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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 16, 20, 22, 26, 31, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al (US 2023/0032365 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No. 11,843,559 B2).
Regarding claims 16 and 35, Bai discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Fig. 2, UE 120), comprising: at least one memory (Fig. 2, memory 282); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 2, processor 280 coupled with memory 282) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a configuration of two physical uplink control channel scheduling request (PUCCH-SR) resources for beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) transmission for a cell group (115th paragraph, UE may be configured with two PUCCH-SR resources per cell group for TRP BFR) when two beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) sets (Fig. 8, 105th, and 107th paragraphs, UE may receive a set of BFD-RSs associated with the first TRP 805 and a set of BFD-RSs associated with second TRP 805 and/or Fig. 3, beam set q0 310 and another beam set q0 of TRPs, illustrated in Fig. 8) and two new beam indication reference signal (NBI-RS) sets (Fig. 8, 105th and 119th paragraphs, UE may receive a set of NBI-RSs associated with the first TRP 805 and a set of NBI-RSs associated with second TRP 805) are configured for a cell of the cell group (Fig. 8), wherein there is one-to-one association between the two PUCCH-SR resources and the two BFD-RS sets (115th paragraph, network may configure an association between a PUCCH-SR resource and a BFD-RSs set), and there is one-to-one association between the two BFD-RS sets and the two NBI-RS sets (101st paragraph, sets of BFD-RSs may have one-to-one associations with sets of NBF-RSs);
transmit, in response to one of the two BFD-RS sets failing, a BFRQ in one PUCCH-SR resource of the two PUCCH-SR resources according to an association between the two PUCCH-SR resources and the two BFD-RS sets (116th paragraph, UE may transmit the SR in an uplink resource that is selected by the UE from multiple uplink resources that are not associated with the failed set of BFD-RSs carrying BFR request).
Bai does not disclose transmit a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) to indicate an index of the failed BFD-RS set and information of a new beam found in an NBI-RS set associated with the failed BFD-RS set. Zhang discloses that the UE may utilize MAC CE to report failed BFD-RS set index and a new beam identified from the CBD RS set (72nd paragraph. Herein, CBD RS set is associated with the failed BFD-RS set). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to report failed BFD-RS index and new beam in Bai’s system, as suggested by Zhang, to address beam failure.
Regarding claim 20, Bai discloses that wherein, in response to both of the two BFD-RS sets failing (Fig. 3, beam measurements 312 and 316 from first beam set q0 310 and second beam set q0 are less than Qout), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: perform a random access (RA) procedure (Fig. 3, RACH is triggered for selected beam 326 and 328), wherein the RA procedure is a contention-free random access channel (CF-RACH) procedure when one or more CF-RACH resources are configured for the cell (65th paragraph, UE initiate random access procedure using a random access resource) and a new beam associated with one CF-RACH resource is found (Fig. 3, in block 326, RACH is triggered for a new beam having threshold above Qin).
Regarding claims 22 and 31, Bai discloses that wherein in response to both of the two BFD-RS sets failing (Fig. 3, beam measurements 312 and 316 from first beam set q0 310 and second beam set q0 are less than Qout), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: perform a random access (RA) procedure (Fig. 3, RACH is triggered for selected beam 326 and 328), wherein the RA procedure is a contention-based random access channel (CB-RACH) procedure when no contention-free (CF)-RACH resource is configured (Fig. 3, CBRA is performed. In contention based random access, no CF-RACH is configured) or one or more CF-RACH resources are configured while no new beam associated with the one or more CF-RACH resources is found (alternative).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Bai discloses a base station (BS) for wireless communication (8th paragraph, base station), comprising:
at least one memory (8th paragraph, base station includes a memory); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (8th paragraph, base station includes one or more processors) and configured to cause the BS to:
a processor for wireless communication (Fig. 2, UE 120), comprising:
transmit a configuration of two physical uplink control channel scheduling request (PUCCH-SR) resources for beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) transmission for a cell group (115th paragraph, UE may be configured with two PUCCH-SR resources per cell group for TRP BFR) when two beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) sets (Fig. 8, 105th, and 107th paragraphs, UE may receive a set of BFD-RSs associated with the first TRP 805 and a set of BFD-RSs associated with second TRP 805 and/or Fig. 3, beam set q0 310 and another beam set q0 of TRPs, illustrated in Fig. 8) and two new beam indication reference signal (NBI-RS) sets (Fig. 8, 105th and 119th paragraphs, UE may receive a set of NBI-RSs associated with the first TRP 805 and a set of NBI-RSs associated with second TRP 805) are configured for a cell of the cell group (Fig. 8), wherein there is one-to-one association between the two PUCCH-SR resources and the two BFD-RS sets (115th paragraph, network may configure an association between a PUCCH-SR resource and a BFD-RSs set), and there is a one-to-one association between the two BFD-RS sets and the two NBI-RS sets (101st paragraph, sets of BFD-RSs may have one-to-one associations with sets of NBF-RSs);
receive, in response to one of the two BFD-RS sets failing, a BFRQ in one PUCCH-SR resource of the two PUCCH-SR resources according to an association between the two PUCCH-SR resources and the two BFD-RS sets (116th paragraph, UE may transmit the SR in an uplink resource that is selected by the UE from multiple uplink resources that are not associated with the failed set of BFD-RSs carrying BFR request).
Bai does not disclose receive a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) to indicate an index of the failed BFD-RS set and information of a new beam found in an NBI-RS set associated with the failed BFD-RS set. Zhang discloses that the UE may utilize MAC CE to report failed BFD-RS set index and a new beam identified from the CBD RS set (72nd paragraph. Herein, CBD RS set is associated with the failed BFD-RS set). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to report failed BFD-RS index and new beam in Bai’s system, as suggested by Zhang, to address beam failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19, 21, 23-25, 27-30, and 32-33 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-33, 35, and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states in page 11 that some features of allowable dependent claim 19 have been incorporated into independent claims 16, 26, 35, and 36. Applicant believes that the features of independent claims are allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see new ground of rejection above. All the features of claim 19 have not incorporated into independent claims therefore this action is made final.
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 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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights