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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is about an apparatus at a UE. However, claim recites that the network entity, not disclosed in the claim, being a base station. There is an antecedent issue with the expression “the network entity”.
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 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12, 15-20 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDS Reference, Lee; Moon-il et al US 20200120634 A1, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Lee teaches, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (see Lee Fig. 1B) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
apply a synchronization signal block (SSB) identifiers (IDs) classification (“SSB-ID classification” is interpreted, under BRI, as grouping or assigning for a specific purpose, like covering a beam tracking area. Lee [127] “a beam ID may be indicated in each SS block.”, Fig. 6, [131]-[133] teaches, SSB blocks (i.e., SSB ID) are mapped to beam tracking areas.) based at least in part on a mapping configuration that maps a set of SSB IDs to a plurality of SSB beams of a network entity, each SSB beam of the plurality of SSB beams being associated with one SSB ID of the set of SSB IDs (Lee [127] “a beam ID may be indicated in each SS block… each SS block may be associated with a beam.”, [132] “each beam 650, 655, 660, 665, 670, 675, 680 may be associated with its respective SS block 615, 620, 625, 630, 635, 640, 645.”, [133] “the number of beam tracking areas may be determined based on the number of beams used in an SS burst. The number of SS blocks in an SS burst may also be used to determine the number of beam tracking areas.”) and covering a range of azimuth angles and a range of elevation angles (Lee [131] “Each beam 650, 655, 660, 665, 670, 675, 680 may be spaced based on vertical/horizontal domain.”); and
prioritize measurements for one or more SSB IDs transmitted via one or more of the plurality of SSB beams based at least in part on the mapping configuration and the SSB IDs classification (Lee [139] “For example, if a WTRU initially selects BTA #1 717 (i.e. SS block #1 715 and SS block #2 720) for paging resource monitoring but the qualities of beams associated with the SS block #1 715 and SS block #2 720 fall below a predetermined threshold, the WTRU may initiate beam quality measurements for all the SS blocks 715, 720, 725, 730, 735 in the SS burst 705 or part of the SS blocks 715, 720, 725, 730, 735 such as neighboring SS blocks (e.g., SS block #3 725 and SS block #4 730).”, teaches, the UE measures first the SSBs in the BTA and may afterwards measure the remaining SSBs, thereby, prioritizing measurements of SSB IDs classified to BTAs).
With respect to claim 16, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 17 and 30, Lee teaches, an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory (see Lee Fig. 1C, RAN, RAN (Radio Access Network) is known to have memory and processor), the at least one processor is configured to:
map a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) identifiers (IDs) to a plurality of SSB beams based on a mapping configuration, each SSB beam of the plurality of SSB beams being associated with one SSB ID of the set of SSB IDs and covering a range of azimuth angles and a range of elevation angles (Lee [127] “a beam ID may be indicated in each SS block… each SS block may be associated with a beam.”, [132] “each beam 650, 655, 660, 665, 670, 675, 680 may be associated with its respective SS block 615, 620, 625, 630, 635, 640, 645.”, [133] “the number of beam tracking areas may be determined based on the number of beams used in an SS burst. The number of SS blocks in an SS burst may also be used to determine the number of beam tracking areas.”, [131] “Each beam 650, 655, 660, 665, 670, 675, 680 may be spaced based on vertical/horizontal domain.”, teaches mapping of SSB block to beams comprising vertical (i.e., elevation) and horizontal (i.e., azimuth) angles); and
transmit one or more SSB IDs via the plurality of SSB beams based at least in part on the mapping configuration (Lee [0095] “As described above, one or more SS blocks 315, 320, 325 in a SS burst 305 may be associated with one or more beams. The number of SS blocks 315, 320, 325 in a SS burst 305 may be determined by a BS (e.g., gNB) based on the number of beams used at the BS. In an example, if NB beams are used at a BS (e.g., gNB), NB SS blocks 315, 320, 325 may be used or transmitted in a SS burst 305”, [112] “a single SS block may be associated with one or more beams, wherein the number of beams used for a single SS block may be indicated in an associated broadcasting signal.”)
With respect to claim 30, claim recites the identical features of claim 17 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Lee further teaches, wherein the mapping configuration is a two-dimensional (2D) mapping that includes an azimuth dimension and an elevation dimension, such that the each SSB beam in the plurality of SSB beams covers the range of azimuth angles in the azimuth dimension and the range of elevation angles in the elevation dimension (Lee Fig. 6 discloses mapping being 2-dimensional in azimuth and elevation).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Lee further teaches, wherein different SSB beams cover different ranges of azimuth angles or different ranges of elevation angles (Implied in Lee see Fig. 6, para [131]-[132]).
Regarding claims 12 and 28, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Lee further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the network entity, one or more parameters associated with the mapping configuration via a master information block (MIB) or a system information block (SIB) (Lee [112] “a single SS block may be associated with one or more beams, wherein the number of beams used for a single SS block may be indicated in an associated broadcasting signal.”, [136] “broadcasting message such as system information block (SIB), an RRC message or the like.”).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Lee further teaches, wherein a second mapping configuration maps a second set of SSB IDs to a second set of SSB beams of a second network entity, the second network entity being a neighboring cell of the network entity, the at least one processor is further configured to: prioritize measurements for at least one SSB ID transmitted via at least one SSB beam of the second network entity based at least in part on the second mapping configuration and the SSB IDs classification (Lee [139] teaches priority measurement of SSB ID that can be applied to second network entity).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 17.
Lee further teaches, wherein the network entity includes a base station or a component of the base station (Lee [131] “As illustrated in FIG. 6, a BS 610 may transmit multiple beams (i.e. beam a 650, beam b 655, beam c 660, beam d 665, beam e 670, beam f 675, and beam p 680)”, BS is Base Station).
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 17.
Lee further teaches, further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor (see Lee Fig. 1B, for transceiver or antenna coupling to a processor).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 5-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of SHIN SUNG PIL et al KR 20190123863 A, hereinafter SHIN.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Lee does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SHIN teaches, wherein the plurality of SSB beams corresponds to K SSB beams that cover N ranges of azimuth angles and M ranges of elevation angles (SHIN: [45] “when the entire vertical beam region and the horizontal beam region of the sector are divided into beams having a beam width of 3.75 degrees (60/3.75=16, that is, 16 divisions in the horizontal/vertical direction, respectively), a total of 256 beams may be defined as (number of vertical beam ids) x (number of horizontal beam ids). 256 beams may be used by being mapped to a beam id in various ways, and table 2 below shows an example of beam id mapping”, teaching SSB beams corresponding to number of azimuth and elevation direction ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the features as taught by SHIN above in order to provide a method for transmitting a synchronization signal for effectively supporting beam sweeping in an initial synchronization acquisition process of a mobile Xhaul system (SHIN [0005]).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Lee, in view of SHIN, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 5 and 21.
SHIN further teaches, wherein the mapping configuration maps K SSB IDs to the K SSB beams initially based on an azimuthal direction and subsequently based on an elevation direction (SHIN: Table 2, [45] “256 beams are mapped to 16 beam ids of 1 to 16, respectively, by mapping to (horizontal beam index=vertical beam index=beam id).”, teaches mapping of SSB beam ID first horizontal (i.e., azimuthal) direction and then vertical (i.e., elevation) direction).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Lee, in view of SHIN, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 5 and 21.
SHIN further suggests, wherein the mapping configuration maps K SSB IDs to the K SSB beams initially based on an elevation direction and subsequently based on an azimuthal direction (see rejection of claim 5 above in light of SHIN [45] “256 beams may be used by being mapped to a beam id in various ways”).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of FUKUI; Noriyuki et al US 20170208524 A1, hereinafter FUKUI.
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Lee teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Lee does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, FUKUI teaches, wherein the plurality of SSB beams are grouped into multiple beam blocks, each of the multiple beam blocks including k SSB beams that cover n ranges of azimuth angles and m ranges of elevation angles (FUKUI [75] “Thus, the beams are grouped into an appropriate number of beam groups taking into account characteristics of the beams. The formation of the beams on both of a horizontal plane and a vertical plane is also taken into account as an element for determining the number of groups. FIG. 16 shows a receiving operation example in beam group units at the time when the beams are formed on both of the horizontal plane and the vertical plane.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the features as taught by FUKUI above in order to provide a handover method capable of avoiding a stop of communication of a terminal during execution of handover (FUKUI [0008]).
Claims 9-10 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of FUKUI, and further in view of SHIN SUNG PIL et al KR 20190123863 A, hereinafter SHIN.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Lee, in view of FUKUI, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 8 and 24.
Lee and FUKUI do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SHIN teaches, wherein the mapping configuration maps k SSB IDs to the k SSB beams in the each of the multiple beam blocks initially based on an azimuthal direction and subsequently based on an elevation direction (SHIN: Table 2, [45] “256 beams are mapped to 16 beam ids of 1 to 16, respectively, by mapping to (horizontal beam index=vertical beam index=beam id).”, teaches mapping of SSB beam ID first horizontal (i.e., azimuthal) direction and then vertical (i.e., elevation) direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee and FUKUI to include the features as taught by SHIN above in order to provide a method for transmitting a synchronization signal for effectively supporting beam sweeping in an initial synchronization acquisition process of a mobile Xhaul system (SHIN [0005]).
Regarding claims 10 and 26, Lee, in view of FUKUI, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 8 and 24.
Lee and FUKUI do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SHIN teaches, wherein the mapping configuration maps k SSB IDs to the k SSB beams in the each of the multiple beam blocks initially based on an elevation direction and subsequently based on an azimuthal direction (see rejection of claim 9 above in light of SHIN [45] “256 beams may be used by being mapped to a beam id in various ways”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee and FUKUI to include the features as taught by SHIN above in order to provide a method for transmitting a synchronization signal for effectively supporting beam sweeping in an initial synchronization acquisition process of a mobile Xhaul system (SHIN [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 14 and 27 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamohara; Kenichiro US 20210211957 A1, TRANSMITTER, RECEIVER, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, CONTROL CIRCUIT, AND STORAGE MEDIUM, para [81], [198]-[200].
CHAVVA; Ashok Kumar US 20190238202 A1, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SENSOR-BASED BEAM MANAGEMENT BY USER EQUIPMENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights