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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 08/28/2024. Claims 1-15 and 21-35 are pending and herein considered. Claims 16-20 and 36-40 are cancelled.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/28/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/28/2024 and 12/11/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 12-15, 21, 32-34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Nilsson et al. (WO 2019/228607A1) in view of Cirik et al. (CA-3145671-A1).
For claim 1:
Nilsson discloses a user equipment (UE) configured for wireless communication, comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor coupled to the transceiver and the memory (see Nilsson, at least figure 5), the processor being configured to:
transmit a beam failure recovery (BFR) request signal with a first transmit-receive beam pair to a network entity using the transceiver (see Nilsson, at least page 8, lines 5-11; the terminal device transmits a beam failure recovery request
(BFRQ) on towards the network node and the terminal device monitors for a beam failure recovery request response from the network node on the new alternative beam pair link);
receive a beam failure recovery (BFR) request response from the network entity using the transceiver (see Nilsson, at least page 8, lines 9-11; Response monitoring: The terminal device monitors for a beam failure recovery request response from the network node on the new alternative beam pair link to finalize the beam link recovery procedure); and
transmit an uplink (UL) signal to the network entity using the transceiver (see Nilsson, at least page 8, lines 5-6; the terminal device transmits a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) on towards the network node), wherein the transmission of the UL signal is in accordance with the first transmit-receive beam pair (see Nilsson, at least pages 9-10, lines 27-30 and 1-3; the terminal device 200 has ongoing communication with the network node 170a over a current beam pair link 180a and aspects the current beam pair link 180a is maintained merely for potential future transmission and/ or reception of control signaling or data signaling) and
Nilsson does not explicitly disclose a power control parameter assigned to a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure.
Cirik, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Nilsson fails: the wireless device may perform a beam failure recovery procedure indicating a candidate resource for the first subset of nodes. One or more parameters for communications with the first subset of nodes may be adjusted based the
candidate resources. One or more parameters for communications with the second
subset of nodes may not be adjusted. The selective adjustment of one or more parameters for the first subset of nodes may provide advantages such as enhanced beamforming, reduced communication errors, reduced beam misalignments, and/or efficient power allocation and control (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Cirik. The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claims 12 and 32:
In addition to rejection in claims 12 and 32, Nilsson-Cirik further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a reference signal from the network entity using the transceiver (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0153]; based on which the wireless device may determine at least one reference signal (e.g., an SSB and/or CSI-RS) and/or an uplink carrier (e.g., a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and/or a supplemental uplink (SUL) carrier)). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claims 13 and 33:
In addition to rejection in claims 13 and 33, Nilsson-Cirik further discloses wherein the power control parameter specifies an estimated signal pathloss between the UE and the network entity related to the reference signal (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0425]; a transmission power based on a reference signal may comprise determining/calculating a downlink path loss estimate for the transmission power
based on the reference signal. The wireless device may use the downlink path loss estimate in determining the transmission power. The transmission power may comprise the downlink path loss estimate. The determining/calculating the downlink path loss estimate based on the reference signal may comprise measuring/assessing the reference signal). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claims 14 and 34:
In addition to rejection in claims 14 and 34, Nilsson-Cirik further discloses wherein the reference signal is associated with the first transmit-receive beam pair (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0144]; a wireless device may determine/assess (e.g., measure) a channel quality of one or more beam pair links, for example, in a beam management procedure. A beam pair link may comprise a Tx beam of a base station and an Rx beam of the wireless device). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claims 15 and 35:
In addition to rejection in claims 15 and 35, Nilsson-Cirik further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in one or more CORESETs to receive the reference signal after a defined time interval from when the processor received the receive the beam failure recovery (BFR) request response from the network entity (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0178]; the wireless device may monitor a set of PDCCH candidates according to configuration parameters of a search space set. The wireless device may monitor a set of PDCCH candidates in one or more CORESETs for detecting one or more DCI messages. Monitoring may comprise decoding one or more PDCCH candidates of the set of the PDCCH candidates according to the monitored DCI formats. Monitoring may comprise decoding DCI content of one or more PDCCH candidates with possible ( or configured) PDCCH locations, possible ( or configured) PDCCH formats (e.g., the number of CCEs, the number of PDCCH candidates in common search spaces, and/or the number of PDCCH candidates in the wireless device-specific search spaces) and possible ( or configured) DCI formats). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claim 21:
For claim 21, claim 21 is directed to a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Claims 2-3, 6, 10, 22-23, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Nilsson et al. (WO 2019/228607A1) in view of Cirik et al. (CA-3145671-A1) further in view of Park et al. (WO 2023/043912A1).
For claims 2 and 22:
In addition to rejection in claims 2 and 22, Nilsson-Cirik does not explicitly disclose wherein the power control parameter specifies a nominal power parameter for the transmission of the UL signal.
Park, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Nilsson fails: Dynamic UL PC may be performed (e.g., for XDD). A WTRU may determine a transmission power (P) for a UL transmission based on one or more power control parameters, wherein the power control parameters include one or more of following but not limited to: maximum transmission power (PCMAX); nominal transmission power (Po); pathloss (PL), e.g., measured from pathloss RS; a scaling factor (a) for PL; or a closed loop power control parameter for slot or symbol I (f(i)). A WTRU may determine a transmission power for a PUSCH transmission, PUCCH transmission, and SRS transmission in Eq. (1), Eq. (2), and Eq. (3), respectively (see Park, at least paragraph [0155]- [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Park. The motivation for doing this is to improve the reception performance of perform high-level security functions, such as user authentication.
For claims 3 and 23:
In addition to rejection in claims 3 and 23, Nilsson-Cirik-Park further discloses wherein the nominal power parameter is configured to achieve a target signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or target received signal power associated with the UL signal at the network entity (see Nilsson, at least page 14, lines 11-14).
For claims 6 and 26:
In addition to rejection in claims 6 and 26, Nilsson-Cirik-Park further discloses wherein the UL signal is a sounding reference signal (SRS), and wherein the nominal power parameter is based on a selected resource set of the SRS (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0138]; the wireless device may send/transmit one or more SRS
resources in SRS resource sets. A network (e.g., an NR network) may support aperiodic,
periodic, and/or semi-persistent SRS transmissions. The wireless device may send/transmit SRS resources, for example, based on one or more trigger types). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
For claims 10 and 30:
In addition to rejection in claims 10 and 30, Nilsson-Cirik-Park further discloses wherein the UL signal is a first resource set of a sounding reference signal (SRS), and wherein the nominal power parameter is based on the first resource set of the SRS (see Cirik, at least paragraph [0138]; the wireless device may send/transmit one or more SRS resources in SRS resource sets. A network (e.g., an NR network) may support aperiodic, periodic, and/or semi-persistent SRS transmissions. The wireless device may send/transmit SRS resources, for example, based on one or more trigger types and The one or more trigger types may comprise higher layer signaling ( e.g., RRC) and/or one or more DCI formats. At least one DCI format may be used/employed for the wireless device to select at least one of one or more configured SRS resource sets. An SRS trigger type may refer to an SRS triggered based on higher layer signaling). The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks that can improve scheduling flexibility and power efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made or recorded and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Zhou et al. (U.S 2026/0143487), discloses a beam management procedure, a UE may assess (e.g., measure) a channel quality of one or more beam pair links, a beam pair link comprising a transmitting beam transmitted by a base station and a receiving beam received by the UE. Based on the assessment, the UE may transmit a beam measurement report indicating one or more beam pair quality parameters comprising, e.g., one or more beam identifications (e.g., a beam index, a reference signal index, or the like), RSRP.
Froberg et al. (U.S 2022/0039023), discloses UE with a plurality of resources that can be allocated for UL transmissions based on one or more transmit power control (TPC) parameters. And Dynamic UL PC may be performed (e.g., for XDD). A WTRU may determine a transmission power (P) for a UL transmission based on one or more power control parameters, wherein the power control parameters include one or more of following but not limited to: maximum transmission power (PCMAX); nominal transmission power (Po); pathloss (PL), e.g..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN-HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Lan-Huong Truong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464
09/29/2026
