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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 11/14/2024.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claims 7-10, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1-6, 11-15, 17-30 are rejected.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation “the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation comprises partially suspending or fully suspending the beam failure”. It is confusing and contradictory that partial suspension comprises fully suspending.
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for being vague and indefinite.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13, 17-18, 22, 24, 26-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prateek Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1).
For Claim 1, Mallick discloses a first apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system configured to (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that FIG. 5 is a schematic flow chart diagram illustrating one embodiment of a procedure 500 for recovering from beam failure):
obtain, from a second apparatus, first information indicative of whether the first apparatus is to suspend a beam failure operation for at least one first beam resource of a plurality of beam resources associated with the second apparatus (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that Upon reception of gNB response (see block 530), the Beam Failure Recovery (“BFR”) procedure is considered successful from the UE perspective); and at least partially suspend the beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource based on the first information (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that the UE re-starts communication using a candidate beam indicated in the gNB response and terminates the beam failure recovery procedure (see block 550)).
For Claim 2, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the beam failure operation comprises determining a block error rate associated with a physical downlink control channel (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that the beam revival procedure is determined to be successful for an active beam of the first set in response to a hypothetical BLER of the active beam being above the configured BLER threshold value for the first number of consecutive beam revival instances).
For Claim 3, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation comprises a partial suspension or a full suspension of the beam failure operation (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that the UE re-starts communication using a candidate beam indicated in the gNB response and terminates the beam failure recovery procedure (see block 550)).
For Claim 11, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the processing system is further configured to: obtain at least one first beam failure reporting parameter to be used for at least one second beam resource of the plurality of beam resources in the event the at least one first beam resource is indicated as being fully suspended (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0066, that the processor 305 further identifies a new beam using a set of candidate beam reference signals (e.g., set q1) and determines a resource for transmitting the BFRR based on the identified new beam. In certain embodiments, terminating the beam recovery procedure includes stopping transmission of the BFRR in response to the beam revival procedure being successful for at least one of the one or more active beams); and output, for transmission to the second apparatus, a first beam failure request message associated with the at least one second beam resource based on the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0060, that the beam recovery procedure includes transmitting a beam failure recovery request (“BFRR”)).
For Claim 13, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein: the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter specifies a first threshold quantity of beam failure instances (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0064, that the configuration for the beam revival procedure indicates at least one of: a first number of consecutive beam revival instances, a RSRP threshold value, and a BLER threshold value); and the outputting of the first beam failure request message for transmission is based, at least in part, on whether a quantity of beam failures instances associated with the at least one second beam resource exceeds the first threshold quantity of beam failure instances (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0099, in response to a RSRP measurement value of the active beam being above the configured RSRP threshold value for the first number of consecutive beam revival instances).
For Claim 17, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter comprises at least one factor to be applied to at least one second beam failure reporting parameter associated with no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0038, that The UE applies the Q.sub.out,LR threshold for SS/PBCH blocks after scaling a SS/PBCH block transmission power with a value provided by higher layer parameter, Pc_SS).
For Claim 18, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the at least one factor comprises at least one of: a first factor associated with threshold quantity of beam failure instances, a second factor associated with a suspension period, or a third factor associated with a certainty level (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0038, that The UE applies the Q.sub.out,LR threshold for SS/PBCH blocks after scaling a SS/PBCH block transmission power with a value provided by higher layer parameter, Pc_SS).
For Claim 22, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the processing system is further configured to: obtain at least one first beam failure reporting parameter to be used for at least one second beam resource of the plurality of beam resources in the event the at least one first beam resource is indicated as being partially suspended (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0066, that the processor 305 further identifies a new beam using a set of candidate beam reference signals (e.g., set q1) and determines a resource for transmitting the BFRR based on the identified new beam. In certain embodiments, terminating the beam recovery procedure includes stopping transmission of the BFRR in response to the beam revival procedure being successful for at least one of the one or more active beams); and output, for transmission to the second apparatus, a first beam failure request message associated with the at least one second beam resource based on the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0060, that the beam recovery procedure includes transmitting a beam failure recovery request (“BFRR”)).
For Claim 24, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the at least one first beam resource comprises at least two beam resources (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0059, that The user equipment apparatus 300 may be configured with at least two sets of beams: a first set, q0, an active set used for beam failure detection; and a second set, q1, an inactive set of candidate beams used for beam recovery).
For Claim 26, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 27, Mallick discloses a first apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system configured to (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that FIG. 5 is a schematic flow chart diagram illustrating one embodiment of a procedure 500 for recovering from beam failure):
obtain, from a second apparatus, signal measurement information associated with at least one first beam resource of a plurality of beam resources associated with the first apparatus (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0062, that the processor 305 determining a resource for transmitting the BFRR, transmitting the BFRR on the determined resource); generate, based on the signal measurement information, first information indicative of whether the second apparatus is to at least partially suspend a beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0059, that Beam failure may be determined by monitoring radio link quality of the set q0, e.g., by measuring on one or more beam failure detection reference signals in the set q0); and output, for transmission to the second apparatus, the first information indicative of whether the second apparatus is to at least partially suspend the beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource ((Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0060, that the beam recovery procedure includes transmitting a beam failure recovery request (“BFRR”). Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that the UE re-starts communication using a candidate beam indicated in the gNB response and terminates the beam failure recovery procedure (see block 550)).
For Claim 30, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, further comprising: a transceiver configured to receive the signal measurement information (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0064, that the transceiver 325 receives a configuration for the beam revival procedure. Here, the configuration for the beam revival procedure indicates at least one of: a first number of consecutive beam revival instances, a RSRP threshold value, and a BLER threshold value) and transmit the first information indicative of whether the second apparatus is to at least partially suspend the beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource, wherein the first apparatus is configured as a network entity. (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0056, that if the UE 205 receives the beam recovery response from the RAN node 210 while the beam revival procedure is still performing, then the UE 205 stops attempting beam revival even if an associated timer is unexpired).
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 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 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Helka-Liina Maattanen et al (US 20210274414 A1).
For Claim 4, Mallick discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the first information indicates a suspension period the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation is maintained for the suspension period.
However, Maattanen, in analogous art, discloses that the first information indicates a suspension period the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation is maintained for the suspension period (Maattanen teaches, in ¶ 0354, that the wireless device may stop monitoring for RLF for a period of time based on the provided indication. Further, in some embodiments, the indication may cause the wireless device to stop an RLF timer if running).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the indication taught in Maattanen. The motivation is to enable the wireless device to adjust one or more parameters or assumptions associated with Radio Link Failure (RLF).
For Claim 15, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, outputting of the first beam failure request message for transmission is based, at least in part, on whether a quantity of beam failures instances associated with the at least one second beam resource (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0099, in response to a RSRP measurement value of the active beam being above the configured RSRP threshold value for the first number of consecutive beam revival instances).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter specifies a first suspension period.
However, Maattanen, in analogous art, discloses that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter specifies a first suspension period (Maattanen teaches, in ¶ 0354, that the wireless device may stop monitoring for RLF for a period of time based on the provided indication. Further, in some embodiments, the indication may cause the wireless device to stop an RLF timer if running).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the indication taught in Maattanen. The motivation is to enable the wireless device to adjust one or more parameters or assumptions associated with Radio Link Failure (RLF).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Tianyang Bai et al (US 20200259575 A1).
For Claim 5, Mallick discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the first information comprises a certainty level indicative of whether the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation is based on the certainty level.
However, Bai, in analogous art, discloses that the first information comprises a certainty level indicative of whether the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation is based on the certainty level (Bai teaches, in ¶ 0085, that the indication of the future channel condition may indicate that it is predicted that beam failure is predicted to occur soon with a high likelihood, or some other likelihood. The indication may include a timing for the future channel condition. The indication may include a confidence level for the future channel condition).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the channel condition prediction taught in Bai. The motivation is to enable proactive beam management.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Hua Zhou et al (US 20200100179 A1).
For Claim 6, Mallick discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the first information specifies whether the beam failure operation is to be fully suspended or partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation comprises partially suspending or fully suspending the beam failure operation based on the first information.
However, Zhou, in analogous art, discloses that the first information specifies whether the beam failure operation is to be fully suspended or partially suspended; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation comprises partially suspending or fully suspending the beam failure operation based on the first information (Zhou teaches, in ¶ 0477, that The stopping the second beam failure recovery procedure may comprise stopping detecting beam failure instances on the second cell. The stopping the second beam failure recovery procedure may comprise stopping monitoring a downlink control channel for a response of a beam failure recovery request for the second cell.).
Zhou teaches, in ¶ 0299, that The wireless device, based on the parameters, may reduce/increase PDCCH monitoring duration, stop/perform uplink transmission, therefore improve power consumption, or data transmission latency.
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the PDCCH monitoring duration taught in Zhou. The motivation is to improve power consumption, or data transmission latency.
Claims 12, 14, 19, 21, 23, 25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Timo Koskela et al (US 20230199529 A1).
For Claim 12, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein: the first beam failure request message is output for transmission via a first uplink resource (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0062, that the processor 305 determining a resource for transmitting the BFRR, transmitting the BFRR on the determined resource).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that In another example, if UE experiences failure on set #0 it may determine a partial failure or a failure on set #0 ...). Herein, Examiner reasons that set #0 is not being indicated as being fully suspended.
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
For Claim 14, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein the first threshold quantity of beam failure instances is different from a second threshold quantity of beam failure instances (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0064, that the configuration for the beam revival procedure indicates at least one of: a first number of consecutive beam revival instances, a RSRP threshold value, and a BLER threshold value).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that In another example, if UE experiences failure on set #0 it may determine a partial failure or a failure on set #0 ...). Herein, Examiner reasons that set #0 is not being indicated as being fully suspended.
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
For Claim 19, Mallick discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of wherein at least partially suspending the beam failure operation comprises partially suspending the beam failure operation according to a suspension parameter.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses wherein at least partially suspending the beam failure operation comprises partially suspending the beam failure operation according to a suspension parameter (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that if UE is configured to monitor beam failure on one or more beam failure detection resource sets (e.g. BFD-RS set #0 and set #1) and all the RS in all the sets are in failure condition, UE may determine that full beam failure has occurred/detected. In another example, if UE experiences failure on set #0 it may determine a partial failure or a failure on set #0 ... Hence, there is provided a solution for M-TRP beam failure indication or for a failure indication where a subset of failure detection reference signals are determined to be in failure condition (e.g. based on hypothetical PDCCH BLER) or for failure where at least one of the beams (e.g. PDCCH beams, or beam failure detection reference signals) associated with a CORESET(s) of a specific CORESETPoolIndex are in failure or have failed).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
For Claim 21, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein at least one of: the suspension parameter is based on a certainty level; the processing system is further configured to obtain the suspension parameter from the second apparatus; or the suspension parameter is specified by a wireless communication standard (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0086, that the beam revival procedure is determined to be successful for an active beam of the first set in response to a hypothetical BLER of the active beam being above the configured BLER threshold value for the first number of consecutive beam revival instances).
For Claim 23, Mallick discloses a first apparatus, wherein: the at least one second beam failure reporting parameter is different from the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0064, that the configuration for the beam revival procedure indicates at least one of: a first number of consecutive beam revival instances, a RSRP threshold value, and a BLER threshold value).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being partially suspended.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being partially suspended (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that if UE is configured to monitor beam failure on one or more beam failure detection resource sets (e.g. BFD-RS set #0 and set #1) and all the RS in all the sets are in failure condition, UE may determine that full beam failure has occurred/detected.... Further, beam failure may happen if both RS #1 and RS #4 fail). Herein, Examiner reasons that full beam failure is not being indicated as being partially suspended.
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
For Claim 25, Mallick discloses to obtain at least one first beam failure reporting parameter to be used for at least one second beam resource of the plurality of beam resources (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0066, that the processor 305 further identifies a new beam using a set of candidate beam reference signals (e.g., set q1) and determines a resource for transmitting the BFRR based on the identified new beam. In certain embodiments, terminating the beam recovery procedure includes stopping transmission of the BFRR in response to the beam revival procedure being successful for at least one of the one or more active beams).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter is based on how many of the plurality of beam resources are indicated as being at least partially suspended.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter is based on how many of the plurality of beam resources are indicated as being at least partially suspended (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that if UE experiences failure on set #0 it may determine a partial failure or a failure on set #0 ... Hence, there is provided a solution for M-TRP beam failure indication or for a failure indication where a subset of failure detection reference signals are determined to be in failure condition (e.g. based on hypothetical PDCCH BLER) or for failure where at least one of the beams (e.g. PDCCH beams, or beam failure detection reference signals) associated with a CORESET(s) of a specific CORESETPoolIndex are in failure or have failed).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
For Claim 28, Mallick discloses to output, for transmission to the second apparatus, at least one first beam failure reporting parameter to be used for at least one second beam resource of the plurality of beam resources (Mallick teaches, in ¶ 0066, that the processor 305 further identifies a new beam using a set of candidate beam reference signals (e.g., set q1) and determines a resource for transmitting the BFRR based on the identified new beam. In certain embodiments, terminating the beam recovery procedure includes stopping transmission of the BFRR in response to the beam revival procedure being successful for at least one of the one or more active beams).
Mallick fails to expressly disclose that the beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource is indicated as being at least partially suspended.
However, Koskela, in analogous art, discloses that the beam failure operation for the at least one first beam resource is indicated as being at least partially suspended (Koskela teaches, in ¶ 0049, that if UE experiences failure on set #0 it may determine a partial failure or a failure on set #0 ... Hence, there is provided a solution for M-TRP beam failure indication or for a failure indication where a subset of failure detection reference signals are determined to be in failure condition (e.g. based on hypothetical PDCCH BLER) or for failure where at least one of the beams (e.g. PDCCH beams, or beam failure detection reference signals) associated with a CORESET(s) of a specific CORESETPoolIndex are in failure or have failed).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the beam failure indication taught in Koskela. The motivation is to provide solutions that relate to solving problems caused by beam failures in M-TRP scenario.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Timo Koskela et al (US 20230199529 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hua Zhou et al (US 20200100179 A1).
For Claim 20, Mallick & Koskela disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the partially suspending the beam failure operation comprises reducing a frequency at which a block error rate associated with a physical downlink control channel is calculated.
However, Zhou, in analogous art, discloses that the partially suspending the beam failure operation comprises reducing a frequency at which a block error rate associated with a physical downlink control channel is calculated (Zhou teaches, in ¶ 0299, that The wireless device, based on the parameters, may reduce/increase PDCCH monitoring duration, stop/perform uplink transmission, therefore improve power consumption, or data transmission latency).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the PDCCH monitoring duration taught in Zhou. The motivation is to improve power consumption, or data transmission latency.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu Mallick et al (US 20190200248 A1) in view of Timo Koskela et al (US 20230199529 A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Helka-Liina Maattanen et al (US 20210274414 A1).
For Claim 29, Mallick & Koskela disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter specifies a first suspension period.
However, Maattanen, in analogous art, discloses that the at least one first beam failure reporting parameter specifies a first suspension period (Maattanen teaches, in ¶ 0354, that the wireless device may stop monitoring for RLF for a period of time based on the provided indication. Further, in some embodiments, the indication may cause the wireless device to stop an RLF timer if running).
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 communication system taught in Mallick with the indication taught in Maattanen. The motivation is to enable the wireless device to adjust one or more parameters or assumptions associated with Radio Link Failure (RLF).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-10, 16 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“the first information comprises a certainty level indicative of whether the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; the processing system is further configured to compare the certainty level to at least one threshold; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation is based on the comparison of the certainty level to the at least one threshold,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 7.
“the first information comprises a certainty level indicative of whether the beam failure operation is to be at least partially suspended; the processing system is further configured to compare the certainty level to a first threshold; and the at least partial suspension of the beam failure operation comprises a full suspension based on the comparison of the certainty level to the first threshold,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 9.
“wherein the first suspension period is different from a second suspension period associated with no beam resources of the plurality of beam resources being indicated as being fully suspended,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Eldessoki et al (US 20220386150 A1) is pertinent to wireless technology, including autonomous user equipment (UE) beam failure recovery (BFR) abortion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights