DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 8, the elements labeled “104”, “108”, and “112” should be changed to “804”, “808”, and “812” to match the description in [0141] of the specification.
At the bottom of decision block 1514 of Figure 15, the two “yes” branches should be changed to a “yes” and a “no”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (US 2022/0109489).
Regarding claim 1: Zhu discloses a method comprising:
receiving beam failure detection reference signals on a plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the BFD RSs received by the UE at the top of Figure 11A, for example; the BFD RSs are part of BFD RS beam sets q0 and q1 described starting in [0114], for example; as indicated in Figures 6A, 7A, and 8-10, the beams discussed throughout are BPLs or beam pair links and as indicated in [0103], for example, the BPLs each have corresponding BFD RSs);
detecting beam failure on at least some of the plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the example in the second block of Figure 11A in which the UE declares a beam failure corresponding to one of the BFD RSs; see also [0155], for example); and
responsive to a quantity of beam pair links on which the beam failure has been detected exceeding a predetermined quantity of beam pair links and being less than a total quantity of the plurality of beam pair links, establishing a new beam pair link on a candidate beam (disclosed throughout; see [0157], which indicates that if the UE detects a beam failure on a number of links exceeding a predetermined quantity (at least one), the UE initiates/triggers BFR by transmitting a BFRQ; further, as indicated in [0106], for example, the UE triggers beam failure recovery (BFR) when a subset of the beams have failed (the subset is less than a total quantity of the beams); further, as indicated in Figure 11B and [0185]-[0186], the BFRQ (and the corresponding BFRR) established a new beam).
Regarding claim 7: Zhu a discloses device comprising:
at least one processor (disclosed throughout; see processor 340 of Figure 3, for example); and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing programming, the programming including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the device to perform operations including (disclosed throughout; see memory 360 of Figure 3, for example; as indicted in [0062]-[0063], for example, the memory stores instructions such as the OS and applications to perform the UE’s functions):
receiving beam failure detection reference signals on a plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the BFD RSs received by the UE at the top of Figure 11A, for example; the BFD RSs are part of BFD RS beam sets q0 and q1 described starting in [0114], for example; as indicated in Figures 6A, 7A, and 8-10, the beams discussed throughout are BPLs or beam pair links and as indicated in [0103], for example, the BPLs each have corresponding BFD RSs); and
detecting beam failure on at least some of the plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the example in the second block of Figure 11A in which the UE declares a beam failure corresponding to one of the BFD RSs; see also [0155], for example); and
responsive to a quantity of beam pair links on which the beam failure has been detected exceeding a predetermined quantity of beam pair links and being less than a total quantity of the plurality of beam pair links, establishing a new beam pair link on a candidate beam (disclosed throughout; see [0157], which indicates that if the UE detects a beam failure on a number of links exceeding a predetermined quantity (at least one), the UE initiates/triggers BFR by transmitting a BFRQ; further, as indicated in [0106], for example, the UE triggers beam failure recovery (BFR) when a subset of the beams have failed (the subset is less than a total quantity of the beams); further, as indicated in Figure 11B and [0185]-[0186], the BFRQ (and the corresponding BFRR) established a new beam).
Regarding claim 13: Zhu discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations including (disclosed throughout; see memory 360 of Figure 3, for example; as indicted in [0062]-[0063], for example, the memory stores instructions such as the OS and applications to perform the UE’s functions):
receiving beam failure detection reference signals on a plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the BFD RSs received by the UE at the top of Figure 11A, for example; the BFD RSs are part of BFD RS beam sets q0 and q1 described starting in [0114], for example; as indicated in Figures 6A, 7A, and 8-10, the beams discussed throughout are BPLs or beam pair links and as indicated in [0103], for example, the BPLs each have corresponding BFD RSs); and
detecting beam failure on at least some of the plurality of beam pair links (disclosed throughout; see the example in the second block of Figure 11A in which the UE declares a beam failure corresponding to one of the BFD RSs; see also [0155], for example); and
responsive to a quantity of beam pair links on which the beam failure has been detected exceeding a predetermined quantity of beam pair links and being less than a total quantity of the plurality of beam pair links, establishing a new beam pair link on a candidate beam (disclosed throughout; see [0157], which indicates that if the UE detects a beam failure on a number of links exceeding a predetermined quantity (at least one), the UE initiates/triggers BFR by transmitting a BFRQ; further, as indicated in [0106], for example, the UE triggers beam failure recovery (BFR) when a subset of the beams have failed (the subset is less than a total quantity of the beams); further, as indicated in Figure 11B and [0185]-[0186], the BFRQ (and the corresponding BFRR) established a new beam).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15: Zhu discloses the limitations of selecting the candidate beam among a plurality of candidate beams (disclosed throughout; see the box at the top of Figure 11B, which indicates that the UE selects (identifies) a new beam from q1-2 (the candidate beams)).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17: Zhu discloses the limitations of transmitting a report indicating the beam failure on the quantity of beam pair links on which the beam failure has been detected (disclosed throughout; see [0158], for example, which discloses transmitting a report (such as the BFRI) indicating a beam failure on the beams/BPLs on which the beam failure has been detected).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18: Zhu discloses the limitations of receiving control signaling indicating directions for the plurality of candidate beams (disclosed throughout; see the new beam identification (NBI) RSs and [0166], for example, which indicates that the indications of the new beams can be signaled by the network via higher layer signaling such as RRC/MAC CE/DCI; this information enables the UE to measure the candidate new beams and thus indicates the directions of these candidate beams).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 2022/0109489) in view of Zhou et al (US 2023/0076253).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14: Zhu discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 7, and 13 as indicated above. Zhu further discloses that the detecting of the beam failure is based on a BFI (beam failure instance) count exceeding a threshold within a given time period (see Figure 11A and [0155], for example). However, Zhu does not disclose that this BFI count is a count of consecutive beam failure instances and thus Zhu does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claims 2, 8, and 14 that the detecting the beam failure comprises: detecting, based on measuring the beam failure detection reference signals for a given beam pair link among the plurality of beam pair links, a plurality of consecutive beam failure instances. Consider Zhou, for example, which discloses in [0102] that a beam failure is detected based at least in part on the number of consecutive BFIs meeting or exceeding a consecutive BFI threshold. See also [0087], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhu to utilize the number of consecutive BFIs when determining whether to declare a beam failure as suggested by Zhou. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a more accurate detection of beam failure by reducing the likelihood that temporary interference triggers a beam failure and declaring a beam failure sooner when a relatively large number of consecutive BFIs is detected as suggested by Zhou in [0087], for example.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (US 2022/0109489) in view of Zhang et al (US 11,855,735).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16: Zhu discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 7, and 13 as indicated above. Zhu further discloses multiple TRPs transmitting the beam pair links (see the TRPs in Figures 10 and 11, for example). However, Zhu is silent regarding whether the TRPs are non-terrestrial network elements and thus does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 13 that the plurality of beam pair links are terrestrial beam pair links, and the new beam pair link is a non-terrestrial beam pair link. However, Zhang discloses a similar system that performs beam failure recovery (see title, for example). Further, in Zhang, the network may include both terrestrial and non-terrestrial access points. For example, consider APs 112 and 116 of Figure 1. As indicated in 4:31-50, AP 112 is a non-terrestrial AP and AP 116 is a terrestrial AP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a non-terrestrial TRP as one of the TRPs in Zhu. In Zhu modified in this way, the beam pair links may be terrestrial beam pair links and the new beam pair link may be a non-terrestrial beam pair link. The rationale for doing so would have been to “increase desired connectivity through a relatively large geographical range” as suggested by Zhang in 4:51-56, for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koskela et al (US 12,445,879) discloses a method for indicating beam failure in multiple TRP operation.
Zhou et al (US 12,395,866) discloses a method for determining a beam failure instance count for beam failure detection.
Zhu et al (US 2022/0360314) discloses a method for recovering from beam failure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights