Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to application filed on 07/10/2024. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 is/are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Radio Link Monitoring (RLM), Beam Failure Detection (BFD), And Candidate Beam Detection (CBD) Based On A Uniform Measurement Model.
Examiner’s Note
5. The applicant has claimed “and/or” several times throughout the claims.
The examiner is taking the position that in the case of “A and/or B” that the “and/or” covers embodiments having “at least one of A or B”; “at least one of A or at least one of B”; “at least one selected from the group of A and B”. The phrase “and/or” is not inherently indefinite and therefore is not objected to or rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
6.1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6.2. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al., (“Chen”, US 2023/0217339 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches, A wireless communication method, comprising:
performing, by a terminal device (FIG.1, UE 105), radio link monitoring (RLM) and beam detection according to a first measurement model, wherein the beam detection comprises beam failure detection (BFD) and candidate beam detection (CBD) (Chen, FIG.1, UE 105, [0058-60]: UE 105 can perform RLM, BFD, and/or CBD during an evaluation time period corresponding to RLM, BFD, and/or CBD operations, respectively. In current TS 38.133, for FR2 (frequency range 2), UE 105 can be able to evaluate whether the downlink radio link quality on the configured RLM-RS resource estimated over a first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms]) becomes worse than a first threshold (e.g., Qout_SSB) within the first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms]).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 1, wherein the performing, by a terminal device (UE 105), radio link monitoring (RLM) and beam detection according to a first measurement model comprises:
performing RLM according to the first measurement model and a first model parameter (first evaluation time period) (Chen, [0101-102, 73]): using an first evaluation time period (”1st model parameter”) for performing RLM, BFD, and/or CBD procedures); and
performing beam detection according to the first measurement model and a second model parameter (second evaluation time period) (Chen, [0101-102, 60]): UE 105 can be able to evaluate whether the downlink radio link quality on the configured RLM-RS resource estimated over a second evaluation time period (TEvaluate_in_SSB [ms]) (“2nd model parameter”) becomes better than a second threshold (e.g., Qin_SSB) within the second evaluation time period (TEvaluate_in_SSB [MS])), wherein
the first model parameter (first evaluation time period) is at least partially different from the second model parameter (second evaluation time period) (Chen, [0101]: the first, second evaluation time periods can be the different time periods for two or more of the RLM, BFD, and CBD procedures).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 2, wherein the first model parameter comprises at least one of following:
first measurement evaluation time information (first evaluation time period), (Chen, [0101-102, 60]): using an first evaluation time period (””1st measurement evaluation time information”) for performing RLM, BFD, and CBD procedures); and
the second model parameter (second evaluation time period) comprises at least one of following: second measurement evaluation time information, (Chen, [0101-102, 60]): using an second evaluation time period (“2nd measurement evaluation time information”) for performing RLM, BFD, and CBD procedures).
Regarding Claims 4, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 3, wherein the first reference signal configuration is different from the second reference signal configuration (claim 4 is rejected based on the same rationale used for claim 3. Because claim 4 is directed to a non-selected alternative limitation in the rejection of claim 3, claim 4 does not patentably distinguish over Chen for the same reasons as claim 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 3, wherein the first measurement evaluation time information is used to configure a time for which the terminal device (UE 105) performs measurement evaluation on a reference signal used for RLM (claim 5 is rejected based on the same rationale used for claim 3. Because claim 5 is directed to a non-selected alternative limitation in the rejection of claim 3, claim 5 does not patentably distinguish over Chen for the same reasons as claim 3);
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 1, wherein the performing, by a terminal device (UE 105), radio link monitoring (RLM) and beam detection according to a first measurement model comprises:
performing RLM according to the first measurement model and a third model parameter (first threshold) (Chen, [0079]: UE 105 can perform RLM, BFD, and/or CBD during an evaluation time period corresponding to RLM, BFD, and/or CBD operations, respectively. In current TS 38.133, for FR2, UE 105 can be able to evaluate whether the downlink radio link quality on the configured RLM-RS resource estimated over a first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms]) becomes worse than a first threshold (e.g., Qout_SSB) (“3rd model parameter”) within the first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms].)); and
performing beam detection according to the first measurement model and the third model parameter (first threshold) (Chen, [0060]: In current TS 38.133, for FR2, UE 105 can be able to evaluate whether the downlink radio link quality on the configured RLM-RS resource estimated over a first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms]) becomes worse than a first threshold (e.g., Qout_SSB) (“3rd model parameter”) within the first evaluation time period (TEvaluate_out_SSB [ms])).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 8, wherein the third model parameter (first threshold) comprises at least one of following:
(Chen, [0079]: since the third and fourth evaluation time periods for BFD and CBD (TEvaluate_BFD_SSB, CCA and TEvaluate_CBD_SSB, CCA) can be long due to one or more LBT failures, one or more RX beam sweepings, or the combination of LBT failure(s) and RX beam sweeping(s), one or more threshold for the time period (“third threshold configuration”) between two successful SSB or CSI-RS measurements, which are closest in time domain, can be used. In one example, one time period threshold can be used during both third and fourth evaluation time periods of the BFD and CBD).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 9, wherein
the third measurement evaluation time information is used to configure a time for which the terminal device performs measurement evaluation on a reference signal used for RLM and beam detection (claim 10 is rejected based on the same rationale used for claim 9. Because claim 10 is directed to a non-selected alternative limitation in the rejection of claim 9, claim 10 does not patentably distinguish over Chen for the same reasons as claim 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the terminal device (UE 105), first configuration information sent by a network device, wherein the first configuration information (the measurement configuration) is used to configure the first measurement model (Chen, FIG.1, base station (BS) 101, [0034]: UE 105 can receive the measurement configuration for handover from BS 101. In response, UE 105 can perform quality measurements on, for example but not limited to, beam reference signals from neighbor cells. [0060]: UE 105 can perform RLM, BFD, and/or CBD during an evaluation time period corresponding to RLM, BFD, and/or CBD operations, respectively ).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen teaches, A terminal device (UE 105), comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to execute the method according to claim 1 (Chen, FIG 2, electronic device 200, processor 210, memory 250, [0080-81], claim 18: A non-transitory computer-readable medium 250 storing instructions, when the instructions are executed by a processor 210 of a user equipment (UE) 200, the instructions cause the processor to perform operations).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen teaches, A network device (BS 101) (Chen, FIG.1, base station 101, [0058-60]:), comprising:
a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the network device to perform (Chen, FIG.5, processor 504, memory 508, [0107, 112]: computer software stored in memory 508, when executed by one or more data processing devices (such as computer system 500), causes such data processing devices to operate the method):
transmitting, first configuration information (measurement configuration for handover) to a terminal device (UE 105), wherein the first configuration information (the measurement configuration) is used to configure a first measurement model (Chen, FIG.1, base station (BS) 101, [0034]: UE 105 can receive the measurement configuration for handover from BS 101. In response, UE 105 can perform quality measurements on, for example but not limited to, beam reference signals from neighbor cells. [0060]: UE 105 can perform RLM, BFD, and/or CBD during an evaluation time period corresponding to RLM, BFD, and/or CBD operations, respectively).
Regarding Claims 16-20, are rejected based on the same rationale used for claim 15. Because these claims are directed to a non-selected alternative limitation in the rejection of claim 15, they do not patentably distinguish over Chen for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
7.1. 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 of this title, 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.
7.2. 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.
7.3. Claim(s) 6-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al., (“Chen”, US 2023/0217339 A1) in view of Tran et al., (“Tran”, US 2023/0053871 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 3,
wherein the first duration information is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs BFD, and the second duration information is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs CBD (Chen, [0074-75]: the third evaluation time period (“1st duration information”) for the BFD operation; [0076-78]: the second evaluation time period (“2nd duration information”) for the CBD operation).
Chen does not expressly teaches
wherein the first measurement evaluation time information is the same as the second measurement evaluation time information, or
wherein the first measurement evaluation time information is a sum of first duration information and second duration information.
Tran teaches
wherein the first measurement evaluation time information is a sum of first duration information and second duration information (Tran, FIG.7, UE 705, [0121-123]: UE 705 performs BFD at step 702, the next step 704 is performing CBD. See [0121] “The first step is beam failure detection (BFD) 702.” and [0122] “The next step is new beam identification (NBI) 704 (also known as candidate new beam detection (CBD)).” This process as disclosed is sequential, as a beam failure is detected (step 702) before the device can transition to identifying and evaluating alternative replacement beams (step 704). Therefore, combined Chen [0074-78]-Tran, {0121-123} teaches the third measurement evaluation time information is determined based on sum of first and second measurement evaluation time information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform BFD and CBD as taught by Chen, to determine the third measurement evaluation time information according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information, as taught by Tran.
Doing so provides a method to perform a measurement based on a third measurement parameter, and the determination of the third measurement evaluation time information is according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information (Tran, [0121-123]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen-Tran teaches, The method according to claim 6 as outlined above.
Chen further teaches wherein the second measurement evaluation time information comprises first duration information (the third evaluation time period) and second duration information (second evaluation time period), wherein the first duration information (third evaluation time period) is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs BFD, and the second duration information (second evaluation time period) is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs CBD (Chen, [0074-75]: the third evaluation time period (“1st duration information”) for the BFD operation; [0076-78]: the second evaluation time period (“2nd duration information”) for the CBD operation).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 9, wherein the first duration information is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs BFD, and the second duration information is a measurement evaluation time for which the terminal device performs CBD (Chen, [0074-75]: the third evaluation time period (“1st duration information”) for the BFD operation; [0076-78]: the second evaluation time period (“2nd duration information”) for the CBD operation).
Chen does not expressly teach wherein the third measurement evaluation time information is determined according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information, but Tran teaches wherein the third measurement evaluation time information is determined according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information (Tran, FIG.7, UE 705, [0121-123]: UE 705 performs BFD at step 702, the next step 704 is performing CBD. See [0121] “The first step is beam failure detection (BFD) 702.” and [0122] “The next step is new beam identification (NBI) 704 (also known as candidate new beam detection (CBD)).” This process as disclosed is sequential, as a beam failure is detected (step 702) before the device can transition to identifying and evaluating alternative replacement beams (step 704). Therefore, combined Chen [0074-78]-Tran, {0121-123} teaches the third measurement evaluation time information is determined based on sum of first and second measurement evaluation time information
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform BFD and CBD as taught by Chen, to determine the third measurement evaluation time information according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information, as taught by Tran.
Doing so provides a method to perform a measurement based on a third measurement parameter, and the determination of the third measurement evaluation time information is according to a sum of first duration information and second duration information (Tran, [0121-123]).
7.4. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al., (“Chen”, US 2023/0217339 A1) in view of Jin et al., (“Jin”, US 2019/0229781 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen teaches, The method according to claim 1.
Chen does not expressly teach reporting, by the terminal device (UE 105), capability information of the terminal device (UE 105) to a network device (BS 101), wherein the capability information of the terminal device is used by the network device to determine a model parameter of the first measurement model, but Jin teaches reporting, by the terminal device (FIG.1, UE 100), capability information of the terminal device to a network device (access node 200), wherein the capability information of the terminal device is used by the network device to determine a model parameter of the first measurement model (Jin, FIG. 1 access node 200, [0140]: The UE 100 sends the capability information of the UE to an access node 200. [0146-149]: The access node determines a CSI measurement related configuration of the UE based on the received capability information reported by the UE, sends information about the CSI measurement related configuration to the UE. Combined Chen, FIG.1, [0058-60]-Jin, [0140-149] teaches sends, by the UE, capability information of the UE to a base station, the capability information of the UE is used by the base station to determine the measurement parameters of RLM, BFD, CBD operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform RLM based on a first measurement model, as taught by Chen, to determine a model parameter based on the capability information reporting by UE 100, as taught by Jin.
Doing so provides a method to perform RLM based on a first measurement model to determine a model parameter based on the capability information reporting by UE (Jin: [0146-149]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
ETSI TS 138 133 V16.9.0 (2021-12), 5G; NR; Requirements for support of radio resource management (3GPP TS 38.133 version 16.9.0 Release 16), 543 pages.
Pandev, US 2013/0304408 A1, Determining optimized measurement recipe, by receiving measurement data of target structure using set of measurement technology and parameter value, determining measurement model of structure, and determining spectral sensitivity of model; Abstract.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHHIAN (AMY) LING whose telephone number is (571)270-1074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, MOO JEONG can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/C.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights