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
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convida Wireless (“On Multi-TRP BFR”; R1-2105590) in view of Huawei et al. (“Summary of remaining issues on beam failure recovery”; R1-1803637).
Regarding claim 9, Convida Wireless teaches “[a] terminal comprising: a receiver that receives a configuration indicating a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) set” (see p. 2, lines 21 and 22; UE (i.e., terminal) determines the BFD-RS set from the RS sets, where the RS sets are indicated (i.e., the terminal receives) by the RRC IE TCI-State (i.e., configuration) for the CORESETs; UEs (terminal) comprise receivers; thus, a terminal comprises a receiver that receives a configuration indicating a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) set); and
Convida Wireless further teaches “a processor that determines that two BFD-RSs included in the BFD-RS set . . . of a control resource set (CORESET) associated with two transmission configuration indication (TCI) states” (see p. 2, lines 12-16, 18, 19, and 21 – 23; BFD in the context of a CORESET with two activated TCI states was discussed and it was agreed that the total number of RSs (i.e., BFD-RSs) in two BFD-RS sets per DL BWP is a UE capability and since this UE capability is introduced, there is no need to introduce an additional UE capability for the number RS per BFD-RS set; UEs comprise processors; therefore, the terminal comprises processor that can determine number of BFD-RSs included in the BFD-RS set).
Convida Wireless does not explicitly teach BFD-RSs “are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)” of claim 9. However, foregoing limitation was well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Huawei teaches BFD-RSs “are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)” (see p. 1, line 32; all the beam failure detection RS (i.e. BFD-RS) should be QCLed with DMRS of PDCCH; thus, the BFD-RSs (included in the BFD-RS set) are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Convida Wireless to incorporate the teachings of Huawei to have a BFD-RSs that are QCLed with a DMRS of CORESET with two TCI states. The suggestion to do so would have been to implement the agreed upon standards for telecommunications (see p. 1, line 17 of Huawei).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Convida Wireless and Huawei teaches the apparatus of claim 9 and further teach “wherein the processor assesses one radio link quality for the CORESET, based on the two TCI states” (p. 2, line 1 Agreement, and lines 25 – 26 of Convida Wireless; physical layer in the UE assesses the radio link quality per BFD-RS set; since the BFD-RS set can be for a CORESET with two activated TCI states, the UE is at least implicitly assessing the radio link quality based on the two TCI states; thus, the terminal assesses one radio link quality for the CORESET, based on the two TCI states).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 9 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 9. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Convida Wireless teaches “[a] base station comprising: a transmitter that transmits a configuration indicating a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) set” (see p. 2, lines 21 and 22; UE determines the BFD-RS set from the RS sets, where the RS sets are indicated (i.e., the base station transmits) by the RRC IE TCI-State (i.e., configuration) for the CORESETs; base stations comprise transmitters; thus, a base station comprising a transmitter transmits a configuration indicating a beam failure detection reference signal (BFD-RS) set); and
Convida Wireless further teaches “a processor that determines that two BFD-RSs included in the BFD-RS set . . . of a control resource set (CORESET) associated with two transmission configuration indication (TCI) states” (see p. 2, lines 12-16, 18, 19, and 21 – 23; BFD in the context of a CORESET with two activated TCI states was discussed and it was agreed that the total number of RSs (i.e., BFD-RSs) in two BFD-RS sets per DL BWP is a UE capability and since this UE capability is introduced, there is no need to introduce an additional UE capability for the number RS per BFD-RS set; base station comprises processors; therefore, the base station can determine number of BFD-RSs included in the BFD-RS set).
Convida Wireless does not explicitly teach BFD-RSs “are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)” of claim 9. However, foregoing limitation was well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Huawei teaches BFD-RSs “are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)” (see p. 1, line 32; all the beam failure detection RS (i.e. BFD-RS) should be QCLed with DMRS of PDCCH; thus, the BFD-RSs (included in the BFD-RS set) are quasi co- located (QCLed) with a demodulation reference signal (DM-RS)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Convida Wireless to incorporate the teachings of Huawei to have a BFD-RSs that are QCLed with a DMRS of CORESET with two TCI states. The suggestion to do so would have been to implement the agreed upon standards for telecommunications (see p. 1, line 17 of Huawei).
Regarding claim 13, it is a system claim corresponding to claims 9 and 12 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 9 and 12. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475