DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s response has overcome the outstanding objection of claims 14 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s response has overcome the outstanding 112 second paragraph rejection of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20200350957 A1 in view of Liu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20200022004 A1 and further in view of Li et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20250150183 A1 .
As per claim 1, Zhou et al teaches an apparatus of a user equipment (UE) (115 (fig. 2, fig. 7, fig. 9 and fig 10), the apparatus comprising processing circuitry (915, 1005) configured to: decode (725/935/1025), from signaling received from a base station(fig. 7/105c), configuration information related to simultaneous reception of signals from multiple transmission and reception points (TRPs) (705a, 705b)/(205a, 205b), wherein signals from a first TRP (205a) are received using a first reception (Rx) beam of a Rx beam pair and signals from a second TRP (205b) are received using a second Rx beam of the Rx beam pair (note fig.2, 215a and 215b) (note para. [0091, lines 1-3). However, it fails to teach determine an event related to the Rx beam pair has occurred; and configure transceiver circuitry to transmit an indication of the event to the base station. It also fails to teach the event is a variation in a reference signal received power (RSRP) being larger than a threshold. Liu et al teaches the additional limitations of determining an event related to the Rx beam pair has occurred and configure transceiver circuitry to transmit an indication of the event to the base station (note at least fig. 2 and para. [0258] that includes at least one processor (21) configure to control a transceiver 23 to determine an event related to a detection of an invalid received beam pair and to transmit such indication to a base station 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Zhou et al in order to enable a stable communication between the UE and the base station (para. [0004], lines 4-6). Li et al further teaches the additional limitation of the event is a variation in a reference signal received power (RSRP) being larger than a threshold (in para. [0171] Li et al teaches the use of reference signal based measurement using such as RSRP and further in para. [0187] and [0188], Li et al further teaches using a threshold to determine when a beam pair is valid or invalid, by comparing the measurement result(s) “variation” with the threshold to determine if it ( measurement result(s) ) is greater or larger than the threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify Zhou et al and Liu et al by setting the event as a variation in a reference signal received power (RSRP) being larger than a threshold so as to provide a system that can operate in a more efficient manner as generally taught by Li et al para. [0062].
As per claim 2, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to explicitly teach the additional limitations of sending the indication information through an uplink control information (UCI). However, as evidence by US20230262615, para. [0048], it is generally known to send an indication information through an uplink control information (UCI). It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to use an uplink control information (UCI) to transmit indication information such combination would have allowed efficient use of system resources by enabling the use of a low bandwidth channel to transmit the low bandwidth indication information.
As per claim 3, Liu et al teaches at least in para. [0004] the further limitations of providing references signals to the UE for measurement and to determine information to send back to the base station. Therefore, given such a disclosure, one skill in the art would have been motivated to provide periodic reference signals for measurement of the RX beam pair and to determine the event based on the measurements and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 4, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to explicitly teach the additional limitations of determining beam failure (the event) based on measurement of reference signals. However, as evidence by US20220103234 A1, para. [0086], lines 1-5, it is generally known to determine a beam failure (beam invalid) based on measurement of reference signal received power (RSRP) on the active beam is less that a threshold Q. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Zhou et al by determine invalidity of a beam based on RSRP for the first beam or the second beam being below a threshold and the motivation would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 5, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to explicitly teach the additional limitations of the event includes a beam failure. However, as evidence by US20220103234 A1, para. [0086], lines 1-5, it is generally known to determine an event based on a beam failure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to determine the event as a beam failure of the first beam or the second beam and the motivation to do so would have been the same as in claim 1.
As per claim 6, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to explicitly teach the additional limitations of performing a random access channel procedure using the first beam. However, as evidence by US 20210160706 A1, para. [0115], it is generally known in the art to perform a random access channel procedure using the first beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Zhou et al by performing a random access channel procedure using the first beam for improve efficiency, as generally known in at least US 20210160706 A1, para. [0006], last two lines.
As per claim 7, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to explicitly teach the additional limitations of determining an event (good or bad) when a variation SINR for a beam is above a threshold. However, as evidence by US202203221119, para. [0081], it is generally known to determine an event (good or bad) when a variation SINR for a beam is above a threshold. Therefore, given such a teaching, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to determine an event when a variation SINR for a first beam is above a threshold in order to provide accurate indication of the quality of the beam generally taught by US202203221119, para. [0003].
As per claim 8, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al do not explicitly teach detecting an event (change in direction) using sensor(s). However, as evidence by US20200329509 A1, para. [0110], it is generally known to detect an event (change in direction) using sensor(s). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to use a sensor to detect the event and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 7.
As per claim 9, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al do not explicitly teach configuring the transceiver circuitry to transmit a capability related to the sensor to the base station. However, as evidence by WO 2024135331 A1, machine translation page 25, paragraph starting with “A terminal device having the above-mentioned…”, it is generally known to report “sensor capability information” to a base station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Zhou et al and Liu et al to allow the terminal to be configured with sensing assisted communication function by the network (see WO 2024135331 A1, machine translation page 25, paragraph starting with “A terminal device having the above-mentioned…”).
As per claim 10, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al do not explicitly teach implementing a sensor as gyroscope and to detect an event as a posture (position/orientation) change of a UE above a threshold. However, as evidence by US20200329509 A1, para. [0110], it is generally known to implement a sensor as gyroscope and to detect an event as a posture (position/orientation) change of a UE above a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Zhou et al and Liu et al by implementing the sensor as a as gyroscope and to detect an event as a posture (position/orientation) change of a UE above a threshold in order to maximize network throughput(see US20200329509 A1, para. [0005]).
As per claim 11, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al do not explicitly teach implementing a sensor as an accelerometer and to detect an event as a position change of a UE above a threshold. as evidence by US20200329509 A1, para. [0110], it is generally known to implement a sensor as an accelerometer and to detect an event as a position change of a UE above a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Zhou et al and Liu et al by implementing the sensor as an accelerometer and to detect an event as a position change of a UE above a threshold in order to maximize network throughput(see US20200329509 A1, para. [0005]).
As per claim 12, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al fail to teach the additional element of the event as including a block error rate above a threshold. As evidence by 20230063014 A1, para [0097], it is well known to determine an event as including a block error rate above a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate such a teaching in Zhou et al and Liu et al and the motivation would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 4.
As per claim 13, Zhou et al, Liu et al and Li et al does not explicitly teach use of a sensor to perform body proximity sensing indicating of body. However, as evidence by WO. 2018030824 A1, page 40 of the machine translation document , paragraph starting with “the specific bits may include..”, that teaches the use of a proximity sensor to determine the presence of a human body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modified Zhou et al and Liu et al by providing a sensor to perform body proximity sensing indicating of body in order to provide the system with the advance capability to adjust the power of the device to avoid harming the user of the device.
As per claim 14, see rejection of claim 9.
As per claim 15, see rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts of record do not appear to teach, in combination with the other limitations, the limitations of “wherein the configuration information includes an identification that signals from a first TRP are received by the UE using a first reception (Rx) beam of a Rx beam pair and signals from a second TRP are received by the UE using a second Rx beam of the Rx beam pair; monitor for feedback signals from the UE related to the UE receiving the signals from the first TRP using the first Rx beam and signals from the second TRP using the second Rx beam; and configure transceiver circuitry to transmit updated configuration information to the UE”, recited in claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
