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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant alleges that the reference SAMSUNG/JANG fails to disclose or teach the feature of “a first uplink message comprising an indication that the trigger condition has been satisfied”. With all due respect, this is unpersuasive. The reason is that this limitation at issue is in fact rejected by a combination of SAMSUNG/JANG and ERICSSON, not SAMSUNG/JANG alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the reference(s) individually [i.e., SAMSUNG/JANG], one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments herein are unpersuasive. Please see rejections below for details.
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.
Claim(s) 29,1,16,30,4,6-8,14,15,20-22,28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/084776 to Ericsson, in view of WO 2018/111004 A1 to Samsung (both provided through Applicant’s IDS).
AS to claim 29, Ericsson discloses An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to (Abstract, Fig. 7: “UE 110”):
receive, from a base station, control signaling indicating a beam group reporting configuration that includes a trigger condition for reporting, by a user equipment (UE), channel state information associated with a plurality of beam groups that each include multiple beams (Abstract, Figs. 7-9, pages 3-4 (Summary), page 19, lines 4-33, page 20, line 1 – page 21, line 2, disclosing “measurement configuration defines one or more beam groups and a report triggering configuration”, “report triggering configuration [that] defines one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A”; page 22, disclosing that the measurements may be RSRP RSRQ, SInR, each teaching embodiment of channel state information; step 703 measurement control (beam group config), page 31, line 25 – page 33, line 2) ;
in accordance with the beam group reporting configuration, an indication that the trigger condition has been satisfied (Abstract, Figs. 7-9, pages 3-4 (Summary), page 19, lines 4-33, page 20, line 1 – page 21, line 2, disclosing “measurement configuration defines one or more beam groups and a report triggering configuration”, “report triggering configuration [that] defines one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A”; page 22, lines 10-20: “whether wireless device 110A sends a measurement report to network node 115 A may depend on whether or not at least one of the one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A are satisfied”; step 704, page 31, line 25 – page 33, line 2);
transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on the indication, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group of the plurality of beam groups, the first beam group associated with satisfaction of the trigger condition (Abstract, Figs. 7-9, pages 3-4 (Summary), page 19, lines 4-33, page 20, line 1 – page 21, line 2, disclosing “measurement configuration defines one or more beam groups and a report triggering configuration”, “report triggering configuration [that] defines one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A”; page 22, lines 10-31: “whether wireless device 110A sends a measurement report to network node 115 A may depend on whether or not at least one of the one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A are satisfied”; page 22, disclosing that the measurements may be RSRP RSRQ, SInR, each teaching embodiment of channel state information; step 705, page 31, line 25 – page 33, line 2).
Ericsson does not appear to explicitly disclose transmit, to the base station in accordance with the beam reporting configuration, a first uplink message comprising an indication that the trigger condition has been received; transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on transmission of the first uplink message, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group; receive, in response to the second uplink message, additional control signaling comprising beam information for communications between the base station and the UE; andcommunicate with the base station in accordance with the beam information.
Samsung discloses transmit, to the base station in accordance with the beam reporting configuration, a first uplink message comprising an indication that the trigger condition has been received (Figs. 4E,4F, paragraphs 314, 322, steps 4e-20, 4f-20: “Upon receiving the measurement configuration indication, the terminal 4f-01 sends the base station 4e-03 a confirmation message indicating that the configuration information has been successfully received at operation 4f-20”).
transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on transmission of the first uplink message, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group (Figs. 4E,4F, paragraphs 315-318, 323-326, steps 4e-30, 4f-30: “L2 MeasurementReport (MAC CE)”, including “beam strengths” [an embodiment of channel state information] of beam group as in paragraphs 324-325, 316-317);
receive, in response to the second uplink message, additional control signaling comprising beam information for communications between the base station and the UE; andcommunicate with the base station in accordance with the beam information. (Figs. 4E,4F, paragraphs 319, 327-328, steps 4e-35/4e-40, 4f-35/4f-40)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ericsson and Samsung’s teachings, to reject this claim, at least since both references are directed to beam reporting procedures and configurations. In particular, Ericsson’s teaching of “in accordance with the beam group reporting configuration, an indication that the trigger condition has been satisfied” and Samsung’s teaching of “transmit, to the base station in accordance with the beam reporting configuration, a first uplink message comprising an indication that the trigger condition has been received” are combinable to reject “transmit, to the base station in accordance with the beam reporting configuration, a first uplink message comprising an indication that the trigger condition has been satisfied”, due to the structural and technical similarities shared by these teachings, and since it would have been obvious to a phosita that Samsung’s first UL message could have been used to transmit Ericsson’s disclosed indication that the trigger condition has been satisfied, to the base station.
Further, Ericsson’s teaching of “transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on the indication, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group of the plurality of beam groups, the first beam group associated with satisfaction of the trigger condition” and Samsung’s teaching of “transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on transmission of the first uplink message, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group” are combinable to reject “transmit, to the base station and based at least in part on transmission of the first uplink message, a second uplink message comprising a measurement report that includes channel state information associated with at least a first beam group of the plurality of beam groups, the first beam group associated with satisfaction of the trigger condition”, due to the structural and technical similarities shared by these teachings and the close correspondence between Samsung’s “first UL message” and Ericssons’ “indication”, and since it would have been obvious to a phosita that the condition of “based at least in part on the indication” in Ericsson’s teachings herein could have been substituted by/incorporated into Samsung’s condition of “based at least in part on transmission of the first UL message”, thus rendering these two respective teachings combinable.
The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve beam reporting implementation and configuration for wireless communications. (Samsung, paragraphs 1-31; Ericsson, pages 3-5). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claims 1, 16,30, see rejection for claim 29.
AS to claim 4, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the beam information comprises an indication of one or more beams to be used in communications between the UE and the base station, the method further comprising: communicating with the base station using the one or more beams.
Samsung discloses wherein the beam information comprises an indication of one or more beams to be used in communications between the UE and the base station, the method further comprising: communicating with the base station using the one or more beams. (Figs. 4E,4F, paragraphs 319, 327-328, steps 4e-35/4e-40, 4f-35/4f-40: notification of beam switching)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ericsson and Samsung’s teachings, to reject this claim, at least since both references are directed to beam reporting procedures and configurations. This is further because Samsung’s disclosed teachings discussed above may be readily incorporated into the beam reporting configuration procedures disclosed in Ericsson, to a phosita. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve beam reporting implementation and configuration for wireless communications. (Samsung, paragraphs 1-31; Ericsson, pages 3-5). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 6, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson discloses an indication of a channel state information report identifier associated with the measurement report, an indication of a first beam group identifier associated with the first beam group, or both, wherein transmitting the second uplink message, receiving the additional control signaling, or both, is based at least in part on the channel state information report identifier, the first beam group identifier, or both. (Abstract, Figs. 7-9, pages 3-4 (Summary), page 19, lines 4-33, page 20, line 1 – page 21, line 2, disclosing “measurement configuration defines one or more beam groups and a report triggering configuration”, “report triggering configuration [that] defines one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A”; page 22, lines 10-31: “whether wireless device 110A sends a measurement report to network node 115 A may depend on whether or not at least one of the one or more conditions that trigger a measurement report by wireless device 110A are satisfied”; page 22, disclosing that the measurements may be RSRP RSRQ, SInR, each teaching embodiment of channel state information, and “the measurement report may include an identifier of a beam group that has triggered the measurement report by wireless device 110A”; step 705, page 31, line 25 – page 33, line 2)
Ericsson does not appear to explicitly disclose transmitting, via the first UL message, an indication.
Samsung discloses transmitting, via the first UL message, an indication (Figs. 4E,4F, paragraphs 314, 322, steps 4e-20, 4f-20: “Upon receiving the measurement configuration indication, the terminal 4f-01 sends the base station 4e-03 a confirmation message indicating that the configuration information has been successfully received at operation 4f-20”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ericsson and Samsung’s teachings discussed above, to reject this claim, at least since both references are directed to beam reporting procedures and configurations and it would have been obvious to a phosita to utilize Samsung’s first UL message to transmit the “indication” disclosed in Ericsson. This is further because Samsung’s disclosed teachings may be readily incorporated into the beam reporting configuration procedures disclosed in Ericsson, to a phosita. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve beam reporting implementation and configuration for wireless communications. (Samsung, paragraphs 1-31; Ericsson, pages 3-5). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 7, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson discloses further comprising: identifying that the trigger condition has been satisfied based at least in part on a first beam quality metric associated with the first beam group satisfying a reference beam quality metric, wherein transmitting the first uplink message is based at least in part on identifying that the trigger condition has been satisfied. (Abstract, page 21, line 15 – page 22, line 2, disclosing, e.g., the trigger condition being satisfied by comparing “a first filtered measurement value for a first beam group and a second filtered measurement value for a second beam group [teaching “reference beam quality metric”]”, and other embodiments of “reference beam quality metric”)
AS to claim 8, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 7.
Ericsson discloses further comprising: identifying that the trigger condition has been satisfied based at least in part on a plurality of beam quality metrics associated with the plurality of beam groups each satisfying a reference beam quality metric, wherein transmitting the first uplink message is based at least in part on identifying that the trigger condition has been satisfied. (Abstract, page 21, line 15 – page 22, line 2, disclosing, e.g., the trigger condition being satisfied by comparing “a first filtered measurement value for a first beam group and a second filtered measurement value for a second beam group [teaching “reference beam quality metric”]”, and other embodiments of “reference beam quality metric”; Fig. 7 and page 32, disclosing that multiple beam groups may be evaluated for satisfying trigger conditions in step 704)
AS to claim 14, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first uplink message comprises a random access channel message, an uplink control message, a medium access control-control element message, or any combination thereof.
Samsung discloses wherein the first uplink message comprises a random access channel message, an uplink control message, a medium access control-control element message, or any combination thereof. (paragraph 322: “this confirmation message may be an RRC-ConnectionReconfigurationComplete message as in the LTE system”, teaching “UL control message”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ericsson and Samsung’s teachings discussed above, to reject this claim, at least since both references are directed to beam reporting procedures and configurations and it would have been obvious to a phosita that Samsung’s disclosed teachings may be readily incorporated into the beam reporting configuration procedures disclosed in Ericsson. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve beam reporting implementation and configuration for wireless communications. (Samsung, paragraphs 1-31; Ericsson, pages 3-5). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 15, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the measurement report comprises an indication of one or more measurements associated with the first beam group (page 22: “the measurement report may include an identifier of a beam group that has triggered the measurement report by wireless device 110A”, “the measurement report may include a measurement per beam for each beam in the beam group that has triggered the measurement report by wireless device 110A”),
the one or more measurements comprising a layer one-reference signal received power measurement, a layer one-signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio measurement, a power headroom measurement, a maximum permissible exposure measurement, a layer three-reference signal received power measurement, a layer three-signal-to-interference- plus-noise ratio measurement, or any combination thereof (page 22: disclosing L1 and L3 measurement metrics/values that include RSRP, RSRQ and SInR, teaching this limitation).
AS to claims 20-22,28, please see rejection for claims 6-8,14.
Claim(s) 2,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/084776 to Ericsson, in view of WO 2018/111004 A1 to Samsung (both provided through Applicant’s IDS), further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0022026 A1 to Onggosanusi et al.
AS to claim 2, Ericsson and Samsung teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Ericsson and Samsung do not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting, via the first uplink message and based at least in part on satisfaction of the trigger condition, a request for a resource for communicating the second uplink message; and receiving, from the base station and in response to the request, an indication of the resource, wherein the second uplink message is transmitted within the resource.
Onggosanusi discloses further comprising: transmitting, via the first uplink message and based at least in part on satisfaction of the trigger condition, a request for a resource for communicating the second uplink message (paragraphs 145-147: “ If the event is declared positive, the UE first transmits a reporting trigger message [teaching the recited “a request for a resource …”] to the NW/gNB to request for an UL grant (which includes AP CSI request) for transmitting the AP beam/CSI reporting (step 804) in slot n. This could be analogous to Scheduling Request (SR). “); and
receiving, from the base station and in response to the request, an indication of the resource, wherein the second uplink message is transmitted within the resource. (paragraphs 145-147: “After the gNB/NW receives and decodes the reporting trigger message in slot n+X+Δ.sub.N (step 805), the gNB/NW transmits an UL grant (e.g. on PDCCH) [teaching the recited “an indication of the resource…”] to the UE which includes AP CSI request (step 806) in slot n+X+Δ.sub.N where X is the additional processing time. As the UE receives and decodes the UL grant, the UE transmit the AP beam/CSI reporting on an UL reporting resource in slot n+X+Δ.sub.N+Δ.sub.U (807) [teaching “wherein the second uplink message is transmitted within the resource”]. “)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Onggosanusi’s teachings with Ericsson and Samsung’s teachings discussed above, to reject this claim, at least since the references are directed to beam reporting procedures and configurations and it would have been obvious to a phosita that Onggosanusi’s disclosed teachings may be readily incorporated into the beam reporting configuration procedures disclosed in Ericsson. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve beam reporting implementation and configuration for wireless communications. (Samsung, paragraphs 1-31; Ericsson, pages 3-5; Onggosanusi, paragraphs 1-13). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claims 17, please see rejection for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,5,9-13,18-19,23-27 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights