DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-04-06 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-20 are pending for consideration.
Status
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
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) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over CHEN_212 (US20230292212)
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15
CHEN_212 teaches
at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions, the at least one memory and instructions being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: <FIGs. 4>
receive configuration information configuring two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets for one or more serving cells, the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets comprising at least a first beam failure detection reference signal set and a second beam failure detection reference signal set; Node communicates message indicating first and second reference signal set to be used for beam failure analysis. <para. 0042-0044, 0074-0075, 0576>.
monitor, whether beam failure is detected based on the configuration information; encode, when the beam failure is detected, into at least one bitmap in a medium access control control element, at least one of failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set or failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set; and Upon monitoring and detecting a beam failure according to radio link quality of a first and/or second reference signal set, beam failure information is generated. Beam failure information includes one or more bitmaps corresponding to either beam failure associated with first reference signal set or beam failure associated with second reference signal set. <FIG(s). 5; para. 0010, 0016, 0021-0022, 0030-0036, 0590-0595, 0687-0688>.
transmit the medium access control control element comprising the at least one of the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set or the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set. In one embodiment, the beam failure information is transmitted via a MAC CE. <FIG(s). 5, 7; para. 0021, 0590-0595, 0687-0688>.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN_212 (US20230292212) in view of R2-2201699 (NPL: 3GPP_R2-2201699)
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16
CHEN_212 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode into a first bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set; and
encode into a second bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set.
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
encode into a first bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the first beam failure detection reference signal set; and encode into a second bitmap in the medium access control control element at least the failure status information of the second beam failure detection reference signal set. Different BFD-RS set get a respective bitmap in the MAC CE <Page 10 Proposal 4>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHEN_212 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17
CHEN_212 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode, if a serving cell is not configured with multiple beam failure detection reference signal sets, into the first bitmap failure status information of the serving cell.
However in a similar endeavor, R2-2201699 teaches
encode, if a serving cell is not configured with multiple beam failure detection reference signal sets, into the first bitmap failure status information of the serving cell. BFR MAC CE includes bit map for beam failure reporting. In one scenario a single BFD-RS sets are for the cell (“one or more” is “one”) BFR MAC CE includes bit map for beam failure reporting <Fig. 2, page 7, lines 3-27; page 9 lines 25-25; page 10, lines 19-20; page 15 Line 25-27; Fig. 4A, 4B, Fig. 5 (506)>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHEN_212 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by R2-2201699. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in accordance with 3GPP standards, protocols and technical specifications.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN_212 (US20230292212) in view of AGIWAL_332 (US20230180332)
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19
CHEN_212 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one memory and instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus further at least to:
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least one bitmap, for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets, the failure status information of at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set.
However in a similar endeavor, AGIWAL_332 teaches
encode, according to a predefined rule, into a second bitmap of the at least two bitmaps the failure status information related to at least the first beam failure detection reference signal set and the second beam failure detection reference signal set for at least one of the one or more serving cells configured with the two or more beam failure detection reference signal sets. a second bitmap for one or more serving cells for which two BFD-RS sets are configured and beam failure is detected for at least one BFD-RS set <para. 0161, 0163-0164; Claim(s) 4>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHEN_212 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by AGIWAL_332. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a communication method and system for converging a fifth generation (5G) communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a fourth generation (4G). <para. 0011>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 and 20
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 7, 14
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights