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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims filed on 02/06/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with newly identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 23-25 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Cheng comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method comprising:
triggering, by a wireless device and based on detection of a beam failure of a cell, a failure recovery of the cell ([0045] “In action 620, a partial beam failure procedure is triggered on the current active BWP (e.g., BWP30). For example, when the quality of only a partial but not all PDCCHs is below the threshold for a period, the partial beam failure recovery (PBFR) procedure is triggered.”).
switching an active uplink bandwidth part (BWP) of the cell (See aforesaid [0045] “the current active BWP (e.g., BWP30)” is equivalent to the claimed active uplink BWP.) to a second active uplink BWP of the cell during failure recovery of the cell ([0046] “In action 630, the UE switches back to the default BWP (e.g., BWP40) after the PBFR procedure is triggered. In action 640, the UE sends a PUCCH on the default BWP (e.g., BWP40) to the BS” Note that the default BWP is equivalent to the claimed second active uplink BWP.),
wherein the second active uplink BWP is configured with at least one uplink control channel resource for failure recovery of the cell ([0051] “an implicit way is to use a location of the PUCCH resource for BFR since each BWP are configured with a corresponding PUCCH resource.”); and
setting, based on activation of the second uplink BWP, a counter associated with the failure of the cell (This will be discussed in view of Wu.); and
sending, via the at least one uplink control channel resource, an uplink signal for failure recovery of the cell ([0046] “In action 640, the UE sends a PUCCH on the default BWP (e.g., BWP40) to the BS.”, and [Cheng, 0051] “To notify the BS that the UE has already switched back to the default BWP, the UE uses a PUCCH for the beam failure recovery procedure.”).
It is noted that while disclosing switching a BWP, Cheng does not specifically teach about a counter. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wu as follows;
setting, based on activation of the second uplink BWP, a counter associated with the failure of the cell ([Wu, 0036] “each activated (or deactivated) BWP corresponds to an independent counter for beam failure detection”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Chen by using the features of Wu in order to increase accuracy and effectiveness for beam failure counting such that “a beam failure detection method, … performing, according to the received configuration information, a preset operation on a timer and/or a counter for beam failure detection corresponding to a target beam” [Wu, 0008].
Regarding claim 8, it is a wireless device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” ([0020] “The UE or the base station may include, but is not limited to, a transceiver, a processor, a memory, and a variety of computer-readable media. …The memory may store computer-readable, computer-executable instructions (e.g., software codes) that are configured to cause processor to perform various functions”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is a claim of a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “computer-readable medium” ([0020] “The UE or the base station may include, but is not limited to, a transceiver, a processor, a memory, and a variety of computer-readable media.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, further comprising:
determining that the second active uplink BWP of the cell is configured with the at least one uplink control channel resource ([0051] “the UE switches back to the default BWP immediately and uses the pre-configured PUCCH resource of the default BWP with qualified beam to send a BFRQ”).
Regarding claims 23, 24 and 25, the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, wherein the failure recovery of the cell comprises beam failure recovery of the cell (See aforesaid [0045] “the partial beam failure recovery (PBFR) procedure is triggered.”).
Regarding claim 27, the method of claim 1, further comprising resetting, based on activation of the second uplink BWP, a timer associated with the failure of the cell ([0050] “During the PBFR procedure, since the UE sends a PUCCH to the BS after switching back to the default BWP, the UE does not need to monitor the PDCCH on the default BWP and wait for the BWP inactivity timer expire”).
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0396044, “Lee”, provisional application 62611478 (“478”)).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, it is noted that while disclosing switching a BWP, Cheng does not specifically teach about checking on uplink resources. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lee as follows;
the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, respectively, further comprising:
based on the active uplink BWP of the cell not being configured with at least one uplink control channel resource for a scheduling request for beam failure recovery (BFR) of a secondary cell, ([Lee, 0102] “when SR is triggered and there is no valid SR PUCCH resource configured for the active UL BWP” See [478, Section 3]), determining that the active uplink BWP of the cell has no valid physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for the scheduling request ([Lee, 0102] “the UE checks whether or not there are configured SR PUCCH resources allowed to request UL resource for the new data”. See [478, Section 3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Chen by using the features of Lee in order to meet a demand of larger communication capacity such that “a method and device for switching a Bandwidth part (BWP) for configured UL resources” [Lee, 0008].
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0289372, “Liu”)
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, it is noted that while disclosing switching a BWP, Cheng does not specifically teach about multiple resources for BFR and PUSCH. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lee as follows;
the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, respectively, further comprising:
receiving configuration parameters indicating ([Liu, 0074] “The base station can semi-statically or dynamically configure the PUCCH resource for transmitting the BFRQ for the terminal through the RRC signaling, the MAC CE or the physical layer signaling.”):
at least one first uplink control channel resource, of the cell, for beam failure recovery (BFR) of a secondary cell ([Liu, 0067] “a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource is used to send a BFRQ to a base station”); and
at least one second uplink control channel resource for requesting at least one uplink shared channel resource ([Liu, 0077] “in step 105, the transmission resource in the grant free transmission resource pool is used to send a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) message to the base station”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Chen by using the features of Liu in order to reduce latency in using PRACH such that “searching for a candidate beam after a beam failure event occurs in the terminal; and using a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource to send a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ)” [Liu, 0005].
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0058999, “Chen”) and ETSI TS 138 321 V15.2.0 (“ETSI”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, it is noted that while disclosing switching a BWP, Cheng does not specifically teach about scheduling request based on a BF of a secondary cell. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chen as follows;
the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, respectively,
wherein the triggering comprises triggering, based on detection of a beam failure of a secondary cell, a scheduling request for beam failure recovery (BFR) of the secondary cell ([Chen, 0103] “when the beam failure occurs in the SCell, the terminal device may switch back to the PCell to send an uplink beam failure recovery request”, and [0098] “the terminal device determines a corresponding uplink beam based on the downlink beam and the association relationship that is between an uplink beam and a downlink beam and that is configured by the network device, and then determines an SR resource used for the beam failure recovery request, to send the scheduling request”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cheng by using the features of Chen in order to improve efficiency of beam failure recovery such that “a terminal device accurately obtains information about an association between an uplink beam and a downlink beam” [Chen, 0007].
It is noted that while disclosing switching a BWP, Cheng does not specifically teach about canceling a SR. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by ETSI as follows;
wherein the method further comprises cancelling the scheduling request ([ETSI, Section 5.4.4] “cancel the pending SR”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Cheng by using the features of ETSI in order to efficiently utilize resources such that “The MAC entity may stop, if any, ongoing Random Access procedure due to a pending SR which has no valid PUCCH resources configured” [ETSI, Section 5.4.4].
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of ETSI TS 138 321 V15.2.0 (“ETSI”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, the method of claim 1, the wireless device of claim 8 and the non-transitory CRM of claim 15, respectively, further comprising:
based on the active uplink BWP of the cell ([ETSI, Section 5.4.4] “Only PUCCH resources on a BWP which is active”) having no valid physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for a scheduling request for beam failure recovery (BFR) of a secondary cell ([ETSI, Section 5.4.4] “if the MAC entity has no valid PUCCH resource configured for the pending SR”), initiating a random access procedure via the cell ([ETSI, Section 5.4.4] “initiate a Random Access procedure (see subclause 5.1) on the SpCell”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of ETSI are the same as for claim 6.
Claim(s) 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of Yuan et al. (US 2021/0344405, “Yuan”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 22, it is noted that while disclosing transmitting BFR, Chen does not specifically teach about MAC CE indicating a candidate beam. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Yuan as follows;
the method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending a beam failure recovery (BFR) medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating a candidate beam for BFR of a secondary cell ([Yuan, 0071] “the terminal device 120 may select a beam 111 from available beams on the Scell 102 as a new candidate beam, for example, based on the qualities of the available beams. For ease of discussion, the new beam identified by the terminal device 120 is hereinafter referred to as the selected beam 111.”, [Yuang, 0078] “the terminal device 120 may include the beam failure recovery request in MAC CE and transmit the MAC CE using the resource allocated by the network device 110, e.g. on the PUSCH.”, and [Yuan, 0079] “The beam failure recovery request may comprise the beam index of the selected beam 111 and the Scell index of the Scell 102.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Chen by using the features of Yuan in order to provide effective BFR method in a same carrier CA such that “receiving, from the network device and on a Pcell, a response indicating a resource allocated to the terminal device; transmitting, to the network device and using the allocated resource, a beam failure recovery request” [Yuan, 0005].
Claim(s) 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2021/0211980, “Cheng”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0028853, “Wu”) and further in view of Alfarhan et al. (US 2025/0159731, “Alfarhan”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Cheng unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 26, it is noted that while disclosing transmitting BFR, Chen does not specifically teach about an SR counter. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Alfarhan as follows;
the method of claim 1, wherein the counter is one of a beam failure recovery request counter or a scheduling request counter ([Alfarhan, 0234] “the WTRU 102 may trigger an additional SR on a different sub-band/BWP depending on (e.g., based on) the SR transmission counter and/or the SR attempt counter of the first pending SR, and/or depending on (e.g., based on) the channel occupancy conditions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Chen by using the features of Alfarhan in order to effectively perform LBT procedures such that “a WTRU may receive in a downlink message, a channel transmission trigger (CTT) and may select a type of Listen Before Talk (LBT) configuration” [Alfarhan, 0003].
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411