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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 and 07/30/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (U.S PAT. 10,819,448 hereinafter, “Raghavan”) in view of Kim et al. (U.S PAT. 12,425,906 hereinafter, “Kim”).
Consider claim 1, Raghavan teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: detect an antenna module failure at the UE (Fig, 1, col. 7, lines 18-47); transmit, as part of a capability signaling, an indication of the antenna module failure and an uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure (Fig, 11, col. 18, lines 10-36 i.e., The apparatus may include a mitigation component 1116 configured to apply a mitigation procedure in response to detecting the failure. The mitigation component may switch codebooks, increase a VGA, increase a DL transmission power, indicate to a UE to increase an UL transmission power (power change), and any combination thereof. The mitigation procedure that is applied may depend on the amount of antenna elements for which failure is detected, e.g., a fraction of antenna elements for which failure is detected).
Raghavan does not explicitly show that transmit signaling associated with a power control update that is based at least in part on the antenna module failure.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches transmit signaling associated with a power control update that is based at least in part on the antenna module failure (col. 34 lines 13-20 i.e., UE may apply the updated measurement window even reporting the measurement failure so that the UE can detect/measure all beams within the measurement window. In this case, the UE may inform the network that the measurement window is already updated via the measurement failure reporting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use, transmit signaling associated with a power control update that is based at least in part on the antenna module failure, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a method and apparatus for measurement failure reporting in a wireless communication system.
Consider claim 2, Raghavan further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: detect the antenna module failure based at least in part on a directional coupler or a power sensor (col. 11, lines 35-51)).
Consider claim 3, Kim further teaches wherein the power control update is associated with the uplink-downlink power change, and the power control update is within a range of quantized values or is a specific value from a table (col. 34 lines 13-20.
Consider claim 8, Raghavan further teaches wherein: the capability signaling is transmitted to a network node (col. 4, line 61 through col. 5, line 2); or the UE is a first UE, and the capability signaling is transmitted to a second UE via a sidelink interface (col. 5, lines 56-67).
Consider claim 9, Raghavan further teaches wherein the UE is a first UE, antenna module failures are associated with both the first UE and a second UE, and the one or more processors are configured to cause the first UE to: transmit, to the second UE, and via a sidelink power control procedure (col. 5, lines 56-67), modulation and coding scheme (MCS) coordination signaling based at least in part on the antenna module failures associated with the first UE and the second UE (claim 20).
Consider claim 16, the subject-matter of independent claim 16 relates to a wireless device with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 16.
Consider claim 17, the previous rejections of claim 3 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 17.
Consider claim 20, the previous rejections of claim 9 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 20.
4. Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Knudsen et al. (U.S PUB. 2023/0396312 hereinafter, “Knudsen”).
Consider claim 10, Raghavan teaches apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the network node to: receive, as part of a capability signaling, an indication of an antenna module failure at a user equipment (UE) and an uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure (Fig, 11, col. 18, lines 10-36 i.e., The apparatus may include a mitigation component 1116 configured to apply a mitigation procedure in response to detecting the failure. The mitigation component may switch codebooks, increase a VGA, increase a DL transmission power, indicate to a UE to increase an UL transmission power (power change), and any combination thereof. The mitigation procedure that is applied may depend on the amount of antenna elements for which failure is detected, e.g., a fraction of antenna elements for which failure is detected).
Raghavan does not explicitly show that perform, in response to the capability signaling, a communication using an adjusted number of antenna elements based at least in part on the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure at the UE, wherein the adjusted number of antenna elements is selected to compensate for a loss in link budget due to the antenna module failure at the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Knudsen teaches perform, in response to the capability signaling, a communication using an adjusted number of antenna elements based at least in part on the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure at the UE, wherein the adjusted number of antenna elements is selected to compensate for a loss in link budget due to the antenna module failure at the UE (page 4 [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use, transmit signaling associated with a power control update that is based at least in part on the antenna module failure, as taught by Knudsen, in order for correcting for the effects of changes in beam configuration.
Consider claim 11, Raghavan further teaches wherein the adjusted number of antenna elements includes a first number of antenna elements for an uplink operation and a second number of antenna elements for a downlink operation (col. 18, lines 10-36).
Consider claim 13, Kim further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the network node to: transmit signaling associated with a power control update for the UE based at least in part on the antenna module failure at the UE (col. 34 lines 13-20).
5. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Kim and further in view of Knudsen.
Consider claim 4, Raghavan and Kim in combination fail to teach wherein a communication with a network node is based at least in part on an adjusted number of antenna elements at the network node, the adjusted number of antenna elements is based at least in part on the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure, and the adjusted number of antenna elements is selected to compensate for a loss in link budget due to the antenna module failure at the UE.
However, Knudsen teaches wherein a communication with a network node is based at least in part on an adjusted number of antenna elements at the network node, the adjusted number of antenna elements is based at least in part on the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure, and the adjusted number of antenna elements is selected to compensate for a loss in link budget due to the antenna module failure at the UE (page 4 [0045]).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the disclosing of Knudsen into view of Raghavan and Kim, in order for correcting for the effects of changes in beam configuration.
Consider claim 18, the previous rejections of claim 4 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5-7, 12, 14-15 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Consider claim 5, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a modified modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based at least in part on the capability signaling, wherein the modified MCS is to compensate for the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 1.
Consider claim 6, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: transmit, to a location management function (LMF), an indication of a positioning estimation error based at least in part on the antenna module failure, wherein the positioning estimation error is due to one or more dropped antenna elements resulting from the antenna module failure, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 1.
Consider claim 7, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: receive a beam switching indication in response to the capability signaling, wherein the beam switching indication is to set up a link with an antenna module of the UE for which a failure was not detected, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 1.
Consider claim 12, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the network node to: transmit an indication of a modified modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based at least in part on the capability signaling, wherein the modified MCS is to compensate for the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure at the UE, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 10.
Consider claim 14, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the network node to: receive an indication of a positioning estimation error based at least in part on the antenna module failure at the UE, wherein the positioning estimation error is due to one or more dropped antenna elements resulting from the antenna module failure at the UE, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 10.
Consider claim 15, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the network node to: transmit a beam switching indication in response to the capability signaling, wherein the beam switching indication is to set up a link with an antenna module of the UE for which a failure was not detected, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 10.
Consider claim 19, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest receiving an indication of a modified modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based at least in part on the capability signaling, wherein the modified MCS is to compensate for the uplink-downlink power change associated with the antenna module failure; transmitting, to a location management function (LMF), an indication of a positioning estimation error based at least in part on the antenna module failure, wherein the positioning estimation error is due to one or more dropped antenna elements resulting from the antenna module failure; or receiving a beam switching indication in response to the capability signaling, wherein the beam switching indication is to set up a link with an antenna module of the UE for which a failure was not detected, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 16.
Conclusion
7. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649