DCI-based PDCCH skipping, the network (NW) can indicate a certain period that the UE can skip monitoring PDCCH. The apparatus may be caused to perform, in the event of beam failure detection, monitoring the physical downlink control channel according to configuration of search space set group containing a beam failure recovery search space otherwise monitoring according to the monitoring pattern before the event.
US 2023/0048959 to HU et al. discloses channel monitoring method is provided. The method comprises: during the duration of skipping physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring, if a terminal device sends first information, the terminal device resuming PDCCH monitoring.
US 12,200,511 to Yamada et al. discloses beam failure recovery executed by user equipment. In the DRX mode, the UE may be in an ACTIVE time or a Non-ACTIVE time. The Non-ACTIVE time in the present disclosure refers to the period when the UE is not in the ACTIVE time, or the period not belongs to the ACTIVE time. The UE does not monitor the PDCCH in the Non-ACTIVE time, which means that the moment when the PDCCH may appear occurs during the Non-ACTIVE time of the UE, and the UE does not receive and detect the PDCCH during this moment when the PDCCH may appear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464