DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 11/06/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-5, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 (a) as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS et al. (hereinafter, “MANOLAKOS”; 20200374806) in view of TASI et al. (hereinafter, “TASI”; 20220295589).
In response to claims 1 and 17,
MANOLAKOS teaches a wireless device comprising: one or more processor; and memory storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors , cause the wireless device to (paragraph 67 is read as a UE uses a processor and a memory):
transmit, for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal (paragraph 122, PCell and Scell are equated to cells, paragraph 124-125, using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, paragraph 127, step 625, the RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as transmitting for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal);
receive, via at least one monitoring occasion of monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI) (paragraph 95, using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, paragraph 96, using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI)); and
MANOLAKOS does not teach explicitly about transmit, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal, wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions.
TASI in view of MANOLAKOS teaches transmit, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal (paragraph 106,a set of “q” is equated to a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the monitoring occasions, paragraphs 107-108, performing beam failure detection (BFD) for first to fourth reference signal (RS) using radio link quality threshold is interpreted as using a monitoring occasion of monitoring occasions, using PCell and Scell are interpreted as using cells, paragraph 160, new/identified candidate beams/RS are interpreted as using candidate reference signal, reporting the candidate beams/RS by using MAC-CE is read as transmitting, using a PUSCH for transmitting the MAC-CE is interpreted as transmitting using a second uplink signal and using the candidate reference signal),
wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions (paragraph 107, using a certain periodicity is equated to ending time among the ending times, using a certain periodicity with radio link quality threshold for performing the BFD is interpreted as the monitoring occasion uses a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANOLAKOS for transmit, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal, wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions as taught by TASI because it would allow flexible bases station deployment for improving reliability, coverage and capacity performance in a 5G communication.
In response to claims 2 and 18,
MANOLAKOS teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to complete the BFR based on receiving the at least one repetition of the DCI (fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, paragraph 96, using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using a repetition of PDCCH, paragraph 97 is interpreted as receiving at least one repetition of DCI, paragraph 127, step 625, the RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as the wireless device to complete the BFR based on receiving the at least one repetition of the DCI).
In response to claims 3, 12 and 19,
MANOLAKOS does not teach explicitly about claims 3, 12 and 19.
TASI in view of MANOLAKOS teaches wherein the number of symbols is from a last symbol of the monitoring occasion (paragraph 106,a set of “q” is equated to a number of symbols of the monitoring occasion, paragraphs 107-108, performing beam failure detection (BFD) for first to fourth reference signal (RS) using radio link quality threshold is interpreted as using the number of symbols is from a last symbol of the monitoring occasion).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANOLAKOS for using number of symbols is from a last symbol of the monitoring occasion as taught by TASI because it would allow flexible bases station deployment for improving reliability, coverage and capacity performance in a 5G communication.
In response to claims 4 and 13,
MANOLAKOS wherein the first uplink signal is at least one of: a random-access preamble (paragraph 105, PRACH is equated to a random-access preamble); a scheduling request (SR); or a BFR medium-access-control control element (MAC-CE).
In response to claims 5 and 14,
MANOLAKOS does not teach explicitly about claims 5 and 14.
TASI in view of MANOLAKOS teaches wherein the second uplink signal comprises one of: a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); a sounding reference signal (SRS); or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (paragraph 160 teaches using a PUSCH).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANOLAKOS for using a PUSCH a s a second channel as taught by TASI because it would allow flexible bases station deployment for improving reliability, coverage and capacity performance in a 5G communication.
In response to claim 11,
MANOLAKOS teaches a base station comprising: one or more processor; and memory storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors , cause the base station to (paragraph 67 also is read as a base station uses a processor and a memory):
receive, from a wireless device and for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal (paragraph 122, PCell and Scell are equated to cells, paragraph 124-125, using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, paragraph 127, step 625, the RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as receiving from a wireless device for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal);
transmit, based on the BFR, physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions of downlink control information (DCI), via a plurality of monitoring occasions (paragraph 95, using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, paragraph 96, using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI); and
MANOLAKOS does not teach explicitly about receive, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the plurality of monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal, wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions.
TASI in view of MANOLAKOS teaches receive, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the plurality of monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal (paragraph 106,a set of “q” is equated to a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the monitoring occasions, paragraphs 107-108, performing beam failure detection (BFD) for first to fourth reference signal (RS) using radio link quality threshold is interpreted as using a monitoring occasion of monitoring occasions, using PCell and Scell are interpreted as using cells, paragraph 160, new/identified candidate beams/RS are interpreted as using candidate reference signal, reporting the candidate beams/RS by using MAC-CE is read as transmitting, using a PUSCH for transmitting the MAC-CE is interpreted as transmitting using a second uplink signal and using the candidate reference signal),
wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions (paragraph 107, using a certain periodicity is equated to ending time among the ending times, using a certain periodicity with radio link quality threshold for performing the BFD is interpreted as the monitoring occasion uses a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANOLAKOS for receiving, via the cell and after a number of symbols from a monitoring occasion of the plurality of monitoring occasions, a second uplink signal using the candidate reference signal, wherein the monitoring occasion has a latest ending time among ending times of the monitoring occasions as taught by TASI because it would allow flexible bases station deployment for improving reliability, coverage and capacity performance in a 5G communication.
In response to claim 20,
wherein: the first uplink signal comprises one or more of: a random-access preamble (paragraph 105, PRACH is equated to a random-access preamble); a scheduling request (SR); or a BFR medium-access-control control element (MAC-CE); and
MANOLAKOS does not teach explicitly about claims 5 and 14.
TASI in view of MANOLAKOS teaches the second uplink signal comprises one or more of: a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH); a sounding reference signal (SRS); or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (paragraph 160 teaches using a PUSCH).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANOLAKOS for using a PUSCH a s a second channel as taught by TASI because it would allow flexible bases station deployment for improving reliability, coverage and capacity performance in a 5G communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 15-16 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.
As for claims 6 and 15, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to transmit the second uplink signal with a spatial domain transmission filter determined based on the candidate reference signal.”
The closet prior art in the record MANOLAKOS et al.’s (20200374806) teaching in paragraph 122 about using a PCell and Scell are equated to cells, his teaching in paragraph 124-125 about using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, his teaching in paragraph 127, step 625 about using a RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as transmitting for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal, his teaching in paragraph 95 about using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, his teaching in paragraph 96 about using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI). He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 7, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to transmit the second uplink signal with a transmission power determined based on the candidate reference signal.”
The closet prior art in the record MANOLAKOS et al.’s (20200374806) teaching in paragraph 122 about using a PCell and Scell are equated to cells, his teaching in paragraph 124-125 about using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, his teaching in paragraph 127, step 625 about using a RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as transmitting for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal, his teaching in paragraph 95 about using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, his teaching in paragraph 96 about using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI). He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for claim 8, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to monitor, after the number of symbols from the monitoring occasion, one or more control resource sets (coresets) of the cell using the candidate reference signal.”
The closet prior art in the record MANOLAKOS et al.’s (20200374806) teaching in paragraph 122 about using a PCell and Scell are equated to cells, his teaching in paragraph 124-125 about using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, his teaching in paragraph 127, step 625 about using a RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as transmitting for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal, his teaching in paragraph 95 about using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, his teaching in paragraph 96 about using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI). He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claims 9 and 16 depend on claims 8 and 15.
As for claim 10, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein a second hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-process number used for the second uplink signal is equal to a first HARQ process number used to transmit the first uplink signal.”
The closet prior art in the record MANOLAKOS et al.’s (20200374806) teaching in paragraph 122 about using a PCell and Scell are equated to cells, his teaching in paragraph 124-125 about using a beam failure detection is interpreted as using a beam failure procedure, his teaching in paragraph 127, step 625 about using a RACH procedure that is used for re-establishing uplink control beam is interpreted as transmitting for a beam failure recovery (BFR) of a cell, Msg1 is equated to a first uplink signal, sending the RACH preamble (Msg1) on one or more candidate uplink transmit beam is interpreted as using a first uplink signal indicating a candidate reference signal, his teaching in paragraph 95 about using a PDCCH for carrying a DCI explicitly teaches receiving via at least one monitoring occasion, fig. 4B, please see the entire figure, his teaching in paragraph 96 about using multiple CORESETs (CORESET 0-1) for the PDCCH as shown in fig.4B is interpreted as using multiple monitoring occasions configured for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetition, at least one repetition of downlink control information (DCI). He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20200107319………….paragraphs 24 and 99.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights