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.
Claim 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites the phrase “the other node” which is not defined. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19, 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, 31-34 of co-pending application 18/857339. Please see the direct claim comparison below.
Co-Pending application 18/857339, claim 9
Instant application claim 1
One or more processors configured to perform operations comprising:
detecting failure of a serving beam pair for a sidelink interface between a first user equipment (UE) and a second UE;
in response to detecting the failure, transmitting a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) to the second UE, the BFRQ comprising an indication of at least one candidate beam pair for the sidelink interface between the first UE and the second UE; and
receiving a beam failure recovery response (BFRR) from the second UE, the BFRR comprising an indication of a beam pair selected for the sidelink interface between the first UE and the second UE.
One or more processers configured to perform operations comprising:
determining failure of a first beam pair that serves as a serving beam pair of a sidelink interface with a user equipment (UE);
in response to determining the failure, selecting a new beam pair for the sidelink interface; generating a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) to be sent to the second UE,
the BFRQ comprising an indication of the new beam pair; and
causing a radio frequency (RF) interface to communicate using the new beam pair as the serving beam pair for the sidelink interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu (US 20220006688).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses one or more processers configured to perform operations comprising:
determining failure of a first beam pair that serves as a serving beam pair of a sidelink interface with a user equipment (UE) ([0103], if the receive signal strength of the BFD reference signals 802 falls below the threshold a certain number, N, times before the BFD timer expires, UE2 declares beam failure (BF));
in response to determining the failure, selecting a new beam pair for the sidelink interface; generating a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) to be sent to the second UE, the BFRQ comprising an indication of the new beam pair ([0119], transmitting a sidelink (SL) beam failure recovery (BFR) message to a communications node, indicating a new candidate beam); and
causing a radio frequency (RF) interface to communicate using the new beam pair as the serving beam pair for the sidelink interface ([0108][0126], change a beam used to communicate with the second sidelink UE in response to the received BFR message).
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected similarly with claim 1 noting Ryu discloses establishing connection between the UEs before the beam failure recovery procedure (fig. 5, [0106-107]).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a base station, a configuration enabling a beam failure recovery mechanism for the sidelink interface ([0108], base station replies to UE2 with a sidelink BFR response, acknowledging reception of the sidelink BFR. Based on the potentially identified new candidate beam, UE1 and UE2 may communicate with the identified new candidate).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein generating the BFRQ to be sent to the UE comprises: causing the BFRQ to be sent to the UE via a Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH) of the sidelink interface ([0040][0094][0140], each sidelink resource 606 may include a PSSCH; receiving a sidelink (SL) beam failure recovery (BFR) message from a first sidelink user equipment (UE).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the BFRQ comprises at least one sidelink beam identifier (ID) ([0140], receiving a sidelink (SL) beam failure recovery (BFR) message from a first sidelink user equipment (UE), indicating a new candidate beam and an identifier (ID) of a second sidelink UE).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 4, wherein the at least one sidelink beam identifier (ID) identifies at least one sidelink transmit beam or sidelink beam pair ([0108], based on the potential identified new candidate beam, UE1 and UE2 may communicate with the identified new candidate or may conduct more extensive beam training to identify a best new beam pair for sidelink communications).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the BFRQ comprises a measurement of the first beam pair ([0103][0106], if the receive signal strength of the BFD reference signals 802 falls below the threshold a certain number, N, times before the BFD timer expires, UE2 declares beam failure (BF) and triggers beam failure recovery; the new beam pair is selected based on the highest RSRP).
Regarding claims 10, 19, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein causing the radio frequency (RF) interface to communicate using the new beam pair as the serving beam pair for the sidelink interface comprises: causing the radio frequency (RF) interface to communicate using the new beam pair as the serving beam pair for the sidelink interface in response to receiving an acknowledgment from the UE for the BFRQ ([0126], the process 1200 may change a beam used to communicate with the second sidelink UE in response to receiving the BFR message).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 10, wherein receiving the acknowledgment from the UE for the BFRQ comprises: receiving the acknowledgment from the UE via a Physical Sidelink Feedback Channel (PSFCH) of the sidelink interface ([0094-95], the PSFCH can be used for carrying feedback or acknowledgement information).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein determining failure of the first beam pair comprises:
determining a failure event associated with the first beam pair, wherein the failure event is one of;
determining that a first measured metric of the first beam pair is less than a first predetermined threshold ([0103]);
determining that at least N consecutive instances of the first measured metric are below a second predetermined threshold ([0103]); or
determining that at least one instance of the first measured metric during a first duration is below a third predetermined threshold ([0103], receive a below threshold before the BFD timer expires).
Regarding claim 13, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 12, wherein the first measured metric is a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or hypothetical block error ratio (BLER) of at least one beam of the first beam pair ([0103], RSRP threshold).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 12, wherein the first measured metric is measured based on a DMRS of PSCCH or PSSCH or based on a sidelink CSI-RS ([0062][0105], DM-RS, CSI-RS).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 12, wherein determining the failure event associated with the first beam pair further comprises:
determining that a second measured metric of a candidate beam pair is above a fourth predetermined threshold ([0105]; if a SL SSB or SL CSI-RS on the candidate list has a received signal strength (e.g., RSRP) at or above a threshold (e.g., rsrpThresholdSSB or rsrpThresholdCSI-RS), UE2 selects the reference signal with the signal strength at or above the threshold as a new candidate). or
determining that the second measured metric of the candidate beam pair is at least a predetermined offset above the first measured metric of the first beam pair.
Regarding claim 16, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein selecting the new beam pair for the sidelink interface comprises:
identifying one or more candidate beams based on results of sidelink beam measurements during a beam maintenance procedure ([0106], may select a new potential beam, corresponding to a best SL SSB that UE2 received).
Regarding claim 17, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 16, wherein a validity timer is applied to the sidelink beam measurement results ([0103], before a BFD timer expires).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Zhang (CN 110913419, machine translation version is used).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein generating the BFRQ to be sent to the UE comprises: selecting a transmission beam for sending the BFRQ to the UE ([0040][0119], with beamforming, a transmitting UE beam and a receiving UE beam should be aligned to create a sidelink channel for communications, transmitting a BFR message).
Ryu only implicitly discloses selecting a transmission beam before sending the BFRQ. To further support this feature, Zhang discloses selecting a transmission beam for sending the BFRQ to the UE (Zhang, [0138], the beam direction used to transmit the beam failure information can be the direction of the new beam selected by the receiving terminal).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Ryu with the teachings given by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an efficient way to conduct beam failure recovery.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu and Zhang disclose the one or more processors of claim 7, wherein selecting the transmission beam for sending the BFRQ to the UE comprises:
selecting the transmission beam from at least one of: (i) the new beam pair, (ii) the first beam pair, or (iii) an omni-directional beam (Zhang, [0138], the beam direction used to transmit the beam failure information can be the direction of the new beam selected by the receiving terminal).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu and Zhang disclose the one or more processors of claim 7, wherein selecting the transmission beam for sending the BFRQ to the UE comprises:
selecting more than one transmission beam for more than one transmission of the BFRQ from at least one of the new beam pair or the first beam pair (Zhang, [0138][0141], the beam direction used to transmit the beam failure information can be the direction of the new beam selected by the receiving terminal; transmit the beam failure information in different directions using time-division multiplexing (TDM) in a repeated manner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights