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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/9/26.
Claims 1-10 and 13-16 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., US 2022/0407581, (“Xu”), in view of the 3GPP document entitled “Discussion on beam management aspects for DL MIMO” by Huawei and HiSilicon, R1-1609414, (“Huawei”), and Liu et al., US 2020/0213993, (“Liu”), newly cited.
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches “A User Equipment (UE) (Fig. 6, UE 602, Fig. 10 UE 1000) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 10); and
at least one memory (Fig. 10) including computer program code the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the UE at least to perform:
reporting at least one Primary- Angular Power Area (P-APA) and an indication of the availability of at least one Secondary - Angular Power Area (S-APA) for the UE wherein an Angular Power Area comprises a range of angular directions from which the UE is receiving power from a node apparatus and the S-APA comprises a different area to the P-APA” (see Figs 6 and 7 (e.g., step 712) and paragraph nos. 0091, 0092, 0093 and 0100 and in particular, paragraph no. 0091, “the UE may obtain beam quality measurements associated with each of the downlink beams 621-628 to identify the set of usable downlink beams” and paragraph no. 0092, “The UE 602 may then transmit a report to the BS 604 indicating the set of usable downlink beams for one or more of the uplink beams. In some examples, the report may include the beam measurement report transmitted from the UE 602 to the BS 604 … In some examples, the UE 602 may further identify a set of non-usable downlink beams for each uplink beam and include the set of non-usable downlink beams for the at least one uplink beam in the report”; as best shown in Fig. 6, the set of usable beams may include, e.g., downlink beams 621-624 which may define a “Primary - Angular Power Area” since the UE measures, e.g., power of these downlink beams defining a range of angular directions, and the set of non-usable beams may include, e.g., downlink beams 625-628, which may define a “Secondary- Angular Power Area” and the UE again measures, e.g., power of these downlink beams which define a different angular area relative to the angular area defined by the downlink beams 621-624).
Xu does not teach that the set of non-usable downlink beams are useable and therefore, do not teach that these beams are “Secondary Useable-Angular Area (SU-APA)” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1.
Huawei teaches that a UE may divide its receiving region of downlink beams into 4 sub-regions labeled with A, B, C, and D, respectively, see page 2, the section entitled “BMI measurement and reporting.” See also, Fig. 1 on page 3. The UE may then transmit a report including beam management information (BMI) to the base station for each of the 4 sub-regions, each sub-region including a subset of the received downlink beams from the base station. Huawei teaches that, e.g., sub-region D (Fig. 1) may include useable downlink beams 1 and 3 and the associated beam management information is included in the report to the base station. Any one of the sub-regions B, C, D may be considered define a “Secondary Useable – Angular Power Area” as that term in used in the claim 1 since each of these sub-regions defines an angular area different from sub-region A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu by incorporating the teachings of Huawei to enable the TRP/base station to conduct robust transmission, e.g., transmit diversity for UE mobility and beam switching for blockage, as suggested by Huawei on page 3, first two lines.
Regarding the newly amended claim limitation, “wherein the reporting comprises information indicating whether an APA is the P-APA or an SU-APA” of claim 1, it appears that Huawei teaches these limitations, see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3, “One possible approach … As the grouping is based on UE side, the correlation of different TX beams at UE side can be represented by group index. Such information can help the TRP to conduct robust transmission …” Also, the paragraph after Fig.1, page 3, discloses “Furthermore, the beam group information … How to embed such information in feedback design should be studied.” It appears that Huawei teaches that beams can be grouped and represented by a group index and the group index is reported by the UE to the base station. Liu teaches these limitations explicitly, see paragraph no. 0029, “Alternatively, the transmission beam group information fed back by the UE to the base station … Alternatively, the transmission beam group information may include various information such as … beam grouping states (for example, group numbers) … For example, the UE may select one group of transmission beams whose channel measurement results exceed a threshold to report to the base station.” See also, paragraph no. 0030, “For example, when a RSRP measurement result of the reference transmission beam is the best … these beams may be selected as preferred transmission beams in the transmission beam group to be fed back to the base station.” Note that the preferred transmission beams may represent a “P-APA” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu and Huawei by incorporating the teachings of Liu to enable the user equipment to report information on receiving capability of a receiving set corresponding to each transmission beam group of the base station, thereby enabling the base station to select corresponding transmission beams based at least in part on to the information on receiving capability of the user equipment and significantly reduce system overhead and improve information transmitting efficiency of the system, as suggested by Liu in paragraph no. 0008.
Regarding independent claim 9, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Regarding independent claim 13, Xu teaches “A node apparatus (Fig. 6, base station 604) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 9); and
at least one memory (Fig. 9) including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving a report from a User Equipment (UE) of at least one Primary- Angular Power Area (P-APA) and an indication of the availability of at least one Secondary Useable - Angular Power Area (SU-APA) for the UE wherein an angular power area comprises a range of angular directions from which the UE is receiving power from a node apparatus and the SU-APA comprises a different area to the P-APA” (see Figs 6 and 7 (e.g., step 712) and paragraph nos. 0091, 0092, 0093 and 0100 and in particular, paragraph no. 0091, “the UE may obtain beam quality measurements associated with each of the downlink beams 621-628 to identify the set of usable downlink beams” and paragraph no. 0092, “The UE 602 may then transmit a report to the BS 604 indicating the set of usable downlink beams for one or more of the uplink beams. In some examples, the report may include the beam measurement report transmitted from the UE 602 to the BS 604 … In some examples, the UE 602 may further identify a set of non-usable downlink beams for each uplink beam and include the set of non-usable downlink beams for the at least one uplink beam in the report”; as best shown in Fig. 6, the set of usable beams may include, e.g., downlink beams 621-624 which may define a “Primary - Angular Power Area” since the UE measures, e.g., power of these downlink beams defining a range of angular directions, and the set of non-usable beams may include, e.g., downlink beams 625-628, which may define a “Secondary- Angular Power Area” and the UE again measures, e.g., power of these downlink beams which define a different angular area relative to the angular area defined by the downlink beams 621-624).
