DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The instant application No. 18873961 has claims 1-32 are pending.
2 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 25 and 32 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 25 and 32 limitations “means for detecting a beam failure…..”, “means for transmitting a beam failure recovery request….”, “means for refraining from monitoring….” and “means for monitoring the coreset…” in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 16-17, 24-25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deenoo et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0374960 A1; hereinafter Deenoo) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2019154318 A1; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Deenoo disclose a mobile station for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory and based at least in part on information stored in the memory, (See 0036, , the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory) configured to: detect a beam failure associated with a beam used to communicate with a network node; (20200374960 -See 101, The WTRU may be configured to detect a beam failure if one or more preconfigured conditions are satisfied.) transmit a beam failure recovery (BFR) request to the network node based at least in part on the beam failure; (See 0124, A WTRU may be configured to transmit a beam recovery request in one or more candidate beam(s) upon a serving beam failure (as shown in the example of FIG. 3).)
However, Deenoo fails to disclose refrain from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request.
Yang disclose refrain from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request. (Page 19, monitoring resource set CORESET-BFR for beam failure recovery is stopped, and the physical downlink control channel PDCCH of the CORESET-BFR is used to send a response message for the beam failure recovery request; interpreted that monitoring is stopped after the request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify detecting a BFR and transmit a beam recovery request to include stop monitoring the pdcch coreset-bfr. The motivation to combine is if the UE refrains from monitoring when the link is stable, it avoids triggering BFR unnecessarily. This prevents premature recovery requests and the associated PRACH preamble transmission, which would waste radio resources and introduce unnecessary delay.
Regarding claims 8, 16, 24 and 32, Deenoo discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor the CORESET associated with the BFR search space set after transmitting the BFR request. (20200374960-See 0159, The WTRU may be configured to monitor the CORESET-BFR for a predefined time window (e.g., a beam recovery response window), after transmission of beam recovery request; See 0133, the WTRU may be configured to monitor a control channel search space and/or CORESET for a response from the network.)
Regarding claim 17, Deenoo disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: (See 0036, , the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory) one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a mobile station, (See 0036, , the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory) cause the mobile station to: detect a beam failure associated with a beam used to communicate with a network node; (20200374960 -See 101, The WTRU may be configured to detect a beam failure if one or more preconfigured conditions are satisfied.) transmit a beam failure recovery (BFR) request to the network node based at least in part on the beam failure; (See 0124, A WTRU may be configured to transmit a beam recovery request in one or more candidate beam(s) upon a serving beam failure (as shown in the example of FIG. 3).)
However, Deenoo fails to disclose refrain from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request.
Yang disclose refrain from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request. (Page 19, monitoring resource set CORESET-BFR for beam failure recovery is stopped, and the physical downlink control channel PDCCH of the CORESET-BFR is used to send a response message for the beam failure recovery request; interpreted that monitoring is stopped after the request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify detecting a BFR and transmit a beam recovery request to include stop monitoring the pdcch coreset-bfr. The motivation to combine is if the UE refrains from monitoring when the link is stable, it avoids triggering BFR unnecessarily. This prevents premature recovery requests and the associated PRACH preamble transmission, which would waste radio resources and introduce unnecessary delay.
Regarding claim 25, Deenoo disclose an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: means for detecting a beam failure associated with a beam used to communicate with a network node; (20200374960 -See 101, The WTRU may be configured to detect a beam failure if one or more preconfigured conditions are satisfied.) means for transmitting (See 0033, transmit/receive element 122 may be configured to transmit signals to, or receive signals from, a base station (e.g., the base station 114a) over the air interface 116.) a beam failure recovery (BFR) request to the network node based at least in part on the beam failure; (See 0124, A WTRU may be configured to transmit a beam recovery request in one or more candidate beam(s) upon a serving beam failure (as shown in the example of FIG. 3).)
However, Deenoo fails to disclose means for refraining from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request.
Yang disclose means for refraining (Page 18, instruction stored in memory and executed by the processor) from monitoring one or more control channels associated with the beam failure after transmitting the BFR request. (Page 19, monitoring resource set CORESET-BFR for beam failure recovery is stopped, and the physical downlink control channel PDCCH of the CORESET-BFR is used to send a response message for the beam failure recovery request; interpreted that monitoring is stopped after the request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify detecting a BFR and transmit a beam recovery request to include stop monitoring the pdcch coreset-bfr. The motivation to combine is if the UE refrains from monitoring when the link is stable, it avoids triggering BFR unnecessarily. This prevents premature recovery requests and the associated PRACH preamble transmission, which would waste radio resources and introduce unnecessary delay.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, 18-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deenoo in view of Yang and, further in view of Wu et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0340068 A1; hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18 and 26, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with a transmission reception point (TRP) associated with the network node.
Wu disclose the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with a transmission reception point (TRP) associated with the network node. (20240340068-See 0029, the UE triggers a BFR procedure, wherein the BFR procedure includes transmitting a BFR request to the serving cell, and wherein the BFR request includes information per TRP associated with the at least one TRP of the serving cell.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam failure is associated with the TRP. The motivation to combine is isolating recovery to the affected TRP, the UE avoids unnecessary beam switches that could disrupt other links, reducing the risk of multi‑link outages.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19 and 27, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the TRP based at least in part on the BFR request not indicating a new candidate beam to use to communicate with the TRP.
Wu disclose the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the TRP based at least in part on the BFR request not indicating a new candidate beam to use to communicate with the TRP. (20240340068- See 0133, One TRP may be identified by one CORESET pool besides the BFD-RS set. For example, CORESET pool #0 is TRP #0; See 0144, If only information related to one TRP is included in the BFR request, e.g., a TRP based BFR MAC CE (for example, if beam failures of both TRPs are detected at the same time and a cell specific BFR procedure is configured, the UE may perform a RA procedure for a BFR purpose), two TRP based BFR MAC CEs are generated); interpreted the BFR request is not indicate a new candidate beam to use to communicate with the TRP)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam failure is associated with the TRP. The motivation to combine is isolating recovery to the affected TRP, the UE avoids unnecessary beam switches that could disrupt other links, reducing the risk of multi‑link outages.
Claim(s) 4-7, 12-15, 20-23 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deenoo in view of Yang and, further in view of Cirik et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0357292 A1; hereinafter Cirik).
Regarding claim 4, 12, 20 and 28, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with the network node in a secondary cell (SCell).
Cirik discloses the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with the network node in a secondary cell (SCell). (20190357292-See 0512, failure event detection on a cell (e.g., an SCell, etc.) by a wireless device, for example, if the cell is configured with two or more active resource (e.g., two or more active BWPs); See 0633, he wireless device may measure a downlink radio link quality of one or more first beams associated with the one or more RSs for the first BWP for beam failure detection (BFD) and/or BFR, for example, for the first BWP and/or the cell 5106.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam used to communicate to the scell has a failure. The motivation to combine is performing failure event detection and/or recovery for only one (or fewer than all) of multiple active resources may reduce accuracy of failure event detection and/or recovery.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 21 and 29, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the SCell based at least in part on the BFR request not indicating a new candidate beam to use to communicate in the SCell.
Cirik discloses the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the SCell based at least in part on the BFR request not indicating a new candidate beam to use to communicate in the SCell. (See 0069, The cell may comprise one or more BWPs. Each BWP of the one or more BWPs may be indicated by a BWP-specific index. Each BWP of the one or more BWPs may be associated with one or more RSs, for example, for a BFR operation. The BFR operation may comprise at least one of a BFI indication, BFD, BFR request transmission; interpreted that the BFR request does not indicating a new candidate beam)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam used to communicate to the scell has a failure. The motivation to combine is performing failure event detection and/or recovery for only one (or fewer than all) of multiple active resources may reduce accuracy of failure event detection and/or recovery.
Regarding claims 6, 14, 22 and 30, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with the network node in a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell).
Cirik discloses the beam associated with the beam failure is a beam used to communicate with the network node in a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell). (20190357292-See 0512, failure event detection on a cell (e.g., a PCell, a PSCell, an SCell, etc.) by a wireless device, for example, if the cell is configured with two or more active resource (e.g., two or more active BWPs); See 0633, he wireless device may measure a downlink radio link quality of one or more first beams associated with the one or more RSs for the first BWP for beam failure detection (BFD) and/or BFR, for example, for the first BWP and/or the cell 5106.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam used to communicate to the scell has a failure. The motivation to combine is performing failure event detection and/or recovery for only one (or fewer than all) of multiple active resources may reduce accuracy of failure event detection and/or recovery.
Regarding claims 7, 15, 23 and 31, Deenoo in view of Yang fails to disclose the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the PCell or the PSCell other than a CORESET associated with a BFR search space set.
Cirik discloses the one or more control channels comprise control resource sets (CORESETs) associated with the PCell or the PSCell other than a CORESET associated with a BFR search space set. (20190357292-See 0392, A wireless device may be configured with control resource sets (e.g., coresets) for every type of common search space and/or for wireless device-specific search space, for example, for a DL BWP in a set of DL BWPs on a primary cell; 20190357292-See 0512, failure event detection on a cell (e.g., an SCell) by a wireless device, for example, if the cell is configured with two or more active resource (e.g., two or more active BWPs).))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify refraining from monitoring the beam failure to include beam used to communicate to the scell has a failure. The motivation to combine is performing failure event detection and/or recovery for only one (or fewer than all) of multiple active resources may reduce accuracy of failure event detection and/or recovery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0208436 A1)-See 0452, when the beamFailureRecoveryTimer expires, and the BFR transmission counter indicates a value smaller than configured preamble transmission number, the wireless device may perform at least one of: indicating a first type of information to higher layers (e.g., MAC or RRC layer); cancelling the transmission of BFR signal; stopping monitoring the first PDCCH in the first coreset; monitoring the second PDCCH on the second coreset; starting detecting one or more beam failure instance; and starting selecting one new beam. In an example, the wireless device may not reset the BFR transmission counter. In an example, the wireless device may reset the BFR transmission counter (e.g., zero). In an example, the first type of information may comprise at least one of: the BFR timer being expiring; beam failure recovery procedure failure; and/or out of synchronization.
Zhou et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0215896 A1)-See 0341, a PRACH preamble of a beam failure recovery procedure may be selected by a MAC entity of a wireless device, different from a contention-free random access procedure where a PRACH preamble of the contention-free random access procedure is not selected by the MAC entitiy of the wireless device, instead the PRACH preamble of the contention-free random access procedure is indicated by a PDCCH order or an RRC signalling (e.g., for handover). In an example, a wireless device may keep monitoring a first PDCCH until receiving an RRC message or a MAC CE for a second PDCCH configuration, after the BFR procedure successfully is completed. In existing DRX procedures, when configured with a DRX operation, the wireless device may switch to a DRX Sleep/Inactive state, for example, by stopping monitoring the first PDCCH
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJIS DAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-7817. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4:30.
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, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/Tejis Daya/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights