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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 02/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 16-18, 26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2022/0295589), hereinafter Tsai.
Regarding Claim 16, Tsai teaches: An apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processing core: “the example WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad/indicators 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and other peripherals 138. It will be appreciated that the WTRU 102 may include any sub-combination of the foregoing elements” (Tsai ¶ 0248), cause the apparatus at least to: determine that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states for at least one first control resource set and with at least one TCI state for at least one second control resource set: “at step 210, UE 200 may be configured with multiple different CORESET pools (e.g., 2) on a serving cell. At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS. At step 214, a second set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a second CORESET pool. At step 215, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the second set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089); and selecting at least one Reference Signal (RS) of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to at least one failure detection resource set and at least one RS of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to the at least one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Regarding Claim 17, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein said selection depends on whether the apparatus is configured, or activated, with one TCI state or more than one TCI state for the at least one second control resource set: “if the active TCI state for PDCCH reception includes two RS, the UE expects that one RS has QCL-TypeD [TS 38.214] and the UE uses the RS with QCL-TypeD for radio link monitoring” (Tsai ¶ 0059), or in other words Tsai teaches selecting for the TCI state for the control resource set when multiple TCI states are configured for a CORESET.
Regarding Claim 18, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein said selection depends on whether the apparatus is configured with one failure detection resource set or more than one failure detection resource set: “UE 200 may be explicitly configured with one or multiple failureDetectionResources sets q.sub.0,i,k i=1 . . . M.sub.k, M.sub.k 1 in a (active) BWP and candidateBeamRSList q.sub.1,i,k i=1 . . . M.sub.k for radio link quality measurements to support beam failure detection (BFD) with multiple TRPs transmission on a component carrier (CC) k, k=1, . . . , N.sub.max, respectively, where M.sub.k denotes the maximum number of links (from different TRP or a same TRP) may be simultaneously supported at a component carrier (CC) k and where N.sub.max denotes the maximum number supported CCs” (Tsai ¶ 0072).
Regarding Claim 26, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the RS is a downlink RS, and the failure detection resource set is a Radio Link Monitoring RS set: “A UE may be configured for each DL BWP of a Special Cell (SpCell), e.g., primary cell (PCell) or primary secondary (PSCell) with a set of resource indexes, through a corresponding set of RadioLinkMonitoringRS, for radio link monitoring by failureDetectionResources. The UE is provided a CSI-RS resource configuration index, by csi-RS-Index, or a SS/PBCH block index, by ssb-Index. The UE may be configured with up to N.sub.LR_RLM RadioLinkMonitoringRS for link recovery procedures, and for radio link monitoring. From the N.sub.LR_RLM RadioLinkMonitoringRS, up to N.sub.RLM RadioLinkMonitoringRS may be used for radio link monitoring depending on a maximum number L.sub.max of candidate SS/PBCH blocks per half frame, and up to two RadioLinkMonitoringRS may be used for link recovery procedures” (Tsai ¶ 0055).
Regarding Claim 29, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is a user equipment or a control device controlling the user equipment: “it is understood that with the wide variety of use cases contemplated for 5G wireless communications, each WTRU may comprise or be embodied in any type of apparatus or device configured to transmit or receive wireless signals, including, by way of example only, user equipment (UE)” (Tsai ¶ 0192).
Regarding Claim 30, Tsai teaches: A method, comprising: determining, by an apparatus, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) states for at least one first control resource set and with at least one TCI state for at least one second control resource set: “at step 210, UE 200 may be configured with multiple different CORESET pools (e.g., 2) on a serving cell. At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS. At step 214, a second set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a second CORESET pool. At step 215, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the second set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089); and selecting, by the apparatus, at least one Reference Signal (RS) of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to at least one failure detection resource set and at least one RS of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to the at least one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Bai et al. (US 11,652,530), hereinafter Bai.
Regarding Claim 19, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16.
Tsai does not teach: wherein the apparatus is further caused at least to select a maximum number of RSs to the at least one failure detection resource set.
Regarding Claim 19, Bai teaches: wherein the apparatus is further caused at least to select a maximum number of RSs to the at least one failure detection resource set: “the set of beam failure detection reference signals is selected further based on a maximum quantity of beam failure detection reference signals” (Bai Claim 25).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Bai for the purpose of improving cell reference signal selection rules. According to Bai: “Based at least in part on using the set of secondary cell reference signal selection rules, the UE enables secondary cell beam failure detection reference signal selection in cases where primary cell reference signal selection rules result in ambiguity when applied to secondary cells. In this way, the UE increases a reliability of communications with the BS relative to only detecting beam failures on primary cells using beam failure detection reference signals selected based at least in part on primary cell reference signal selection rules” (Col 9 Line 61 to Col 10 Line 3).