Xu does not teach that the set of non-usable downlink beams are useable and therefore, do not teach that these beams are “Secondary Useable-Angular Area (SU-APA)” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 13.
Huawei teaches that a UE may divide its receiving region of downlink beams into 4 sub-regions labeled with A, B, C, and D, respectively, see page 2, the section entitled “BMI measurement and reporting.” See also, Fig. 1 on page 3. The UE may then transmit a report including beam management information (BMI) to the base station for each of the 4 sub-regions, each sub-region including a subset of the received downlink beams from the base station. Huawei teaches that, e.g., sub-region D (Fig. 1) may include useable downlink beams 1 and 3 and the associated beam management information is included in the report to the base station. Any one of the sub-regions B, C, D may be considered define a “Secondary Useable – Angular Power Area” as that term in used in the claim 1 since each of these sub-regions defines an angular area different from sub-region A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu by incorporating the teachings of Huawei to enable the TRP/base station to conduct robust transmission, e.g., transmit diversity for UE mobility and beam switching for blockage, as suggested by Huawei on page 3, first two lines.
Regarding the newly amended claim limitation, “wherein the reporting comprises information indicating whether an APA is the P-APA or an SU-APA” of claim 13, it appears that Huawei teaches these limitations, see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3, “One possible approach … As the grouping is based on UE side, the correlation of different TX beams at UE side can be represented by group index. Such information can help the TRP to conduct robust transmission …” Also, the paragraph after Fig.1, page 3, discloses “Furthermore, the beam group information … How to embed such information in feedback design should be studied.” It appears that Huawei teaches that beams can be grouped and represented by a group index and the group index is reported by the UE to the base station. Liu teaches these limitations explicitly, see paragraph no. 0029, “Alternatively, the transmission beam group information fed back by the UE to the base station … Alternatively, the transmission beam group information may include various information such as … beam grouping states (for example, group numbers) … For example, the UE may select one group of transmission beams whose channel measurement results exceed a threshold to report to the base station.” See also, paragraph no. 0030, “For example, when a RSRP measurement result of the reference transmission beam is the best … these beams may be selected as preferred transmission beams in the transmission beam group to be fed back to the base station.” Note that the preferred transmission beams may represent a “P-APA” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu and Huawei by incorporating the teachings of Liu to enable the user equipment to report information on receiving capability of a receiving set corresponding to each transmission beam group of the base station, thereby enabling the base station to select corresponding transmission beams based at least in part on to the information on receiving capability of the user equipment and significantly reduce system overhead and improve information transmitting efficiency of the system, as suggested by Liu in paragraph no. 0008.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Huawei teaches “wherein if no SU-APAs are receiving power above a threshold level the UE is configured to report that no SU-APAs are available” (see page 2, last paragraph, “As shown in Figure 1, TX beam 2 belongs to sub-region A if the measured RSRP exceed a predefined threshold”; this disclosure implies that if no measured beam power is above the threshold, then no beams are reported for that particular sub-region, thus teaching these limitations). However, assuming arguendo that Huawei does not teach these limitations, then this claimed feature would be an obvious modification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu, Huawei, and Liu by reporting that no SU-APAs are available to enable the base station to improve its beamforming towards the UE by, e.g., transmitting data via the downlink beams that are received at a sufficient power at the UE.
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches “wherein the UE is configured to receive an indication of the threshold level from a node apparatus” (paragraph no. 0141 discloses that the UE receives a network-configured threshold amount).
Regarding claim 4, Huawei teaches “wherein if one or more SU-APAs are receiving power above a threshold level the UE is configured to report that one or more SU-APAs are available” (page 2, section entitled “BMI measurement and reporting” and Fig. 1 on page 3 and its respective written description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu, Huawei and Liu by incorporating the additional teachings of Huawei to enable the TRP/base station to conduct robust transmission, e.g., transmit diversity for UE mobility and beam switching for blockage, as suggested by Huawei on page 3, first two lines.
Regarding claim 5, these limitations “wherein the UE is configured to report the P-APA and the indication of the availability of at least one SU- APA to a node apparatus” are deemed to logically follow from the above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Huawei teaches “wherein the at least one processor and at least one memory are configured to perform enabling one or more additional transmission configurations where the additional transmission configurations make use of one or more reported SU-APAs” (page 3, first two lines, “Such information can help the TRP to conduct robust transmission, e.g., transmit diversity for UE mobility and beam switching for blockage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Xu, Huawei and Liu by incorporating the additional teachings of Huawei to enable transmit diversity for UE mobility and/or beam switching for blockage, as suggested by Huawei on page 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 14, 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations “wherein the report comprises a list of APAs wherein the order of the APAs within the list indicates whether or not an APA is a P-APA or an SU-APA.”
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations “wherein the reporting comprises one or more bits within a channel state report message wherein the one or more bits indicate an availability of different APAs.” Dependent claim 8 depends from claim 7.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations recited in each claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 13 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.
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 WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
