DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 08/08/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
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 .
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, this dependent claim recites: “the at least one n1 fine beam…,” as well as “the at least one n2 fine beam….” However, none of claims 1-3 and 6, from which claim 7 depends, previously recites: “at least one n1 fine beam” or “at least one n2 fine beam.” Instead, these parent claims recite: “each of a number, n1, of fine beams,” “each of a number, n2, of fined beams,” “each of the n1 fine beams,” and “each of the n2 fine beams,” thus making it unclear what specific previously-recited fine beam(s) “the at least one n1 fine beam,” and “the at least one n2 fine beam,” are intended to refer to. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above-identified claim terms of claim 7. When introducing claim elements for the first time, words such as “said” and “the” will invoke antecedent basis issues under §112(b).
Accordingly, claim 7 should be amended to cure the respective insufficient antecedent basis issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 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.
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 1, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0340746 A1, Bai et al. (hereinafter “Bai”).
With respect to claim 1, Bai teaches:
A method of operating a user equipment (UE) (paras. [0131]-[0136]; and UE 115a-b/605 of Figs. 2, 4, and 6), the method comprising:
receiving, at the UE, a configuration of at least a first Channel Measurement Resource (CMR) set and a second CMR set for group-based beam reporting (GBBR) (paras. [0015], [0052]-[0054], [0096]-[0098], [0100], [0198], [0202], etc.; CMR sets 220a-b of Fig. 2, CMR sets 320 of Figs. 3A-B, and blocks 1305/1405/1505/1605/1705 of Figs. 13-17 —a UE can receive control signaling with a configuration of a first CMR and a second CMR set for group-based beam reporting); and
performing, at the UE with at least a first antenna panel, a first plurality of Layer 1 Reference Signal Received Power (L1-RSRP) measurements, wherein each of the first CMR set and second CMR set comprises a plurality of resources (paras. [0052], [0090], [0100]-[0102], and [0118]-[0119; receiver of Fig. 10, and blocks 1310/1410/1510/1610/1710 of Figs. 13-17] —a UE can be configured to use it antenna panel(s) to make L1-RSRP measurements corresponding to both a first and a second CMR set —as depicted in Figs. 3A-B, each of a first and a second CMR set 320 can include multiple, corresponding resources, at paras. [0105]-[0112]), and
wherein performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements comprises:
performing a measurement using each of a number, n1, of fine beams for one or more of the plurality of resources in the first CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of a plurality of M beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams, which can be respectively measured by the UE —in this context, the M measured beams of the first CMR set can be CSI-RS beams, which the Examiner interprets to be “fine beams”); and
performing a measurement using each of a number, n2, of fine beams for one or more of the plurality of resources in the second CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of a plurality of M beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams, which can be respectively measured by the UE —in this context, the M measured beams of the second CMR set can be CSI-RS beams, which the Examiner interprets to be “fine beams”).
With respect to claim 8, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first CMR set and second CMR set comprise Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) resource sets (paras. [0014]-[0015], [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], and [0098]-[0102]; Table 1 and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13-14, and 16 —a UE can measure CSI-RS of multiple M beams belonging to each of a first and a second CMR set, i.e., when N = 2, and the UE can report beam measurement results using CSI-RS resource indication (CRI).
With respect to claim 9, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the first CMR set and second CMR set are at least partially overlapping in time (paras. [0008], [0018], [0099]-[0100], [0139], [0149], and [0221] —resources of the first CMR set can partially overlap with resources of the second CMR set).
With respect to claim 11, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements further comprises:
performing a measurement using each of the n1 fine beams for each of the plurality of resources in the first CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for each resource in a first CMR set, i.e., when N = 2); and
performing a measurement using each of the n2 fine beams for each of the plurality of resources in the second CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for each resource in a second CMR set, i.e., when N = 2).
With respect to claim 12, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the n1 fine beams are the same beams as the n2 fine beams (paras. [0098]-[0100], [0102], and [0112]; and Fig. 3B —a pair of CSI-RS beams 320 used to measure each CMR set can correspond to a same beam pair for different cells, i.e., candidate cel 305b and second cell 310-b).
With respect to claim 13, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements further comprises:
performing a measurement using each of the n1 fine beams for one of the resources in the first CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for one resource in a first CMR set, i.e., when N = 2); and
performing a measurement using each of the n2 fine beams for one of the resources in the second CMR set (paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for one resource in a second CMR set, i.e., when N = 2).
With respect to claim 16, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the UE, a configuration from a network, wherein the configuration indicates a configuration for performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements by the UE (paras. [0015], [0052]-[0054], [0096]-[0098], [0100], [0198], [0202], etc.; CMR sets 220a-b of Fig. 2, CMR sets 320 of Figs. 3A-B, and blocks 1305/1405/1505/1605/1705 of Figs. 13-17 —a UE can receive control signaling with a configuration for performing L1-RSRP measurements of a first and second CMR sets, and reporting the measurement results).
With respect to claim 18, Bai teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements are performed with a second antenna panel (paras. [0090], [0100], and [0182]-[0183]; and Figs. 3A-B —the UE can utilize one of its multiple antenna panels, i.e., a “second antenna panel,” for performing L1-RSRP measurements of first and/or second CRM sets).
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 19 is directed to a wireless device comprising a receiver, a transmitter, and processor (paras. [0164]-[0171]; UE 115a-b of Figs. 2 and 4, and UE 800 w/ transmitter 850, receiver 845, and processor 810-820 of Fig. 8). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Bai, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 20 is directed to a baseband processor of a wireless device (paras. [0164]-[0171]; baseband processor: I/O controller 810 and communications manager 820 of Fig. 8). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Bai, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of US PG Pub. 2026/0045991 A1, Kang et al. (hereinafter “Kang”).
With Respect to claim 2, Bai teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the first CMR set and second CMR set comprise CRS’.
However, Bai does not explicitly teach the first CMR set and the second CMR set comprising Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) resource sets.
Kang does teach:
a first CMR set and a second CMR set comprising SSB resource sets (paras. [0074]-[0079] and [0134]-[0137]; and grouBasedBeamReporting-v18 IE of Table 5 —group based beam reporting can include a process measuring SSB resource sets corresponding to different TRPs, i.e., a simultaneous transmission across multiple panels (ST-MP)).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bai’s group-based beam measurement of first and second CMR sets to comprise SSB resource sets, as taught by Kang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an alternative, well-known reference signal type, i.e., SSB RS’, to perform group-based beam measurement, as recognized by Kang (paras. [0074]-[0079] and [0134]-[0137]; and grouBasedBeamReporting-v18 IE of Table 5).
With respect to claim 10, Bai teaches the method of claim 8.
However, Bai does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CMR set and second CMR set are scheduled periodically or semi-persistently.
Kang does teach:
wherein a first CMR set and a second CMR set are scheduled periodically or semi-persistently (paras. [0075]-[0083], [0109], [0134], [0172]-[0174], and [0195]; and Table 1 —first and second CSI-RS sets can be configured to be reported either periodically or semi-persistently —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bai’s group-based beam measurement reporting of first and second CMR sets to include periodic or semi-persistent reporting, as taught by Kang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize explicitly schedule BM reporting for corresponding, configured CSI-RS sets to occur periodically or semi-persistently, as recognized by Kang (paras. [0075]-[0083], [0109], [0134], [0172]-[0174], and [0195]; and Table 1).
Claim 3-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of Kang, in further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0111817 A1, Khoshnevisan et al. (hereinafter “Khoshnevisan.”
With respect to claim 3, Bai in view of Kang teaches the method of claim 2.
However, Bai in view of Kang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first CMR set and the second CMR set are non-overlapping in time.
Khoshnevisan does teach:
wherein a first CMR set and a second CMR set are non-overlapping in time (paras. [0098] and [0122] —first and second SSB sets can be configured to be non-overlapping in time).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bai in view of Kang’s group-based beam measurement of first and second CMR sets to comprise SSB resource sets that do not overlap in time, as taught by Khoshnevisan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an alternative reference signal such as an SSB that are designed not to overlap to perform beam measurement, as recognized by Khoshnevisan (paras. [0098] and [0122]).
With respect to claim 4, Bai in view of Kang and Koshnevisan teaches the method of claim 3.
wherein performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements further comprises:
performing a measurement using each of the n1 fine beams for each of the plurality of resources in the first CMR set (Bai: paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for each resource in a first CMR set, i.e., when N = 2 —the Examiner notes that Kang describes CMR sets corresponding to SSB sets, with respect to the subject matter of claim 2); and
performing a measurement using each of the n2 fine beams for each of the plurality of resources in the second CMR set (Bai: paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for each resource in a second CMR set, i.e., when N = 2 —the Examiner notes that Kang describes CMR sets corresponding to SSB sets, with respect to the subject matter of claim 2).
With respect to claim 5, Bai in view of Kang and Koshnevisan teaches the method of claim 4.
The method of claim 4, wherein the n1 fine beams are the same number of beams as the n2 fine beams (Bai: paras. [0100] and [0102]; and Table 1 —in at least one scenario, a number of CMR measurement groups/sets can be set to N = 2, and the number of beams per set can be set to M =2, in which case the number of fine beams of a first set is equal to, i.e., “the same as,” a number of fine beams of a second set).
With respect to claim 6, Bai in view of Kang and Koshnevisan teaches the method of claim 3, wherein performing the first plurality of L1-RSRP measurements further comprises:
performing a measurement using each of the n1 fine beams for one of the resources in the first CMR set (Bai: paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for one resource in a first CMR set, i.e., when N = 2); and
performing a measurement using each of the n2 fine beams for one of the resources in the first CMR set (Bai: paras. [0052], [0087], [0089], [0091]-[0093], [0097]-[0101], [0107]-[0108]; and blocks 1310/1410/1610 of Figs. 13, 14, and 16 —a UE can perform L1-RSRP measurements of each of a plurality of fine beams per each of N CMR sets, i.e., where N = 2, there are first and second CMR sets each having multiple M beams —as such, a UE can make measurements using each fine beam for one resource in a second CMR set, i.e., when N = 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0340667 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
With respect to claim 17, Bai teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Bai does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the n1 and n2 is less than or equal to beam sweeping factor value of, N.
Liu does teach:
wherein each of an n1 and n2 is less than or equal to beam sweeping factor value of, N (paras. [0129], [0225]-[0226]; and [0263]; and Fig.4 —a number of beam sweeping beams of multiple, m-TRP resource sets can be set to be equal to a reduced sweeping factor value of N1).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bai’s group-based beam measurement of its n1 and n2 values of the first and second CMR sets to be limited by a beam reduced beam sweeping factor, as taught by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize beam sweeping overhead for multi-TRP transmissions, as recognized by Liu (paras. [0129], [0225]-[0226]; and [0263]; and Fig.4).
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claim 7, this dependent claim is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and is also rejected under §112(b), based on insufficient antecedent basis, but would be allowable if: i. appropriately amended to cure the above-indicated §112(b) issue, and ii. rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, i.e., all of the limitations of claims 1-3, and 6, from which claim 7 depends.
Specifically, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the limitation of: “for at least one of the n1 fine beams, performing a measurement using the at least one n1 fine beam for each of the resources in the second CMR set,” along with “for at least one of the n2 fine beams, performing a measurement using the at least one n2 fine beam for each of the resources in the first CMR set,” in combination with the features recited in claims 1-3, and 6.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, these dependent claims 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, i.e., all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8-9 (and 14 for dependent claim 15), from which claims 14 and 15 respectively depend.
Specifically, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the limitation of: “wherein the values of n1 and n2 are determined based, at least in part, on a number of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbols that are overlapping in time between the first CMR set and the second CMR set,” in combination with the features recited in claims 1 and 8-9, from which claim 14 depends. Claim 15 is allowable based on dependency, and the additional features recited therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2022/0353040 A1, Zhu et al.: teaches group based beam reporting solutions including coordinated multi-TRP L1-RSRP measurement, related to the instant application.
US PG Pub 2025/0047395 A1, Zhang et al.: teaches multi-TRP measurement and reporting solutions for mitigating cross-link interference, related to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights