DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 9 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-16, 19, 23, 26, 30, 32, 35 and 36 are canceled.
Claims 37-43 are newly added.
Claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34, and 37-43 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 17, 24 and 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17, 24 and 31 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34, and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 17, 24 and 31 are amended to recite (emphasis added by the Office) “detect a first beam failure associated with a first set of reference signals used for beam failure detection, wherein a second beam failure associated with a second set of reference signals used for beam failure detection has been previously detected”. However, the specification, at paragraph 0035, describes (emphasis added by the Office) “after detecting the first beam failure, the terminal device 210 determines whether a second beam failure associated with a second set of reference signals used for beam failure detection is recovered.” There is no description in the Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, as to when the second beam failure is detected. Therefore, this newly added limitation constitutes new matter. Claims 18, 20-22, 25, 27-29, 33, 34, and 37-43 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
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 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34, and 37-43 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. Independent claims 17, 24 and 31 are amended to recite (emphasis added by the Office) “detect a first beam failure associated with a first set of reference signals used for beam failure detection, wherein a second beam failure associated with a second set of reference signals used for beam failure detection has been previously detected”. However, the claim language is not clear as to the timing of the second beam failure being detected. Specifically, it is not clear whether the second beam failure is detected previously to the first beam failure, or another unspecified point in time in the claim language. The specification, at paragraph 0035, describes (emphasis added by the Office) “after detecting the first beam failure, the terminal device 210 determines whether a second beam failure associated with a second set of reference signals used for beam failure detection is recovered.” This portion of the specification indicates a timing of the recovery determination, but does not clarify when the second beam failure is detected relative to the first beam failure. Therefore, this limitation is indefinite. Claims 18, 20-22, 25, 27-29, 33, 34, and 37-43 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
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.
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.
Claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 33, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0044342) in view of Wu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0380471), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 17, He discloses an apparatus (Figure 11) comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 11 – processor 1104); and
at least one memory including computer program code (Figure 11 – computer-readable medium / memory 1106), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (paragraph 0098), cause the terminal device to:
detect a first beam failure associated with a first set of reference signals used for beam failure detection (Figure 8 at 836 and Figure 9 at step 908 - a beam failure is detected for a TRP),
wherein a second beam failure associated with a second set of reference signals used for beam failure detection has been previously detected (Figure 8 and 824 and Figure 9 at step 904 – a beam failure for another TRP is detected prior to the beam failure detected in step 908), and
wherein the first beam failure and the second beam failure are concurrent beam failures (Figure 9 at step 910 – beam failure recovery for both TRPs is performed at the same time (i.e., the beam failures are concurrent);
wherein a serving cell associated with the first set of reference signals and the second set of reference signals is a primary cell, a primary secondary cell, or a special cell (paragraph 0094 – the cell is one of a primary cell or a primary group secondary cell group cell); and
in response to determining that the second beam failure is unrecovered, initiate a random access procedure Figure 8 at 846 (the RACH procedure is performed after beam failure indications are sent by the UE and Figure 9 at 912; paragraph 0094 - the UE may perform a CFRA or CBRA RACH procedure 846 with TRP 806 based on the beam failure recovery configuration 818 (or PRACH resources).
However, He does not disclose in response to detecting the first beam failure, determine whether the second beam failure is recovered. In an analogous art, Wu discloses this. Specifically, Wu discloses the UE detecting a beam failure of a TRP within two or more TRPs and transmitting a first beam failure recovery request (paragraph 0037 and Figure 4). Before receiving a response to the first BFR request, the UE detects a further beam failure of a further TRP (paragraph 0037). The UE proceeds to monitor a PDCCH for a period to determine whether a response is received (either for the first or further beam failure) (paragraphs 0038-0043). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He and Wu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow conditional handover processing in response to multiple beam failures (refer to paragraphs 0027-0028 of Wu).
Claim 24 is a method claim comprising the same steps performed by the apparatus of Claim 17. Therefore, Claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 17.
Claim 31 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed on at least one processor, cause the least one processor to perform the same steps as the apparatus of Claim 17. As described above, He discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed on at least one processor, cause the least one processor to perform these steps (paragraph 0098). The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 17.
Regarding Claims 18 and 25, He discloses wherein the first set of reference signals is transmitted by a first network device and the second set of reference signals is transmitted by a second network device (Figure 9 at steps 904 and 908 and paragraph 0089 – the beam failures are based on one or more reference signals received from a first TRP and a second TRP), and wherein the first and second sets of reference signals are associated with a common serving cell (Figure 5 and paragraph 0088, where the serving cell includes multiple TRPs in communication with the UE).
Regarding Claims 20, 27 and 33, He discloses the apparatus is caused to determine the second beam failure is recovered by: in response to receiving a response for a Beam Failure Recovery Medium Access Control Control Element associated with the second beam failure and comprising candidate beam information, determining that the second beam failure is recovered (paragraph 0091 - the serving cell comprises a secondary cell, and the beam failure recovery is performed for the PDCCH of the second TRP by transmitting a beam failure indication in a different secondary cell. The beam failure indication comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating a new beam for the PDCCH of the second TRP).
Regarding Claims 21, 28 and 34, He discloses the apparatus is caused to determine the second beam failure is recovered by: in response to receiving at least one of a reconfiguration associated with the second set of reference signals (paragraph 0091 - the base station comprising TRP 806 (second TRP) may receive the beam failure indication 828 and then reconfigure the PDCCH as well as the PDSCH beam for TRP 804 (first TRP) using the PDCCH and PSDCH of TRP 806), or an indication of a single transmit receive point mode configured for the terminal device (Note: this is claimed in the alternative to the previous condition), determining that the second beam failure is recovered (paragraph 0091 - based on the TCI state indicator 832 and/or TCI state activation indicator 834, the UE may communicate with TRP 804 using the new beam).
Regarding Claims 22 and 29, He discloses the re-configuration is related to at least one of: a Transmission Configuration Indicator state (paragraph 0091 - TRP 806 may send to the UE 802 a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state indication 832 for a UE-specific PDCCH MAC CE and a TCI state activation indicator 834 (activation/deactivation) for a UE-specific PDSCH MAC CE); at least one new reference signal for beam failure detection (Note: this is claimed in the alternative to the other options); or an updated set of reference signals for beam failure detection (Note: this is claimed in the alternative to the other options).
Regarding Claim 38, He discloses the terminal device operates in an inter-cell multiple transmit-receive point operation mode, and wherein the first set of reference signals includes reference signals associated with a first Physical Cell Identifier and the second set of reference signals includes reference signals associated with a second Physical Cell Identifier different from the first Physical Cell Identifier (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0033 0042-0043 – the UE receives data from multiple TRPs that each have a respective geographic coverage area (cell); paragraph 0049 – the UE receives PSS and SSS in PDCCH to determine physical layer and physical layer cell identity).
Claims 37, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wu, as applied to claims 17, 24 and 31 above, and further in view of Cirik et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0137821), hereinafter Cirik. The combination of He and Wu discloses the limitations of Claims 17, 24 and 31, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose determin(ing) the second beam failure is recovered by: determining that the second beam failure is recovered in response to a BFI_COUNTER of the second set of reference signals being reset to zero and a beamFailureDetectionTimer associated with the second set of reference signals expiring. In an analogous art, Cirik discloses this. Specifically, Cirik discloses a wireless device completing a BFR procedure by resetting the BFI counter and resetting BFR timer (Figure 28A and paragraphs 0347 and 0396). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He/Wu with Cirik. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage beam failure and avoid overconsumption of system resources (e.g., frequency, time, and energy resources (refer to paragraph 0002 of Cirik).
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wu, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Agiwal et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220046441), hereinafter Agiwal.
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of He and Wu discloses the limitations of Claim 17, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first beam failure and the second beam failure are each detected based on a Physical Downlink Control Channel Block Error Rate measured on all beams of the respective set of reference signals exceeding a threshold, such that the beam failure is detected for the respective set of reference signals when the Physical Downlink Control Channel Block Error Rate exceeds the threshold for all beams of the respective set of reference signals. In an analogous art, Agiwal discloses this. Specifically, Agiwal discloses, at paragraph 0084, the UE is configured with a list of beam failure detection RSs (SSB or CSI-RS based) for that serving cell. The UE may monitor these RSs periodically. A beam failure is detected on a serving cell if number of consecutive detected beam failure instance exceeds a configured maximum number (beamFailureInstanceMaxCount) within a configured time (beamFailureDetectionTimer). A beam failure instance means that hypothetical PDCCH BLER determined based on measurement of beam failure detection RS is above a threshold for all beam failure detection RSs. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He/Wu with Agiwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate beam failures in serving cells supporting multiple TRPs (refer to paragraph 0007 of Agiwal).
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of He and Wu discloses the limitations of Claim 20, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the response for the Beam Failure Recovery Medium Access Control Control Element comprises a Physical Downlink Control Channel addressed to a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier indicating an uplink grant for a new transmission for a same Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process used to transmit the Beam Failure Recovery Medium Access Control Control Element, and wherein the Beam Failure Recovery Medium Access Control Control Element comprises beam failure recovery information associated with the second set of reference signals. In analogous art, Agiwal discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0261 and 0299, for example, Agiwal discloses if a PDCCH addressed to C-RNTI indicating uplink grant for a new transmission is received for the HARQ process used for the transmission of the BFR MAC CE or truncated BFR MAC CE which contains beam failure recovery information for a set/pool of BFD RSs or a TRP of this serving cell, a UE sets BFI_COUNTER corresponding to the set/pool of BFD RSs or the TRP to zero and cancel all triggered BFRs for the set/pool of BFD RSs or TRP of this serving cell. Refer also to paragraphs 0363 and 0391 for similar discloses related to a set/pool of BFD RSs of SpCell. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He/Wu with Agiwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate beam failures in serving cells supporting multiple TRPs (refer to paragraph 0007 of Agiwal).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wu and Cirik, as applied to Claim 37 above, and further in view of Agiwal. He further discloses the terminal device operates in an inter-cell multiple transmit-receive point operation mode, and wherein the first set of reference signals includes reference signals associated with a first Physical Cell Identifier and the second set of reference signals includes reference signals associated with a second Physical Cell Identifier different from the first Physical Cell Identifier (Figure 1 and paragraphs 0033 0042-0043 – the UE receives data from multiple TRPs that each have a respective geographic coverage area (cell); paragraph 0049 – the UE receives PSS and SSS in PDCCH to determine physical layer and physical layer cell identity). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first beam failure and the second beam failure are each detected based on a Physical Downlink Control Channel Block Error Rate measured on all beams of the respective set of reference signals exceeding a threshold, such that the beam failure is detected for the respective set of reference signals when the Physical Downlink Control Channel Block Error Rate exceeds the threshold for all beams of the respective set of reference signals. In an analogous art, Agiwal discloses this. Specifically, Agiwal discloses, at paragraph 0084, the UE is configured with a list of beam failure detection RSs (SSB or CSI-RS based) for that serving cell. The UE may monitor these RSs periodically. A beam failure is detected on a serving cell if number of consecutive detected beam failure instance exceeds a configured maximum number (beamFailureInstanceMaxCount) within a configured time (beamFailureDetectionTimer). A beam failure instance means that hypothetical PDCCH BLER determined based on measurement of beam failure detection RS is above a threshold for all beam failure detection RSs. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine He/Wu/Cirik with Agiwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate beam failures in serving cells supporting multiple TRPs (refer to paragraph 0007 of Agiwal).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights