DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeineddine et al. (US 2023/0198602 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2022/0104036 A1), and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2021/0153262 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Zeineddine discloses:
a user equipment (UE) (fig.1 the UE in the wireless communications network) for performing beam failure recovery (BFR) (par.[0069] the BFR) in a wireless communications system (fig.1 the wireless communications system), the UE comprising:
at least one transceiver (fig.2 element 210 – 212); and
at least one processor (fig.2 element 202) coupled with the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform:
a method comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a configuration information (par.[0098] describes “In some embodiments, a UE may be configured with a first list of CORESETs that form a first BFD CORESET pool and a second list of CORESETs that form a second BFD CORESET pool.”) related to a first a first control resource set (CORESET) pool (par.[0098] describes a first CORESET pool) and a second CORESET pool (par.[0098] describes a secondary CORESET pool);
based on detecting beam failure for a spatial parameter associated with the first CORESET pool (par.[0098] which recites, in part, “In such embodiments, the BFD-RSs may be explicitly configured to be SSBs or periodic CSI-RSs that are quasi co-located with the PDCCH DM-RS or configured implicitly based on the activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring—if a TCI state includes two RSs, the UE selects the RS that is configured with QCL-typeD if the QCL type is configured. The UE physical layer may indicate a BFI indication to a MAC entity (e.g., higher layers) if a quality of all configured BFD reference signals in a CORESET pool is below a configured threshold Q.sub.out_LR. The UE physical layer may also indicate an indication of which CORESET pool (e.g., CORESET pool index) to the MAC entity. The physical layer may inform the higher layers if a radio link quality is worse than the threshold Q.sub.out,LR with a periodicity that is different for a first CORESET pool and a second CORESET pool.” That is, the UE measures the SSBs or CSI-RS which are quasi-co-located with the PDCCH DM-RS or configured on the TCI states, to provide Beam Failure Indicator (BFI) which leads to Beam Failure Detection (BFD) for the CORESET pool), transmitting, by the UE, a physical random access channel (PRACH) for the beam failure recovery (BFR) based on a spatial parameter associated with the second CORESET pool (par.[0098] which recites, in part, “In certain embodiments, a UE indicates to a gNB that beam failure has been declared and a new candidate beam for recovery for a failed CORESET pool using an uplink channel (e.g., PUSCH, PUCCH, and/or PRACH) associated with another CORESET pool that has not failed—e.g., based on beams or spatial filters that have the same spatial relation as that associated with the activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring (e.g., RS that is configured with QCL-typeD) for a non-failed CORESET pool.”, wherein the beam is a spatial parameter);
While the disclosure of Zeineddine substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose:
Receiving, by the UE, a response to the PRACH;
Transmitting, by the UE, a MAC-CE for the in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocated based on the response to the PRACH; and
Receiving, by the UE, a response to the MAC-CE.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhou discloses:
receiving, by the UE, a response to the PRACH (fig.9 element 902 and par.[0181] which teaches “In a four-step process, the UE transmits a Random Access Request with a MSG1. A Random Access Response with MSG2 that includes an UL scheduling grant is then received.”);
transmitting a MAC-CE for the BFR (fig.10 element 1014 and element 1016 BFR MAC CE), in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocated based on the response to the PRACH (par.[0181] which recites, in part, “The UE then transmits in a UL scheduled transmission a MSG 3 that includes the BFR MAC-CE”. That is, the UE can transmit the BFR MAC-CE in a PUSCH see par.[0056] which recites, in part, “The UE 115 may transmit a UL communication signal to the BS 105 via a PUSCH and/or PUCCH according to a UL scheduling grant”); and
receiving, by the UE, a response to the MAC-CE (fig.9 and par.[0181] which teaches the reception of a MSG-B or a MSG-4 in response to the MSG3 on the PUSCH comprising the BFR MAC-CE).
wherein the first CORESET pool is related to a primary transmission and reception point (TRP) (par.[0037] wherein the CORESET Pools are associated with different TRPs) synchronized with the UE (par.[0037] which recites, in part, “a UE may establish a connection with a Pcell and a Scell, where the Scell, and in some cases the Pcell, use beamformed communications via two or more beam groups (e.g., transmission-reception points (TRPs)).”. The office notes that the UE which has established a connection with either of the PCell or SCell must synchronize with the TRP, via a RACH procedure or some type of ConnectionRequest procedure), and the second CORESET pool is related to a secondary TRP (par.[0037] as discussed above, the CORESET pools are each associated with separate TRPs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Zeineddine for performing BFR, with the disclosure of Zhou for performing BFR. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for BFR in a multi-TRP scenario.
While each of Zeineddine and Zhou substantially discloses the claimed subject matter, and further disclose base stations that may operate synchronously or asynchronously, they may not disclose:
a secondary TRP asynchronous to the primary TRP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Liu teaches:
a secondary TRP asynchronous to the primary TRP (par.[0196] which describes a plurality of TRPs which are asynchronously time aligned with one another, in terms of subframe boundary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Zeineddine and Zhou for performing Beam Failure Recovery (BFR), with the disclosure of Mochizuki teaching TRPs being asynchronously time synchronized with one another. The motivation/suggestion would have been that sometimes TRPs, may experience backhaul jitter, oscillator drift, and different geographical locations can effect the synchronization between TRPs.
Regarding claim 2, the Zeineddine discloses:
wherein at least one of a CORESET or a search space for receiving the response to the PRACH is pre-configured for the UE (par.[0082] which teaches that the UE is pre-configured with PRACH resources for TX and RX).
Regarding claim 3, Zeineddine discloses:
wherein a PRACH resource on which the PRACH transmitted is configured in association with a specific downlink RS (par.[0082] which recites, in part, “For PRACH transmission in slot n and according to antenna port quasi co-location parameters associated with periodic CSI-RS resource configuration or with SS/PBCH block associated with index g.sub.new provided by higher layers”.).
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure of Zeineddine teaches:
wherein the spatial parameter associated with the second CORESET pool and the specific downlink RS are based on different physical cell identifiers (PCIs) (as discussed above, the CORESET pool/group correspond to a same or different TRP, wherein the different TRP may have a same or different PCI if they are configured to operate different cells).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou discloses:
wherein the response to the PRACH includes at least one of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocation information for a transmission of MAC-CE, timing advance (TA) related information, or spatial parameter for a transmission of the MAC-CE (par.[0085] which describes the MSG2 or MSGB comprising the PUSCH resource allocation).
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure of Zhou teaches:
based on the response to the PRACH not including the spatial parameter for a transmission of the MAC-CE, a transmission of the MAC-CE is based on a spatial parameter applied to a transmission of the PRACH (par.[0072] which recites, in part, “UE 310 may receive, a BFR response based on a beam group BFD parameter or a cell-level BFD parameter. In some cases, the UE 310 may monitor PDCCH in a search space set provided by a RRC parameter (e.g., recoverySearchSpaceId) for detection of a DCI format……..Following the BFR response, the UE 310 may use quasi co-located (QCL) RS assumptions that the same QCL parameters are associated with reference signal index q_new until the UE 310 receives an activation for a TCI state.”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses:
wherein the MAC-CE includes one or more of i) information indicating whether beam failure is performed for at least one of the first CORESET pool or the second CORESET pool, ii) information of a component carrier (CC) in which beam failure occurred, or iii) whether a new spatial parameter for at least one of the first CORESET pool or the second CORESET pool is identified (fig.6a or 6b, par.[0130 – 0131]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou discloses:
wherein based on a new spatial parameter for at least one of the first CORESET pool or the second CORESET pool being identified, the MAC-CE further include identification information on the new spatial parameter (fig.6a or 6b, par.[0130 – 0131]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses:
based on the response to the MAC-CE, resetting a spatial parameter for at least one of the first CORESET pool or the second CORESET pool, after a pre-configured time based on a timing of receiving the response (par.[0085] which recites, in part, “after 28 symbols from the end of the BFR response (end of PDCCH), the UE 344 may use a QCL assumption that only the CORESETs with the same value of CORESET pool index are reset to the new beam (e.g., q.sub.new) in the Scell 346.”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses:
based on a new spatial parameter for the first CORESET pool being identified, a spatial parameter for downlink reception or uplink transmission of the UE is configured with the new spatial parameter (par.[0086] this would apply to the first and/or second CORESET pool whichever is indicated “the UE 344 may use a QCL assumption that only the CORESETs with the same value of CORESET pool index are reset to the new beam”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou discloses:
based on a new spatial parameter for the first CORESET pool not being identified and a new spatial parameter for the second CORESET pool being identified, a spatial parameter for downlink reception or uplink transmission of the UE is configured with the new spatial parameter for the second CORESET pool (par.[0086] this would apply to the first and/or second CORESET pool whichever is indicated “the UE 344 may use a QCL assumption that only the CORESETs with the same value of CORESET pool index are reset to the new beam”).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou discloses:
wherein synchronization or transmission and reception of the UE is based on the spatial parameter associated with the first CORESET pool (par.[0086] the UE may assume QCL for CORESETS with the same value of CORESET pool index, thus if CORESET pool index 1 spatial parameter are indicated then the UE would utilize those for synchronization or transmission).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses:
method of wherein the PRACH corresponds to a contention free based PRACH (par.[0071] the CF RACH).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses:
an apparatus for a base station (fig.1 depicts a base station) the apparatus comprising:
at least one transceiver (fig.3 element 310 and 312); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one transceiver (fig.3 element 302), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE) configuration information (par.[0098] describes “In some embodiments, a UE may be configured with a first list of CORESETs that form a first BFD CORESET pool and a second list of CORESETs that form a second BFD CORESET pool.”) related to a first control resource set (CORESET) pool (par.[0098] describes a first CORESET pool) and a second CORESET pool (par.[0098] describes a second CORESET pool)
based on detecting beam failure for a spatial parameter associated with the first CORESET pool (par.[0098] which recites, in part, “In such embodiments, the BFD-RSs may be explicitly configured to be SSBs or periodic CSI-RSs that are quasi co-located with the PDCCH DM-RS or configured implicitly based on the activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring—if a TCI state includes two RSs, the UE selects the RS that is configured with QCL-typeD if the QCL type is configured. The UE physical layer may indicate a BFI indication to a MAC entity (e.g., higher layers) if a quality of all configured BFD reference signals in a CORESET pool is below a configured threshold Q.sub.out_LR. The UE physical layer may also indicate an indication of which CORESET pool (e.g., CORESET pool index) to the MAC entity. The physical layer may inform the higher layers if a radio link quality is worse than the threshold Q.sub.out,LR with a periodicity that is different for a first CORESET pool and a second CORESET pool.” That is, the UE measures the SSBs or CSI-RS which are quasi-co-located with the PDCCH DM-RS or configured on the TCI states, to provide Beam Failure Indicator (BFI) which leads to Beam Failure Detection (BFD) for the CORESET pool), receiving a physical random access channel (PRACH) for the BFR based on a spatial parameter associated with the second CORESET pool (par.[0098] which recites, in part, “In certain embodiments, a UE indicates to a gNB that beam failure has been declared and a new candidate beam for recovery for a failed CORESET pool using an uplink channel (e.g., PUSCH, PUCCH, and/or PRACH) associated with another CORESET pool that has not failed—e.g., based on beams or spatial filters that have the same spatial relation as that associated with the activated TCI states for PDCCH monitoring (e.g., RS that is configured with QCL-typeD) for a non-failed CORESET pool.”, wherein the beam is a spatial parameter);
While the disclosure of Zeineddine substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose:
transmitting, a response to the PRACH;
receiving, a MAC-CE for the in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocated based on the response to the PRACH; and
transmitting, a response to the MAC-CE.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhou discloses:
transmitting, a response to the PRACH (fig.9 element 902 and par.[0181] which teaches “In a four-step process, the UE transmits a Random Access Request with a MSG1. A Random Access Response with MSG2 that includes an UL scheduling grant is then received.”);
receiving a MAC-CE for the BFR (fig.10 element 1014 and element 1016 BFR MAC CE), in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocated based on the response to the PRACH (par.[0181] which recites, in part, “The UE then transmits in a UL scheduled transmission a MSG 3 that includes the BFR MAC-CE”. That is, the UE can transmit the BFR MAC-CE in a PUSCH see par.[0056] which recites, in part, “The UE 115 may transmit a UL communication signal to the BS 105 via a PUSCH and/or PUCCH according to a UL scheduling grant”); and
transmitting, a response to the MAC-CE (fig.9 and par.[0181] which teaches the reception of a MSG-B or a MSG-4 in response to the MSG3 on the PUSCH comprising the BFR MAC-CE).
wherein the first CORESET pool is related to a primary transmission and reception point (TRP) (par.[0037] wherein the CORESET Pools are associated with different TRPs) synchronized with the UE (par.[0037] which recites, in part, “a UE may establish a connection with a Pcell and a Scell, where the Scell, and in some cases the Pcell, use beamformed communications via two or more beam groups (e.g., transmission-reception points (TRPs)).”. The office notes that the UE which has established a connection with either of the PCell or SCell must synchronize with the TRP, via a RACH procedure or some type of ConnectionRequest procedure), and the second CORESET pool is related to a secondary TRP (par.[0037] as discussed above, the CORESET pools are each associated with separate TRPs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Zeineddine for performing BFR, with the disclosure of Zhou for performing BFR. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for BFR in a multi-TRP scenario.
While each of Zeineddine and Zhou substantially discloses the claimed subject matter, and further disclose base stations that may operate synchronously or asynchronously, they may not disclose:
a secondary TRP asynchronous to the primary TRP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Liu teaches:
a secondary TRP asynchronous to the primary TRP (par.[0196] which describes a plurality of TRPs which are asynchronously time aligned with one another, in terms of subframe boundary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Zeineddine and Zhou for performing Beam Failure Recovery (BFR), with the disclosure of Mochizuki teaching TRPs being asynchronously time synchronized with one another. The motivation/suggestion would have been that sometimes TRPs, may experience backhaul jitter, oscillator drift, and different geographical locations can effect the synchronization between TRPs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kwak et al. (US 2023/0144010 A1) “Methods, Apparatus and Systems Directed to Beam Management in Connection with Multiple Cells and/or Multiple Transmission Reception Points”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights