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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/12/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 19 and 24 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 11 recites, “receive a MAC CE” (line 3). It is suggested to replace it with “receive a second MAC CE” for more clarity. Claim 19 (line 3) is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 11.
Claim 24 recites, “each of the one or more reference signals” (line 3). It is suggested to replace it with “each of the one or more candidate reference signals” for more clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17, 19, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (similarly to claims 9 and 17) recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters that indicate:
one or more beam failure detection reference signals for beam failure of a cell; and
one or more candidate reference signals;
assessing a radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals; and
based on the radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals, sending a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating that no candidate reference signal has been identified. (Emphasis added.)
However, the above-underlined limitations do not appear to be described within the Specification. Moreover, Applicant does not specifically point out the support for the limitation.
In regard to the above-claimed limitation, Applicant’s Specification describes at best:
FIG. 34 shows an example of a DL BFR procedure of a secondary cell. Procedures corresponding to times T0, T1, T2 and T3 may be similar to procedures corresponding to times T0, T1, T2 and T3, respectively, as described with reference to the DL BFR procedure of FIG. 32 . At or after time T0, a wireless device 3404 may receive, from a base station 3402, one or more messages (e.g., RRC messages 3406) comprising one or more configuration parameters. (see, ¶0658);
[t]he one or more configuration parameters may or may not indicate one or more second RSs (e.g., in candidateBeamRSList in IE BeamFailureRecoveryConfig) for the second DL BWP of the second cell. (see, ¶0663); and
The wireless device 3404 may or may not determine/identify/indicate a candidate RS in the candidate beam selection procedure, for example, prior to the (scheduled) UL resources of the UL grant. The wireless device 3404 may transmit the second UL signal with a reserved indicator/index (e.g., 0000, 1111, or any other index)), for example, based on the wireless device 3404 not determining the candidate RS in the candidate beam selection procedure prior to the (scheduled) UL resources of the UL grant. Transmitting the second UL signal with the reserved index may comprise that the second UL signal may comprise/indicate the reserved index. (see, ¶0666).
It should be noted that the above portions of the specification merely describe: the one or more configuration parameters indicates one or more second RSs which are read into one of “one or more beam failure detection reference signals” and “one or more candidate reference signals”, as currently claimed. However, the specification does NOT describe, such separate two kinds of reference signals which are one or more beam failure detection reference signals” and “one or more candidate reference signals”.
Furthermore, although the specification describes, “based on the radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals, sending an uplink signal indicating that no candidate reference signal has been identified”, it fails to describe that the uplink signal is a MAC CE.
The examiner does not find any relevant description that a skilled artisan would recognize Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. As such, Examiner suggests Applicant to point to specific language within the Specification that fully discloses the above noted limitation of claims 1, 9 and 17, otherwise the applicant should amend the claims to recite limitations fully supported within Applicant’s Specification.
Further, regarding claims 9 and 17 reciting, “after detecting a beam failure based on the one or more beam failure detection reference signals, assess a radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signal” (lines 10-13), the specification fails to separate and sequential actions of “detecting a beam failure based on the one or more beam failure detection reference signals” and “assessing a radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals”. The above-mentioned portions of the specification merely describe “[a]t or after time T1, the wireless device 3404 may initiate a BFR procedure for the second DL BWP of the second cell based on the detecting a beam failure of the second DL BWP” (see ¶0658). However, the specification is silent whether the detection of a beam failure is based on the one or more beam failure detection references which are separate from the one or more candidate reference signals, as claimed.
Claims 3, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-16, 19, and 22-25 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svedman et al (US Publication No. 2022/0109547) in view of Koskela et al (US Publication No. 2021/0021320).
Regarding claim 1, Svedman teaches, a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, by user equipment (UE)], one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters that indicate:
one or more beam failure detection reference signals for beam failure of a cell [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, the UE is configured with a larger set of beam-failure detection reference signals (BFD-RSs) for a cell using RRC signaling] (see also e.g., ¶0233-0253, 0270-0274 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952 filed on 01/10/2019); and
assessing a radio link quality of the plurality of beam failure detection reference signals [¶0300, in various embodiments, the UE performs measurements, e.g. RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, RSSI, on BFD-RS, other RS/signals and/or other time-frequency resources assigned for measurement] (see also e.g., ¶0132 and 0191-0192 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952).
Svedman does not explicitly teach (see, italicized and bold limitations), configuration parameters that indicate one or more candidate reference signals, and based on the radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals, sending a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating that no candidate reference signal.
However, Koskela teaches, configuration parameters that indicate one or more candidate reference signals [¶0083, to indicate candidate beams], and based on the radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals, sending a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating that no candidate reference signal [¶0084, based on RSRP, of candidate beams, sending the new MAC CE indicating the one with the strongest L1-RSRP, see “If no candidates are above the threshold, the UE includes only one candidate in the new MAC CE, e.g. the one with the strongest L1-RSRP, RSRQ, SINR etc”; further see ¶0085, “if no candidates are above the threshold, the UE sends the new MAC CE without indicating any beam”].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Syedman with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Koskela to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Koskela into the system of Syedman would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce latency, improving reliability and resource efficiency in dynamic wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 3, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Svedman further teaches, receiving a second MAC CE configured to cause activation of the subset of the one or more beam failure detection reference signals [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0378, MAC CE can be used to activate/deactivate individual or sets of BFD-RS. For example, a larger set of BFD-RS can be configured for a cell and/or BWP by RRC signaling, and a subset of those BFD-RS can be selected for a cell and/or BWP by a BFD-RS activation/deactivation MAC CE] (see also e.g., ¶0131, 0191-0192, 0233-0253, 0270-0274 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952).
Regarding claim 6, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Svedman does not explicitly teach (see, italicized limitations), but Koskela teaches, incrementing a beam failure instance counter based on a beam failure instance indication of the cell [¶0065, MAC layer implements a counter to count the BFI indications from the PHY layer and if the BFI counter reaches maximum value (configured by the network) a beam failure is declared/detected; incrementing of BF counter value is implied from “the BFI counter reaches maximum value”].
However, the feature “incrementing a beam failure instance counter based on a beam failure instance indication" is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Svedman with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Koskela to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Koskela into the system of Svedman would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring more reliable services, reducing operational risks and maintaining optimal performance levels in a wireless radio access network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 9, Svedman teaches, a wireless device [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, user equipment (UE)] comprising:
one or more processors [FIG. 1B; its related descriptions; ¶0103, processor 118; note that every user equipment has at least one processor] (see also e.g., ¶0049 and 0101 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the wireless device to [FIG. 1B; its related descriptions; ¶0103 and 0110, memory 130, 132 storing instructions, when executed by the processor, configure the UE to perform action(s); note that every user equipment has at least one memory storing instructions] (see also e.g., ¶0049 and 0101 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952.
Further, Syedman does not explicitly teach (see, italicized limitations), but Koskela teaches, after detecting a beam failure based on the one or more beam failure detection reference signals, assess a radio link quality of the one or more candidate reference signals [¶0084, [i]n case of a beam failure on a first serving cell (e.g., SCell), the UE transmits the serving cell beam recovery signaling on a second serving cell (e.g., PCell) using MAC CE and includes first serving cell (e.g. SCell) information. The NW configures UE with candidate beam threshold(s) (L1-RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, hyp. PDCCH BLER or alike). When at least one candidate beam is above the configured threshold, the UE includes in a MAC CE all (or N-highest quality beams based on measurement quantity such as RSRP) the candidate beams information above the threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Koskela in the system of Syedman for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Since claim 9 recites similar features to claim 1 except for the above-mentioned features set forth above, claim 9 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Svedman teaches, a system [FIGS. 1A and 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, system including gNB/base station and user equipment (UE)] comprising:
a base station [FIGS. 1A and 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, gNB/base station] (see also e.g., ¶0233-0253, 0270-0274 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952) configured to send one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising one or more configuration parameters that indicate a plurality of reference signals associated with beam failure of a cell [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, the gNB/base station configures UE with a larger set of beam-failure detection reference signals (BFD-RSs) for a cell using RRC signaling] (see also e.g., ¶0233-0253, 0270-0274 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952); and
a wireless device [FIGS. 1A and 9; its related descriptions; ¶0377-0382, 0423 and 0426, user equipment] comprising:
one or more processors [FIG. 1B; its related descriptions; ¶0103, processor 118; note that every user equipment has at least one processor] (see also e.g., ¶0049 and 0101 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the wireless device to [FIG. 1B; its related descriptions; ¶0103 and 0110, memory 130, 132 storing instructions, when executed by the processor, configure the UE to perform action(s); note that every user equipment has at least one memory storing instructions] (see also e.g., ¶0049 and 0101 of US Prov. App. No. 62/790,952).
Since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 9 except for the above-mentioned features set forth above, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 25, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Syedman does not explicitly teaches (see, italicized limitations), but Koskela teaches, after detecting the beam failure, assessing the one or more candidate reference signals against a threshold [¶0084, [i]n case of a beam failure on a first serving cell (e.g., SCell), the UE transmits the serving cell beam recovery signaling on a second serving cell (e.g., PCell) using MAC CE and includes first serving cell (e.g. SCell) information. The NW configures UE with candidate beam threshold(s) (L1-RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, hyp. PDCCH BLER or alike). When at least one candidate beam is above the configured threshold, the UE includes in a MAC CE all (or N-highest quality beams based on measurement quantity such as RSRP) the candidate beams information above the threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Koskela in the system of Syedman for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Claims 7, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svedman et al (US Publication No. 2022/0109547) in view of Koskela et al (US Publication No. 2021/0021320) and further in view of Jung et al (US Publication No. 2019/0081753).
Regarding claim 7, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 6 as set forth above.
Svedman does not explicitly teach (see, italicized), but Koskela teaches, resetting the beam failure instance counter to zero [¶0065, the BFI counter is reset (counter value is set to zero)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Svedman with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Koskela to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Koskela into the system of Svedman would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., preventing outdated data from influencing system performance decisions and allowing for fresh tracking of future failures for better diagnostics, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Svedman in view of Koskela does not explicitly teach (see, italicized), but Jung teaches, resetting the beam failure instance counter . . .based on receiving a second MAC CE indicating a second subset of the plurality of beam failure detection reference signals for the beam failure of the cell.
However, Jung teaches, resetting the beam failure instance counter . . . based on receiving a second message indicating a second subset of the plurality of reference signals [¶0120-0121, the method 800 includes resetting 806 a counter in response to reception of the indication of the second set of reference signals].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Svedman in view of Koskela with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jung to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jung into the system of Svedman in view of Koskela would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., preventing outdated data from influencing system performance decisions and allowing for fresh tracking of future failures for better diagnostics, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svedman et al (US Publication No. 2022/0109547) in view of Koskela et al (US Publication No. 2021/0021320) and further in view of You et al (US Publication No. 2019/0356376).
Regarding claim 8, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Svedman in view of Koskela does not explicitly teach (see, italicized and bold limitations), but You teaches, transmitting, based on the beam failure and for the beam failure of the cell, an uplink signal indicating a beam failure detection reference signal among the one or more beam failure detection reference signals [¶0038, sending, based on a beam failure detection, a beam failure recovery request to the network device to notify by using the request, the network device of the beam (or SSB or CSI-RS) selected by the terminal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by You in the system of Svedman in view of Koskela in order to cause the system to be able to ensure an optimal beam or reference signal to be used for beam failure recovery based on measured result of candidate reference signals, thus improving the overall performance of a wireless communication system [e.g., ¶0038 of You].
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svedman et al (US Publication No. 2022/0109547) in view of Koskela et al (US Publication No. 2021/0021320) and further in view of Harris et al (US Publication No. 2017/0118744).
Regarding claim 24, Svedman in view of Koskela teaches, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Syedman in view of Koskela teaches, the MAC CE comprises a field . . . based on the radio link quality of each of the one or more reference signals not satisfying a threshold [see ¶0084 of Koskela, based on RSRP, of candidate beams, sending the new MAC CE indicating the one with the strongest L1-RSRP, see “If no candidates are above the threshold, the UE includes only one candidate in the new MAC CE, e.g. the one with the strongest L1-RSRP, RSRQ, SINR etc”; further see ¶0085, “if no candidates are above the threshold, the UE sends the new MAC CE without indicating any beam”], Syedman in view of Koskela does not explicitly teach (see, italicized limitations), but Harris teaches, the MAC CE comprises a field that is set to a reserved value [¶0060, the sent message requesting this purge may be performed over the uplink MAC CE with a currently reserved index].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Syedman in view of Koskela with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Harris to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Harris into the system of Syedman in view of Koskela would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to minimize signaling overhead by reusing a reserved filed, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeda et al (WO 2017/191834) [FIG. 3 and its related descriptions]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469