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 .
Claims 1-10 and 13-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/12/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 14, the limitation “perform adjusting a threshold power for a UE” is indefinite since it is not clear how this is achieved by the node apparatus. In other words, it appears that some sort of signaling is required to be transmitted to the UE to “perform adjusting a threshold power for a UE.” However, no such signaling is recited in the claim.
In claim 16, the limitation “requesting an increase in the number of SSBs reported” is indefinite since it is not clear to which entity this limitation applies to. In other words, does this limitation refer to the UE which transmitted the report and if so, how does the “number of SSBs reported” relate to the report?
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”).
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 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.
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 and Huawei 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 and Huawei 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 and Huawei 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 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.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2414