, 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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Li et al. for the "METHODS, ARCHITECTURES, APPARATUSES AND SYSTEMS FOR NEAR-FIELD AND/OR FAR-FIELD BEAM SELECTION" filed 09/09/2024 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
Invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
8. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) in view of Cha et al. (US#12,184,576).
Regarding claim 8, the references disclose a method and device for near-field and/or far-field beam selection in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU, comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 2 for the structure of UE includes processor 280) configured to: measure received power of a received first downlink, DL, reference signal, RS, received from a network (Fig. 4; Col. 6, lines 56-61 & Col. 7, lines 28-31: The QCL-TypeC may be used to obtain measurements e.g., reference signal received power RSRP); upon determination that a value based on the measured received power satisfies at least one first criterion: determine a value range to which the value belongs; determine a set of second DL RS associated with the determined value range; measure the determined set of second DL RS to obtain a corresponding set of first measurement results (Fig. 10; Col. 10, lines 40-50: at 1010 - receiving, from a network entity, a first indication indicating a same quasi co-location (QCL) mapping for multiple receive beams corresponding to a group of transmit and receive beam pairs, wherein transmit and receive beam pairs are different from each other); select a DL RS from the set of second DL RS based on the set of first measurement results; and transmit, to the network, information indicative of at least one of the selected DL RS and the corresponding first measurement result (Fig. 10, Col. 10, lines 51-58: at 1020 - grouping of the transmit and receive beam pairs is based on a distance between the UE and the network entity; and selecting one of the multiple receive beams corresponding to the group of transmit and receive beam pairs, based on the distance between the UE and the network entity).
Althought, Raghavan reference does not disclose expressly determining a value range to which the value belongs, and determining a set of second DL RS associated with the determined value range. However, Raghavan teaches in Fig. 1 a block diagram conceptually illustrating an example wireless communication network, in which Communications using higher frequency bands may have higher path loss and a shorter range compared to lower frequency communications. Accordingly, certain BSs (e.g., 180 in Fig. 1) may utilize beamforming 182 with UE 104 to improve path loss and range. For example, BS 180 and UE 104 may each include a plurality of antennas, such as antenna elements, antenna panels, and/or antenna arrays to facilitate the beamforming (Raghavan et al.: Fig. 7; Col. 2, line 62 to Col. 3, line 25 & Col. 4, lines 22-29: transmit and receive beam pairs is based on a distance between the UE and the network entity to improve path loss and range). In the same field of endeavor, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) teaches that when the UE reports a measurement (to be used for UE positioning) obtained based on the first DL RS to the LMF/location server/BS, the UE may be configured/indicated with the range of reporting values for reporting a measurement obtained based on the second DL RS and/or resolution therefor from the LMF/location server/BS (Col. 30, line 52 to Col. 31, line 36: second DL RS measurement report configuration).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Cha’s DL RS measurement report configuration into Raghavan’s techniques for managing beam switching in near field operations with the motivation being to provide a method and device for near field and/or far field beam selection.
Regarding claim 10, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein determining a reporting configuration associated with the determined value range; and wherein the information is transmitted using the reporting configuration (Col. 30, line 52 to Col. 31, line 36).
Regarding claim 11, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) further teaches wherein the set of second DL RS correspond to near field beams (Fig. 6A; Col. 8, line 65 to Col. 9, line 4).
Regarding claim 12, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) further teaches wherein the value based on the measured received power relates to pathloss; and the at least one first criterion is satisfied in case the pathloss is below a given value (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 13, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) further teaches wherein the value based on the measured received power is the measured received power; and the at least one first criterion is satisfied in case the measured received power is above a given value (Fig.4; Col. 7, lines 20-42).
Regarding claim 15, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein the first DL RS is disjunct from the set of second DL RS ( ).
Regarding claim 16, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein the first DL RS is part of the set of second DL RS (Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 17, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein transmit information indicative of the value range (Col. 30, line 52 to Col. 31, line 36).
Regarding claim 18, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein the measuring of the determined set of second DL RS in response to a reception of a trigger message (Col. 3, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 19, Raghavan in view of Cha teaches the apparatus of claim 8 examined above, Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) further teaches wherein perform the measuring of the determined set of second DL RS after expiry of a given time interval after reception of the trigger message (Col. 2, lines 21-24).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 8, 10-13, 15-19 examined above. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 8, 10-13, 15-19.
Regarding claim 20, this claim differs from claims Raghavan et al. (US#11,909,496) in view of Cha et al. (US#12,184,576) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Raghavan in view of Cha for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claim with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for providing a method and device for near-field and/or far-field beam selection in wireless networks, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 6, 9, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein upon determination that the value based on the measured received power does not satisfy the at least one first criterion: measuring a set of third DL RS signal to obtain a corresponding set of second
measurement results; selecting a DL RS from the set of third DL RS based on the second measurement result; and transmitting, to the network, information indicative of at least one of the selected DL RS and the corresponding second measurement result; wherein measuring received power of at least one received fourth DL RS; and selecting, after measuring received power of the received first DL RS, the first DL RS, from the first DL RS and the at least one fourth DL RS, based on their corresponding measured received powers, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Raghavan et al. (US#12,342,310) device region estimation for near-field operation.
The Yapici et al. (US#2024/0322887) shows ranging via RSRP for RIS links.
The Ben-Ari et al. (US#20260088885) shows near field beam range indications for FR2/FR3 communication.
The Wen et al. (US#11,879,924) shows system and method for performing measurements of antenna under test offset from center of quite zone.
The MolavianJazi et al. (US#12,652,113) shows radio frequency exposure mitigation.
The Ghimire et al. (US#2024/0340839) UE positioning in RRC inactive and idles states.
The Hindy et al. (US#2026/0164276) event associated with near field beamforming.
The Takano (US#10,897,296) shows terminal apparatus, BS method & recording med.
The Islam et al. (US#10,069,555) shows system and method for beam management.
.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/10/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights