DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, line 4, it is suggested that the “wide Tx-beam” be replaced with “wide network node Tx-beam”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1), Applicant’s argument: “In fact, the cited portions of Kishiyama disclose that a terminal device (Kishiyama's ‘user apparatus’) performs measurements on reference signals and reports them to a ‘small base station,’ and that it is the base station that determines which beam was received by the terminal device with best quality. Claim 21, on the other hand, describes all of its operations, including the receiving operation described for the ‘second part’ of the recited beam management procedure, as being carried out by the terminal device. The Office Action does not (and cannot) explain why it would have been obvious, given Kishiyama's disclosure of a base station identifying a best beam, to modify Ahn's disclosure so as to have a terminal device do so. The rejection of claim 21 is in error for at least this reason.”
Examiner’s response: As discussed in the previous office action, Ahn discloses that reception beams are measured and that the best-quality reception beam is reported. Kishiyama simply teaches one definition of so-called best-quality reception beam, that is, a best-quality reception beam is a reception beam with the highest reception power. Here, it should not matter which device is used to measure the reception beam power and determines which reception beam has the highest power.
(2), Applicant’s argument: “Here, however, Anh is describing a ‘UE Decision Based Beam Association’ procedure in which a UE performs a measurement on a signal using each of three Rx beams, and reports the best Rx beam to the network. (Anh 0208-0212.) The procedure illustrated in Anh's Figure 10, on the other hand, involves the measurement of one or more SSBs, as transmitted in each of one or more corresponding transmit beams. Thus, the Office Action is mixing and matching two different procedure, to obtain the features of the ‘first part’ of the beam management procedure in claim 21, without any explanation of why it would have been obvious to change Anh's procedure for measuring and reporting SSBs transmitted on different transmit beams based on Anh's different procedure for determining a best receive beam.
Examiner’s response: As discussed in previous office action, in Fig. 10 and paragraph 0394, Ahn discloses that the UE reports a measurement result to the base station. This measurement involves measuring one or more SSBs. In paragraphs 0208-0212, Anh simply teaches that this measurement is performed on a plurality of Rx beams.
(3), Applicant’s argument: “However, Anh does not suggest that the procedure described at Anh's paragraph 0211 follows the measurement of SSB shown at Anh's Figure 10 and described at Anh's paragraphs 0394 and 0395, and the Office Action makes no attempt to show that it does. Further, nothing in Anh's paragraph 0211 discloses or suggests that the measurements performed on the multiple Rx beams as described in this paragraph are performed on an SSB or CSI-RS of a previously identified wide network node TX-beam, as the claim requires.”
Examiner’s response: As discussed above, Anh's paragraphs 0394 and 0395 teaches that one or more SSBs are measured by the user equipment. With respect to how a measurement is performed, Anh's paragraph 0211 teaches that the measurement is performed on a plurality of Rx beams of the user equipment. The plurality of Rx beams may carry signals such as SSBs or CSI-RS. Since the plurality of Rx beams on the user equipment side are associated with a plurality of wide network node Tx beams on the base station side, the plurality of Rx beams are “associated with the best wide network node Tx-beam” as required by the second part of the beam management procedure of claim 21.
(4), Applicant’s argument: “First, Ahn's paragraph 0317 explicitly refers to a two-step beam management procedure that involves ‘determining, by a BS and a UE, a wide (or coarse) beam using an SS block and determining a narrow beam using a beam reference signal (BRS) (e.g. CSI-RS ...) with respect to the determined wide beam. The Office Action does not explain how it gets from Anh's two-step beam management procedure, involving the UE reporting measurement results to a base station, to the three-part beam management procedure of claim 21.”
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s Claim 21 describes three parts of beam management. The first part is about identifying a best wide network node Tx beam based on measuring SSBs, the second part is about determining a best terminal device Rx-beam based also on measuring the SSBs, and the third part is about identifying a best narrow network node Tx beam based on measuring CSI-RS transmitted on the best Rx-beam. Because the terminal identifies the best wide network node Tx beam by measuring the Rx-beams on the terminal side, claim 21’s first part and second part are basically performed together. Thus, claim 21 essentially includes two parts: the first part identifies the best wide network node Tx beam, and the second part identifies the best narrow network node Tx beam, which has been taught by Ahn in paragraph 0317.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0196161 A1) in view of Kishiyama et al. (US 2018/0248601 A1).
Consider claim 21:
Ahn discloses a terminal device for participating in a beam management procedure with a network node (see paragraph 0009, where Ahn describes a user equipment (UE) which receives specific signal for beam management in a wireless communication), the terminal device comprising processing circuitry and memory comprising program instructions for execution by the processing circuitry (see Fig. 11 paragraph 0401, where Ahn describes that the UE includes a processor and a memory), the processing circuitry thereby being configured to cause the terminal device to:
during a first part of the beam management procedure, receive different Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) in a set of wide network node Tx-beams, wherein each SSB is associated with its own wide network node Tx-beam (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0393, step S1010, where Ahn describes that the UE receives Synchronization Signal (SS) blocks from a base station to start a beam management; see paragraph 0317, where Ahn describes that in a first step of the beam management, the SS blocks are associated with wide beams), and
identify a best wide network node Tx-beam, in the set of wide network node Tx-beam, in which the corresponding SSB is received with highest power (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0394, step S1015, where Ahn describes that the UE reports a measurement of received power of the received SS blocks; see paragraph 0211, where Ahn describes that a transmit beam with the best measurement is reported);
during a second part of the beam management procedure, following the first part, receive, in a set of terminal device Rx-beams, one or more of the SSB and/or a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) (see paragraph 0211, where Ahn describes that the UE uses one or more Rx beams to receive the Tx beams),
associated with the best wide network node Tx-beam, the SSB and/or CSI-RS being received with highest power in a best terminal device Rx-beam in the set of terminal device Rx-beams (see paragraph 0211, where Ahn describes that the best beam(s) reported by the UE may be a measurement result when one or more Rx beams are assumed); and,
during a third part of the beam management procedure, following the second part, receive, in the best terminal device Rx beam, different CSI-RSs in a set of narrow network node Tx-beams (see paragraph 0317, where Ahn describes that in a second step of the beam management, the UE receives a beam reference signal CSI-RS in a narrow beam with respect to the determined wide beam; see paragraph 0110, where Ahn describes that a plurality of CSI-RSs may be received and measured by the UE),
each CSI-RS being associated with its own narrow network node Tx-beam (see paragraph 0199, where Ahn describes that each beam has been applied to a beamformed reference signal CSI-RS), and
identify a best narrow network node Tx-beam, in the set of narrow network node Tx-beams, in which the corresponding CSI-RS is received (see paragraph 0297, where Ahn describes that best quality narrow beam is determined, this best quality narrow beam has been applied to transmit CSI-RS).
As discussed above, Ahn discloses identifying a best quality narrow beam in which the corresponding CSI-RS is received.
Ahn does not explicitly disclose: the corresponding CSI-RS is received with highest power.
Kishiyama teaches: a best quality beam in which a corresponding signal is received with highest power (see Fig. 13 and paragraphs 0046-0047, where Kishiyama describes a user apparatus 20 which receives a reference signal transmitted with each beam of a base station 11, the user apparatus 20 measures reception quality (reception power) based on the received reference signal, the beam with which the user apparatus 20 has successfully received a signal with the best quality (e.g., the highest reception power) is determined)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the corresponding CSI-RS is received with highest power, as taught by Kishiyama to modify the method of Ahn in order to appropriately select beams, as discussed by Kishiyama (see paragraph 0012).
Consider claim 22:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 21 above. Ahn discloses: during the first part: transmit a first report identifying the best wide Tx-beam (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0394, step S1015, where Ahn describes that the UE reports a measurement result of the received SS blocks; see paragraph 0211, where Ahn describes that a transmit beam with the best measurement result is reported).
Consider claim 23:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 21 above. Ahn discloses: wherein highest received power is the highest Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) measured by the terminal device (see paragraph 0394, where Ahn describes that the UE reports measurement of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP)).
Consider claim 26:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 21 above. Ahn discloses: during the third part: transmit a second report identifying at least the best narrow network node Tx-beam (see paragraph 0317, where Ahn describes that the UE measures a beam reference signal to determine a narrow beam, and the UE needs to report the measurement result using the beam reference signal).
Consider claim 28:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 26 above. Ahn discloses: the second report comprises the highest received power of the best narrow network node Tx-beam (see paragraph 0317, where Ahn describes that the UE measures a beam reference signal to determine a narrow beam, and the UE needs to report the measurement result using the beam reference signal; see paragraph 0023, where Ahn describes that the measurement result may include received power information).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0196161 A1) in view of Kishiyama et al. (US 2018/0248601 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Locke et al. (US 5,812,089).
Consider claim 24:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 21 above. Ahn does not specifically disclose: the beams of the set of narrow network node Tx-beams are essentially confined within an angular coverage area covered by the best wide network node Tx-beam.
Locke teaches: beams of a set of narrow network node Tx-beams are essentially confined within an angular coverage area covered by a best wide network node Tx-beam (see col. 1, lines 10-15, where Locke describes using multiple narrow transmit beams to have the total angular coverage of a desired wide transmit beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the beams of the set of narrow network node Tx-beams are essentially confined within an angular coverage area covered by the best wide network node Tx-beam, as taught by Locke to modify the method of Ahn in order to provide the total coverage desired, as discussed by Locke (see col. 1, lines 10-15).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0196161 A1) in view of Kishiyama et al. (US 2018/0248601 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Rabideau et al. (US 6,598,014 B1).
Consider claim 25:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 21 above. Ahn does not specifically disclose: the beams of the set of narrow network node Tx-beams spans essentially the same angular region as the best wide network node Tx-beam.
Rabideau teaches: beams of a set of narrow network node Tx-beams spans essentially the same angular region as a best wide network node Tx-beam (see col. 11, lines 39-43, where Rabideau describes a beam forming system in which the main beam components, thus narrow beams, span a wide angular region (of a wide beam)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the beams of the set of narrow network node Tx-beams spans essentially the same angular region as the best wide network node Tx-beam, as taught by Rabideau to modify the method of Ahn in order to perform adaptive beam forming, as discussed by Rabideau (see col. 4, lines 10-15).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0196161 A1) in view of Kishiyama et al. (US 2018/0248601 A1), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 11,088,749 B2).
Consider claim 27:
Ahn in view of Kishiyama discloses a terminal device according to claim 26 above. Ahn does not specifically disclose: the second report is transmitted in the best terminal device Rx beam.
Chang teaches: a report is transmitted in a best terminal device Rx beam (see col. 27, lines 46-51, where Chang describes a user equipment (UE) which transmits a feedback report using a transmit beam of the UE corresponding to the refined Rx beam of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the second report is transmitted in the best terminal device Rx beam, as taught by Chang to modify the method of Ahn to have a simple substitution of one transmit beam for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIHONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-5147. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm EST Monday-Friday.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571)272-9018. 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.
/LIHONG YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631