Claims 20-21 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claims 16 and 30 and further in view of Nilsson et al. (US 2024/0372664), hereinafter Nilsson.
Regarding Claim 20, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, and select a RS of the at least one second control resource set associated with said one TCI state to the failure detection resource set, and select a RS of the at least one first control resource set associated with at least two TCI states to the failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with one TCI state for the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 20, Nilsson teaches: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set: “If implicit per-TRP BFD-RS configuration is not supported for single-DCI based multi-TRP in Rel-17, then there will be only a single BFD-RS set” (Nilsson ¶ 0170), that the apparatus is configured or activated with one TCI state for the at least one second control resource set: “If implicit per-TRP BFD-RS configuration is not supported for single-DCI based multi-TRP in Rel-17, then there will be only a single BFD-RS set . . . (if each TCI state contains two reference signal, the UE will utilize the QCL-TypeD RS)” (Nilsson ¶ 0170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Nilsson for the purpose of enabling dynamic switching. According to Nilsson: “as there could be other areas that may be impacted by not supporting single TRP transmission, there can be undesirable consequences of not supporting dynamic switching. Therefore, dynamic indication of one or two activated TCI may be supported also for the SFN scenario in Rel-17, and it may be beneficial to support dynamic switching between S-TRP and SFNed transmission” (Nilsson ¶ 0164).
Regarding Claim 21, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16 wherein the apparatus is further caused at least to: select a RS per each control resource set to the failure detection resource set: “UE 200 determines the set q.sub.0,0,k (index i=0) to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets configured or indicated (e.g. by RRC or MAC CE) by TCI-State for respective CORESETs with coresetPoolIndex-r16 equal to p0 (p0 may be 0 or 1) that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH and, if there are two RS indexes in a TCI state, the set q.sub.0,0,k includes RS indexes with QCL-TypeD configuration for the corresponding TCI states. And UE 200 determines the set q.sub.0,1,k (index i=1) to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets configured or indicated (e.g. by RRC or MAC CE) by TCI-State for respective CORESETs with coresetPoolIndex-r16 equal to p1 (p1 (≠p0) may be 1 or 0) that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH and, if there are two RS indexes in a TCI state, the set q.sub.0,1,k includes RS indexes with QCL-TypeD configuration for the corresponding TCI states” (Tsai ¶ 0088).
Tsai does not teach: wherein the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two active TCI states for the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 21, Nilsson teaches: wherein the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two active TCI states for the at least one second control resource set: “When two TCI states are activated for a CORESET, it may thus be beneficial to support inclusion of reference signals used as QCL sources in the two activated TCI states as BFD-RSs in the single BFD-RS set q.sub.0. If the activated TCI states contains two reference signals, the UE may use the reference signals configured with QCL-TypeD” (Nilsson ¶ 171).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Nilsson for the purpose of enabling dynamic switching. According to Nilsson: “as there could be other areas that may be impacted by not supporting single TRP transmission, there can be undesirable consequences of not supporting dynamic switching. Therefore, dynamic indication of one or two activated TCI may be supported also for the SFN scenario in Rel-17, and it may be beneficial to support dynamic switching between S-TRP and SFNed transmission” (Nilsson ¶ 0164).
Regarding Claim 31, Tsai teaches: The method according to claim 16, and selecting a RS of the at least one second control resource set associated with said one TCI state to the failure detection resource set, and selecting a RS of the at least one first control resource set associated with at least two TCI states to the failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with one TCI state for the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 31, Nilsson teaches: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set: “If implicit per-TRP BFD-RS configuration is not supported for single-DCI based multi-TRP in Rel-17, then there will be only a single BFD-RS set” (Nilsson ¶ 0170), that the apparatus is configured or activated with one TCI state for the at least one second control resource set: : “If implicit per-TRP BFD-RS configuration is not supported for single-DCI based multi-TRP in Rel-17, then there will be only a single BFD-RS set . . . (if each TCI state contains two reference signal, the UE will utilize the QCL-TypeD RS)” (Nilsson ¶ 0170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Nilsson for the purpose of enabling dynamic switching. According to Nilsson: “as there could be other areas that may be impacted by not supporting single TRP transmission, there can be undesirable consequences of not supporting dynamic switching. Therefore, dynamic indication of one or two activated TCI may be supported also for the SFN scenario in Rel-17, and it may be beneficial to support dynamic switching between S-TRP and SFNed transmission” (Nilsson ¶ 0164).
Regarding Claim 32, Tsai teaches: The method according to claim 30 further comprising: selecting a RS per each control resource set to the failure detection resource set: “UE 200 determines the set q.sub.0,0,k (index i=0) to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets configured or indicated (e.g. by RRC or MAC CE) by TCI-State for respective CORESETs with coresetPoolIndex-r16 equal to p0 (p0 may be 0 or 1) that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH and, if there are two RS indexes in a TCI state, the set q.sub.0,0,k includes RS indexes with QCL-TypeD configuration for the corresponding TCI states. And UE 200 determines the set q.sub.0,1,k (index i=1) to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets configured or indicated (e.g. by RRC or MAC CE) by TCI-State for respective CORESETs with coresetPoolIndex-r16 equal to p1 (p1 (≠p0) may be 1 or 0) that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH and, if there are two RS indexes in a TCI state, the set q.sub.0,1,k includes RS indexes with QCL-TypeD configuration for the corresponding TCI states” (Tsai ¶ 0088).
Tsai does not teach: further comprising: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two active TCI states for the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 32, Nilsson teaches: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two active TCI states for the at least one second control resource set: “When two TCI states are activated for a CORESET, it may thus be beneficial to support inclusion of reference signals used as QCL sources in the two activated TCI states as BFD-RSs in the single BFD-RS set q.sub.0. If the activated TCI states contains two reference signals, the UE may use the reference signals configured with QCL-TypeD” (Nilsson ¶ 171).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Nilsson for the purpose of enabling dynamic switching. According to Nilsson: “as there could be other areas that may be impacted by not supporting single TRP transmission, there can be undesirable consequences of not supporting dynamic switching. Therefore, dynamic indication of one or two activated TCI may be supported also for the SFN scenario in Rel-17, and it may be beneficial to support dynamic switching between S-TRP and SFNed transmission” (Nilsson ¶ 0164).
Claims 22-25, 27, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claims 16 and 30 and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2023/0144010), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding Claim 22, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, and select a RS of the at least one second control resource set associated with said one TCI state to the failure detection resource set, and select at least one RS of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to a failure detection resource set, and select at least one RS of the at least second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to another failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine that the apparatus is configured with more than one failure detection resource set.
Regarding Claim 22, Kwak teaches: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine that the apparatus is configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 23, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, and select at least one RS of one of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to one failure detection resource set first, and then select at least one RS of one of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to said one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set, that at least one of the at least one first control resource set has a same control resource set pool index as at least one of the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 23, Kwak teaches: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143), that at least one of the at least one first control resource set has a same control resource set pool index as at least one of the at least one second control resource set: “If each TCI state associated with a BFD-RS set, an NCB-RS set, an UL resource set and one or more CORESETs associated with search space set includes at most one PCID (i.e., a single PCID or no PCID), the WTRU may consider such condition as an indication of a second mode of operation (e.g., single-cell BFR)” (Kwak ¶ 0194) and “Herein, physical cell identities (PCIDs) may be interchangeably used with TRP IDs, panel IDs, CORESET group IDs, CORESET pool IDs and higher layer indexes” (Kwak ¶ 0135).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 24, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16, and select at least one RS of one of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to one failure detection resource set first, and then select at least one RS of one of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to said one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two TCI states for at least two first control resource sets and with one TCI state for at least two second control resource sets.
Regarding Claim 24, Kwak teaches: the apparatus is further caused at least to: determine, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143), that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two TCI states for at least two first control resource sets and with one TCI state for at least two second control resource sets: “The WTRU may set RSs of multiple TCI states as RSs of a BFD resource. The WTRU may determine orders of the RSs of a BFD resource based on associations between the TCI states and CORESETs (e.g., based on CORESET pool IDs of the TCI states). For example, the WTRU may set an RS of a first of the multiple TCI states as a first RS of a BFD resource based on the first TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a first CORESET pool ID or no CORESET pool ID. The WTRU may set an RS of a second of the multiple TCI states as a second RS of the BFD resource based on the second TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a second CORESET pool ID” (Kwak ¶ 0423).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 25, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16.
Tsai does not teach: wherein the RS is a downlink RS, and the failure detection resource set is a Beam Failure Detection RS set.
Regarding Claim 25, Kwak teaches: the RS is a downlink RS: “the first information indicates a downlink resource set for each of the first and second sets of reference signals” (Kwak Claim 4), and the failure detection resource set is a Beam Failure Detection RS set: “A WTRU may be configured with one or more sets of beam failure detection (BFD) RSs (each a “BFD-RS set”). For example, the WTRU may be configured with one or more RS-indexes sets q.sub.0,i corresponding to the one or more BFD-RS sets” (Kwak ¶ 0144).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 27, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16.
Tsai does not teach: the second control resource set is associated with one RS and a first physical cell identifier, and the first control resource set is associated with two RSs, and a first of said two RSs is further associated with the first physical cell identifier, and a second of said two RSs is further associated with a second physical cell identifier, and a first failure detection resource set has the RSs associated with the first physical cell identifier, and a second failure detection resource set has the RS associated with the second physical cell identifier.
Regarding Claim 27, Kwak teaches: the second control resource set is associated with one RS and a first physical cell identifier: “physical cell identities (PCIDs) may be interchangeably used with TRP IDs, panel IDs, CORESET group IDs, CORESET pool IDs and higher layer indexes” (Kwak ¶ 0135) and “The WTRU may determine one or more RSs in one or more TCI states associated to a first CORESET group (of the CORESET groups) as a first BFD-RS set, one or more RSs in one or more TCI states associated to a second CORESET group (of the CORESET groups) as a second BFD-RS set, and so on” (Kwak ¶ 0149), and the first control resource set is associated with two RSs, and a first of said two RSs is further associated with the first physical cell identifier, and a second of said two RSs is further associated with a second physical cell identifier: “The WTRU may set RSs of multiple TCI states as RSs of a BFD resource. The WTRU may determine orders of the RSs of a BFD resource based on associations between the TCI states and CORESETs (e.g., based on CORESET pool IDs of the TCI states). For example, the WTRU may set an RS of a first of the multiple TCI states as a first RS of a BFD resource based on the first TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a first CORESET pool ID or no CORESET pool ID. The WTRU may set an RS of a second of the multiple TCI states as a second RS of the BFD resource based on the second TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a second CORESET pool ID” (Kwak ¶ 0423), and a first failure detection resource set has the RSs associated with the first physical cell identifier, and a second failure detection resource set has the RS associated with the second physical cell identifier: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may determine one or more BFD-RS sets based on or using RSs (e.g., one or more RSs of one or more TCI states) that are associated to one or more CORESET groups. For example, the WTRU may determine one or more RSs in one or more TCI states associated to a first CORESET group (of the CORESET groups) as a first BFD-RS set, one or more RSs in one or more TCI states associated to a second CORESET group (of the CORESET groups) as a second BFD-RS set, and so on” (Kwak ¶ 0149).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 33, Tsai teaches: The method according to claim 30, and selecting at least one RS of one of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to one failure detection resource set first, and then select at least one RS of one of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to said one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: further comprising: determining that the apparatus is configured with more than one failure detection resource set.
Regarding Claim 33, Kwak teaches: further comprising: determining that the apparatus is configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 34, Tsai teaches: The method according to claim 30, and selecting at least one RS of one of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to one failure detection resource set first, and then select at least one RS of one of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to said one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: further comprising: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set, that at least one of the at least one first control resource set has a same control resource set pool index as at least one of the at least one second control resource set.
Regarding Claim 34, Kwak teaches: further comprising: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143), that at least one of the at least one first control resource set has a same control resource set pool index as at least one of the at least one second control resource set: “If each TCI state associated with a BFD-RS set, an NCB-RS set, an UL resource set and one or more CORESETs associated with search space set includes at most one PCID (i.e., a single PCID or no PCID), the WTRU may consider such condition as an indication of a second mode of operation (e.g., single-cell BFR)” (Kwak ¶ 0194) and “Herein, physical cell identities (PCIDs) may be interchangeably used with TRP IDs, panel IDs, CORESET group IDs, CORESET pool IDs and higher layer indexes” (Kwak ¶ 0135).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Regarding Claim 35, Tsai teaches: The method according to claim 30, and selecting at least one RS of one of the at least one second control resource set associated with the at least one TCI state to one failure detection resource set first, and then select at least one RS of one of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states to said one failure detection resource set: “If UE 200 is not provided any failureDetectionResources, (e.g., implicit configuration for BFD) at a CC k then UE 200 may determine the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0087), “At step 211, UE 200 may be configured or indicated with TCI states for CORESETS on the serving cell. At step 212, a first set of BFD RS may be implicitly determined from RS in TCI states for CORESET(s) in a first CORESET pool. At step 213, UE 200 may perform BFD based on the first set of BFD RS” (Tsai ¶ 0089), and “The implicitly configuring options may include: UE configuring the failureDetectionResources set q.sub.0,i,k, i=1 . . . M.sub.k at a CC k to include periodic CSI-RS resource configuration indexes with same values as the RS indexes in the RS sets indicated by TCI-state for respective CORESETs that UE 200 uses for monitoring PDCCH” (Tsai ¶ 0268 ). In other words, Tsai teaches the UE being indicated with TCI states for CORESETS, but not explicitly indicated with failure detection resources, and thus Tsai’s UE implicitly configures a failure detection resource set from the CORESETs in a first CORESET pool by selecting reference signals indicated by the TCI resource configuration indexes/RS indexes. The CORESETs would be the first CORESET configured with at least two TCIs and the second CORESET configured with at least one TCI as seen above.
Tsai does not teach: further comprising: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set, that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two TCI states for at least two first control resource sets and with one TCI state for at least two second control resource sets.
Regarding Claim 35, Kwak teaches: the method further comprising: determining, upon determining the apparatus being configured with more than one failure detection resource set: “In various embodiments, the WTRU may be configured with a first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) and a second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) to support two cells that may be configured for any of single cell and multiple cell modes of operation. The first BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,1) may be associated with a serving cell. The second BFD-RS set (e.g., q.sub.0,2) may be associated with a non-serving cell” (Kwak ¶ 0143), that the apparatus is configured or activated with at least two TCI states for at least two first control resource sets and with one TCI state for at least two second control resource sets: “The WTRU may set RSs of multiple TCI states as RSs of a BFD resource. The WTRU may determine orders of the RSs of a BFD resource based on associations between the TCI states and CORESETs (e.g., based on CORESET pool IDs of the TCI states). For example, the WTRU may set an RS of a first of the multiple TCI states as a first RS of a BFD resource based on the first TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a first CORESET pool ID or no CORESET pool ID. The WTRU may set an RS of a second of the multiple TCI states as a second RS of the BFD resource based on the second TCI state including (and/or being associated with) a second CORESET pool ID” (Kwak ¶ 0423).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Kwak for the purpose of enabling mobility between multiple beams. According to Kwak: “Beam management may enable mobility between the multiple beams with a lightweight process that does not require RRC reconfiguration. BFR may support a dynamic recovery mechanism when the beams at a base station and a WTRU become misaligned. However, when mobility between multiple cells is needed, L1 and/or L2 based beam management and BFR are not supported and mobility between multiple cells requires a handover procedure with RRC reconfiguration that requires a large amount of signaling overhead and increases latency. In order to reduce the overhead and the latency, L1/L2 based inter-cell mobility may be considered” (Kwak ¶ 0108).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0302989), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 28, Tsai teaches: The apparatus according to claim 16.
Tsai does not teach: the at least one RS of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states is an RS of a Quasi Co-Location, QCL, type comprising spatial receiver parameters.
Regarding Claim 28, Zhang teaches: the at least one RS of the at least one first control resource set associated with the at least two TCI states is an RS of a Quasi Co-Location, QCL, type comprising spatial receiver parameters: “In some embodiments, if a DL RS is not configured (e.g., not configured by RRC signaling or configured as a CSI-RS or SSB), a DL RS configured for a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state for a CORESET (e.g., for each CORESET having the same CORESET-poolIndex) could be used for beam failure detection. Here, for example, if there are two DL RS configured in a TCI state, the one configured with QCL-typeD (e.g., spatial receiver (Rx) parameters) can be used” (Zhang ¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Tsai with Zhang for the purpose of solving issues with detecting beam failure. According to Zhang: “issues may include how to detect the beam failure between a gNB and UE, how to detect the new candidate beam (e.g., candidate beam detection, CBD) between a gNB and UE, and how to report the beam failure event (beam failure recovery request, BFRQ) when beam failure is declared” (Zhang ¶ 0016).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473