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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Svedman et al. for the "BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY ON A NON-FAILED CELL" filed 09/20/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of 17/289,051, filed 04/27/2021 is now U.S. Patent #12,149,317 which is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2019/059137, International Filing Date: 10/31/2019 which Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62753995, filed 11/01/2018. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) in view of Liu et al. (US#11,856,422).
Regarding claim 11, the references disclose a method and system for beam failure recovery on a serving cell utilizing UL/DL BWP in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claim. Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor, the processor (see Fig. 3 for block circuit diagram for an apparatus includes processor 31 and memory 33) configured to: detect beam failure associated with first cell (see Fig. 2 & the Abstract, Col. 2; lines 33-50; Col. 12, lines 27 to Col. 13, line 40: a beam failure has been detected by a user equipment on a resource provided by a first serving cell of the user equipment); determine a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for a scheduling request indicative of beam failure associated with the first cell; transmit the scheduling request using the PUCCH resource based on detecting beam failure associated with the first cell (Col. 2, lines 22-50 & Col. 4, lines 58-67: detect beam failure and perform recovery for each serving cell separately, in which performs the selection of new candidate and determines the uplink resources to indicate the new candidate to the network) and based on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource not being available for transmission of a beam failure recovery request medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC CE) (Col. 5, lines 1-33; Col. 6, lines 10-31 & Col. 7, lines 22-57: beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) and the beam recovery signaling is transmitted to the network entity using a medium access control element, MAC CE).
However, Koskela et al. do not disclose expressly wherein using a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource to send a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ). In the same field of endeavor, Liu et al. (US#11,856,422) teaches in Figs. 5-6 the flowcharts illustrated a beam failure recovery request sending, in which After the UE discovers the beam failure event and finds the available candidate beam, the UE finds the corresponding SR resource for transmitting the BFRQ according to its own UE ID, and the BFRQ can only be used for informing the base station that the UE has the beam failure event. After the UE sends the BFRQ on the SR resource, the UE will transmit the PUSCH on the grant free transmission resource pool, and the PUSCH includes the UE ID and specific information of the candidate beam selected by the UE (see also Figs. 1-2; Col. 1, lines 51-60; Col. 7, line 47 to Col. 8, line 51 & Col. 10, lines 1-34: using a PUCCH resource to send a BFRQ to a base station after finding at least one candidate beam).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Liu’s transmitting a BFRQ using a PUCCH resource into Koskela’s teaching of the beam failure recovery for serving cell with the motivation being to provide a method and system for beam failure recovery on a non-failed cell in a wireless communication system
Regarding claim 12, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein scheduling request is transmitted using the PUCCH resource in a second cell (Col. 2, lines 22-50: the beam recovery signaling on a resource provided by a second serving cell).
Regarding claim 13, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein measuring one or more candidate reference signals (RSs) configured in the first cell (Col. 4; lines 58-67: a list of candidate RSs for recovery that can be indicated using dedicated signal).
Regarding claim 15, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein receiving a response on an active downlink bandwidth part of the second cell after transmission of the MAC CE in the PUSCH transmission, wherein the response is associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission (Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 2: as a response to the beam failure recovery request received from the UE, the network may configure the UE with a new PDCCH link).
Regarding claim 16, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein the first cell corresponds to a secondary cell (SCell), and the scheduling request is transmitted on the PUCCH resource associated with an active uplink bandwidth part of a primary cell (PCell)(Col. 7, lines 9-14: beam failure recovery procedure for a serving cell PCell or SCell, when the serving cell has no corresponding uplink).
Regarding claim 17, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein the PDCCH transmission corresponds to a beam failure recovery response (Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 2: as a response to the BFRQ received from the UE, the network may configure the UE with a new PDCCH link).
Regarding claim 18, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein the PDCCH transmission indicates that beam failure recovery has been completed for the first cell (Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 2: configure the UE with a new PDCCH link).
Regarding claim 19, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein the first cell comprises one or more of a primary cell, a primary secondary cell group cell, or a secondary cell (Col. 7, lines 22-36: the UE transmits the serving cell beam recovery signaling on a second serving cell e.g., PCell using MAC CE and includes first serving cell e.g. SCell information).
Regarding claim 20, Koskela in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 11 examined above, Koskela et al. (US#11,336,357) further teaches wherein the beam failure recovery request MAC CE comprises one or more of: an index associated with a configured candidate reference signal on the first cell; or a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel index associated with the first cell (Col. 9, lines 60-67: resource index (SSB, CSI-RS) is indicated)
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-10, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 11-13, 15-20 examined above. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 11-13, 15-20.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the beam failure recovery request MAC CE includes an indication of a serving cell index of the first cell and an indication of an index associated with one of the measured one or more candidate RSs associated with a RS received power (RSRP) that is above a threshold, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Koskela et al. (US#2022/0061087) shows beam failure recovery for serving cell.
The Koskela et al. (US#11,329,711) shows apparatus, method and computer program.
The Wu et al. (US#11,368,995) shows cell grouping for beam management.
The Koskela et al. (US#11,223,403) shows mobility measurements.
The Matsumura et al. (US#11,595,103) shows user terminal and radio communications.
The Zhang et al. (US#10,878,127) shows apparatus and mechanism to perform beam management and beam failure recovery in NR system.
The Nagaraja et al. (US#11,184,080) shows radio link monitoring and beam failure recovery resource configuration and operation.
The Deenoo et al. (US#11,419,173) shows methods and systems for beam recovery and management.
The Zhou et al. (US#11,337,265) shows beam failure recovery request transmission.
The Lu et al. (US#10,848,230) shows recovery from beam failure.
The Chen (US#11,412,433) shows method of processing BFR and UE.
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/26/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights