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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 05/11/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 02/11/2026. Independent Claims 10 and 12-14 are amended. Claim 11 is canceled.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims, drawings and specification have overcome each and every objection set forth in the office action mailed 02/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 with respect to independent Claims 10 and 12-14 (as amended) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues (page 10-11), . . . “independent claim 10 has been amended to recite, in part:
(i) "a processor that controls, based on the configuration, to transmit an enhanced beam failure recovery medium access control element (BFR MAC CE) in message of a random access procedure,"
(ii) "wherein the enhanced BFR MAC CE includes a TRP notification field corresponding to an index of the specific cell, and the TRP corresponds to a set of beam failure detection reference signals (BFD-RSs)," and
(iii) "wherein the TRP notification field indicates presence of a candidate beam availability indication field (AC field), and the AC field indicates presence of a candidate RS-ID field in a corresponding octet." [emphasis added by Applicant]
Applicant respectfully asserts that Agiwal fails to disclose at least these limitations as arranged.”
Applicant further argues (page 12), “Agiwal remains silent with respect to a TRP notification field corresponding to an index of the specific cell as required by the above-referenced limitation (ii). [and] . . . Agiwal does not disclose that a TRP notification field indicates the presence of the AC field, as required by and arranged in limitation (iii) of amended independent claim 10.”
Response to Main Argument: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP §2111. See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, the examiner using ¶0234-0236 and other citations herein, and under BRI, interprets the BFR MAC CE to contain a bitmap where each corresponds to a serving cell/ corresponding to SCell of the TRP BFR. An assignment of “1” under AC, cited herein is interpreted to correspond to an “AC field” in the amended claims indicative that a candidate beam is available (¶0236). For further illustration, FIG. 10 and 11 at 1000 and 1100 include a bitmap where each bitmap corresponds to a servicing cell and the serving cell index is associated with FIG. 10/11.
Further, examiner interprets applicant’s use of the transitional phrase “comprising” in the preamble of independent Claims 10, 12-14 is to indicate a lack of specific sequential language and therefore, the limitations cited in Claims 10, 12-14, as amended, do not require a particular order.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejection of independent Claims 10 and 12-14 under 35 USC §102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AGIWAL et al. US 20220046441 A1, hereinafter AGIWAL.
Regarding Claim 10, AGIWAL teaches [a] terminal (FIG. 20, UE 2000/ “terminal”) comprising:
a receiver (transceiver, 2020) that receives a configuration regarding beam failure detection in a unit of transmission/reception point (TRP) corresponding to a specific cell (AGIWAL, ¶0347, a set 0/pool 0/list 0 of BFD RSs corresponds to set 0/pool 0/list 0 of candidate beam RSs / “a configuration regarding BFD”; see also ¶0237, RSs of the TRP of SCell (“specific cell” for which beam failure recovery is initiated, indicate which TRP has failed in BFR MAC CE; ) and
a processor (Processor, 2010) that controls, based on the configuration, to transmit an enhanced beam failure recovery medium access control control element (BFR MAC CE) in message of a random access procedure (AGIWAL, FIG. 11, ¶0507, the UE generates the BFR MAC CE and transmit the MAC PDU including BFR MAC CE to the gNB/ base station . . . ¶0511, the UE triggers random access procedure on SpCell . . . ¶0512, [UE] transmit the MAC PDU including BFR MAC CE to a gNB in MsgA or Msg3 during the random access procedure . . .; see also ¶0234, the enhanced format BFR MAC CE 1000, 1100 is generated by the UE/” terminal”),
wherein the enhanced BFR MAC CE includes a TRP notification field corresponding to an index of the specific cell (AGIWAL, ¶0234, set bit corresponding to SCell of TRP for which beam failure is detected to one ¶0236, [i]ndicate[s] BFR is for TRP of a serving cell (set T=1) . . . ¶0137 . . . indicate[s] which TRP has failed in BFR MAC CE. (AC=0, T=1, TRP ID, R bits), examiner interprets T and TRP ID to correspond to “TRP notification field”; ¶0234 TRP sequentially indexed entries), and
the TRP corresponds to a set of beam failure detection reference signals (BFD-RSs) (AGIWAL, ¶0347-0348, Set 0/pool 0/list 0 of BFD RSs corresponds to set 0/pool 0/list 0 of candidate beam RSs, set 1/pool 1/list 1 of BFD RSs corresponds to set 1/pool 1/list 1 of candidate beam RSs; TRP or transmission point to a set of BFD-RSs / RS resources used for BFD), and
wherein the TRP notification field indicates presence of a candidate beam availability indication field (AC field) (AGIWAL, FIG. 6, BFR MAC CE, AC is a control field included per failed TRP; ¶0211, [a]dd BFR information for each set/pool of BFD RSs for which beam failure is detected (i.e., one AC octet for each set/pool of BFD RSs); ¶0535, C sub i (BFR MAC CE) indicates the presence of octet(s) containing the AC field for the SCell with ServCellIndex I ), and
the AC field indicates presence of a candidate RS-ID field in a corresponding octet (AGIWAL, FIG. 10/11, ¶0238, include candidate RS ID of TRP in BFR MAC CE (AC=1, T=1, Candidate RS ID; ¶0258, set bit corresponding to SCell of TRP for which beam failure is detected to one; ¶0535, C sub i (BFR MAC CE) indicates the presence of octet(s) containing the AC field for the SCell with ServCellIndex I).
Regarding Claim 12, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 10 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 10, in method form (AGIWAL, a radio communication method for a terminal (FIG. 6-8, a method performed by a user equipment (UE)/ “terminal”); ¶0048, disclosure applicable to 3GPP new radio (NR) or 5G mobile communication standards; ¶0058; see also FIG. 10-11, ¶0234, the enhanced format BFR MAC CE 1000, 1100 is generated by the UE/ ”terminal”)).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 10, and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 10 (AGIWAL, a base station (FIG. 21, base station, 2100) comprising: a transmitter (Transceiver, 2120) and a processor (FIG. 20, Processor 2110).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 10, and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 10 (AGIWAL, Abstract; FIG. 3, disclosed throughout, a system (FIG. 3, 300 wireless network / wireless communication system / “system”) comprising a terminal (FIG. 20, UE 2000 /” terminal” and a base station (FIG. 21, base station 2100)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights