DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al (USPN 20220200675) in view of Levitsky et al (USPN 20190239135).
Regarding claim 11, Raghavan discloses
an apparatus comprising: (UE/apparatus, FIG. 7 #700, comprising
one or more processors, when executing program instructions stored in the apparatus, cause the apparatus to: (processors, FIG. 7 #705, executing instructions to perform [0152, 0153]
receive an indication of an association between at least two of: a beam measurement reference signal (BM-RS); a tracking reference signal (T-RS); or a channel state information acquisition reference signal (CSIA-RS) (tracking reference signal/TRS and CSI-RS/BM-RS configured together for a given TCI state [0034-0036, 0053]
transmit an indication of the link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link (transmits message indicating delay to receive reference signal associated with new TCI state [0004, 0011]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose select a new link for link switching based on measurements of at least one or the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS; transmit an indication of the link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS
Levitsky discloses select a new link for link switching based on measurements of at least one or the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS (UE receives CSI-RS/BM-RS on different reception beams and determines to switch and selects new beam based on measurements of candidate beams [0008, 0084], Abstract, FIGs. 5A, 5B
transmit an indication of the link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS (UE transmits CSF report to base station indicating new beam with CSF report including RI/PMI/CQI of newly selected link [0063, 0068-0070]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “select a new link for link switching based on measurements of at least one or the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS; transmit an indication of the link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, Raghavan discloses
an apparatus comprising: (apparatus/network device, FIG. 6 #600, comprising
one or more processors, when executing program instructions stored in the apparatus, cause the apparatus to: (processors, FIG. 6 #605, executing instructions to perform [0139-0141]
transmit an indication of an association between at least two of a beam measurement reference signal (BM-RS); a tracking reference signal (T-RS); or a channel state information acquisition reference signal (CSIA-RS) (network configures TCI/QCL relationships via RRC and activates via MAC CE tracking reference signal/TRS and CSI-RS/BM-RS configured together for a given TCI state [0034-0038, 0053, 0053]
receive, from a user equipment (UE), t an indication of the link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link (transmits message indicating delay to receive reference signal associated with new TCI state [0004, 0011]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose receive, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS
Levitsky receive, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS (receives CSF report indicating new beam with CSF report including RI/PMI/CQI of newly selected link [0063, 0068-0070]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “receive, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of link switching that includes an indication of the new link and feedback information pertaining to the new link based on the measurements of the at least one of BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Claim 8 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claims 2, 12, Raghavan “perform measurements of the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS based on the indication of the association” UE tracks TRS and measures CSI-RS for beam quality per configured QCL/TCI association [0053-0060]
Regarding claims 3, 13, Raghavan discloses “performing measurements of the T-RS comprises tracking the T-RS and determining large-scale parameters of a channel for the new link on which the T-RS is monitored, wherein the large-scale parameters include one or more of: an average delay; a delay spread; a Doppler shift; or a Doppler spread” QCL-TypeA comprises doppler shift, doppler spread, average delay, delay spread [0035, 0053]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose “performing measurements of the CSIA-RS comprises estimating channel state information (CSI) of a channel for the new link on which the CSIA-RS is received based on one or more of: a rank indicator (RI); a channel quality indicator (CQI); a precoding matrix indicator (PMI); or a layer indicator (LI)”
Levitsky discloses CSF report comprising RI, PMI, CQI for each beam [0068]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “performing measurements of the CSIA-RS comprises estimating channel state information (CSI) of a channel for the new link on which the CSIA-RS is received based on one or more of: a rank indicator (RI); a channel quality indicator (CQI); a precoding matrix indicator (PMI); or a layer indicator (LI)” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Regarding claims 4, 14, Raghavan discloses “update a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) quasi co-location (QCL) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) QCL based on the new link” TCI states are configured for PDCCH, PDSCH and CSI-RS in order to convey QCL indication, the network can indicate a transmit beam change for PDCCH, PDSCH by switching the TCI state [0035]
Regarding claims 5, 15, Raghavan does not expressly disclose “selecting a link with a highest predicted data rate determined from measured CSI among candidate links with the corresponding RSRP or the corresponding SINR above the first threshold value”
Levitsky discloses SPEFF is explicitly a spectral efficiency based prediction from CSI (PMI/RI hypotheses) -a maximum achievable SPEFF estimation per beam [0060-0062, 0069]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “selecting a link with a highest predicted data rate determined from measured CSI among candidate links with the corresponding RSRP or the corresponding SINR above the first threshold value” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Regarding claims 6, 16, Raghavan discloses “determining the association between at least two of the BM-RS, T-RS, or the CSIA-RS based on the indication of the association” UE determines QCL/TCI configuration/association of BM-RS and TRS received via RRC/MAC-RC [0034-0039]
Regarding claims 7, 17, Raghavan discloses “an indication that the T-RS is quasi co-located (QCLed) to the BM-RS” QCL/TCI configuration/association of BM-RS and TRS received via RRC/MAC-RC [0034-0039]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose “an indication that a UE derives association for UE-initiated link switching based on already indicated QCL relations”
Levitsky discloses UE derives from previously indicated PMI/RI/QCL adjacent configuration [0106]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an indication that a UE derives association for UE-initiated link switching based on already indicated QCL relations” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Regarding claims 9, 19, Raghavan discloses “an explicitly disclosed association between the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS” QCL/TCI configuration/association of BM-RS and TRS received via RRC/MAC-RC [0034-0039]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose “an implicitly disclosed association between the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS to be used by the UE to determine the association between the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS”
Levitsky discloses UE derives from previously indicated PMI/RI/QCL adjacent configuration [0106]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an implicitly disclosed association between the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS to be used by the UE to determine the association between the at least two of the BM-RS, the T-RS, or the CSIA-RS” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Regarding claims 10, 20, Raghavan discloses “an indication that the T-RS is quasi co-located (QCLed) to the BM-RS” QCL/TCI configuration/association of BM-RS and TRS received via RRC/MAC-RC [0034-0039]
Raghavan does not expressly disclose “an indication that the UE derives association for UE-initiated link switching based on already indicated QCL relations”
Levitsky discloses UE derives from previously indicated PMI/RI/QCL adjacent configuration [0106]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “an indication that the UE derives association for UE-initiated link switching based on already indicated QCL relations” as taught by Levitsky into Raghavan’s system with the motivation to reduce latency/degradation associated with selecting a new beam (Levitsky, paragraph [0006, 0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raghavan et al (USPN 20210329621) FIG. 12
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights