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 action is in response to the communication filed on 12/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of 63/141,090, filed 1/25/2021. The assignee of record is Comcast Cable communications, LLC. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Xu, Kai; Zhou, Hua; Dinan, Esmael Hejazi; Yi, Yunjung; Cirik, Ali Cagatay; Jeon, Hyoungsuk; Park, Jonghyun.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 & 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “channel sate information” appears to be a typo for “channel state information.” Both claims have this issue in line 3 of each claim.
Claims 1, 9, & 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “after the transmitting the preamble” appears to be a typo for “after transmitting the preamble.” All 3 claims have this issue in their last line.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the receiving the configuration parameters” appears to be a typo for “wherein receiving the configuration parameters” see line 1 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20220103419 A1, Provisional 63/083,857 filed 9/25/2020; hereinafter Zho) in view of Jung et al. (US 20180235013 A1, published 8/16/2018; hereinafter Jun).
For Claim 1, Zho teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, configuration parameters indicating (Zho ¶ 0086 The set of candidate beams may include a first subset of candidate beams associated with the first CORESET pool index value (e.g., CORESETPoolIndex=0) and a second subset of candidate beams associated with the second CORESET pool index value (e.g., CORESETPoolIndex=1). In one example, this may include two lists of candidate beams (e.g., candidateBeamRSList) being configured, each corresponding to a different CORESET pool index value):
first reference signals (RSs) associated with a first control resource set (CORESET) pool index (Zho ¶ 0086 first CORESET pool index value (e.g., CORESETPoolIndex=0)); and
second RSs associated with a second CORESET pool index (Zho ¶ 0086. second CORESET pool index value (e.g., CORESETPoolIndex=1). Please also see Zho ¶ 0097, 0100, thank you);
transmitting a preamble associated with a random access procedure (Zho ¶ 0088 In certain aspects, UE 120 may receive or otherwise identify a first subset of random access resources (e.g., random access channel (RACH) resources/random access preamble indices) associated with the first subset of CBD resources corresponding to the first subset of candidate beams and a second subset of random access resources associated with a second subset of CBD resources corresponding to the second subset of candidate beams. That is, dedicated RACH resources for BFR may also be associated with each of the different CORESET pool index values. In some examples, this may include an implicit indication based on an association of a RACH resource/random access preamble index with a candidate beam RS (e.g., as each candidate beam RS is already associated with a CORESET pool index value). The network (e.g., Pcell/Pscell/Scell) may determine which TRP/CORESET pool index value has experienced a beam failure (and the corresponding new beam q_new) in the Pcell/Pscell/Scell based on the resource/random access preamble index of the received RACH (e.g., based on the random access resource used for transmitting the access message). Please also see Zho ¶ 0089-0090, Fig. 9, thank you),
wherein the first RS and the second RS are based on at least one measurement of the first RSs and the second RSs (Zho ¶ 0087 UE 120 may select a new candidate beam from the set of candidate beams based on monitoring a resource (e.g., CBD resource(s)) associated with the first CORESET pool index value when a first beam experiences beam failure or the second CORESET pool index value when a second beam experiences beam failure. UE 120 may transmit or otherwise convey an access message to the Pcell/Pscell/Scell (e.g., via TRP 704a if the conditions on the carrier permit and/or via TRP 704b) indicating the new candidate beam during the BFR procedure. Please also see Zho ¶ 0100); and
receiving a random access response after the transmitting the preamble (Zho ¶ 0105 If the RACH message transmitted at 910 in slot n is associated with a new candidate beam (e.g., q_new) that is associated with a CORESET pool index value, UE 120 may monitor PDCCH in a search space set provided by recoverySearchSpaceID that is associated with the same CORESET pool index value for detection of a DCI format with CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI or an MCS-C-RNTI starting from slot n+4. The BFR procedure for a CORESET pool index value may be completed at 912 when UE 120 receives a PDCCH (e.g., the BFR response) in the corresponding recovery search space. The PDCCH, and a corresponding PDSCH, may use the same beam as q_new uses (e.g., the new candidate beam). Please also see Zho Fig. 9, thank you).
Zho does not explicitly teach wherein the preamble is associated with a first RS of the first RSs and a second RS of the second RSs.
However, Jun teaches wherein the preamble is associated with a first RS of the first RSs and a second RS of the second RSs (Jun ¶ 0023-0024 In one example, a UE may perform random access to multiple APs with multiple beams simultaneously. All APs within a cooperation cluster may have common PRACH resources. This allows one preamble to be targeted to multiple APs.
[0024] The network configures one PRACH time-frequency radio resource per UL Rx beam group. The UE in turn implicitly indicates potential UL Rx beams or Rx beam directions by selecting a proper PRACH resource, based on DL Tx (Transmit)/Rx beam measurements.
Please also see Jun ¶ 0018, 0037-0045. Please see screenshot of Jun Figs. 3 & 4 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
672
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
666
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jun and Zho are analogous art because they are both related to beam selection.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the preamble techniques of Jun with the system of Zho because when a UE-specific preamble format is selected by taking into account UE beamforming capability, the UE power consumption is further reduced. Yet the target coverage area is still reached. (Jun ¶ 0030).
For Claim 2, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the at least one measurement of the first RSs and the second RSs, the first RS and the second RS (Zho ¶ 0087. Jun ¶ 0024, 0026, 0033, 0037); and transmitting a transport block, associated with the random access procedure, indicating the second RS and the second CORESET pool index (Jun ¶ 0082-0085, Fig. 7).
For Claim 3, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the configuration parameters further indicate an association relationship between: a random access occasion and the first RS (Jun ¶ 0037-0039); and the preamble and the first RS (Jun ¶ 0037-0039, Zho ¶ 0088-0089).
For Claim 4, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the configuration parameters comprises the wireless device receiving configuration parameters associated with beam failure detection or beam failure recovery (Zho ¶ 0083-0086).
For Claim 5, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first CORESET pool index corresponds to a first transmission reception point (TRP) (Zho ¶ 0083, Figs. 7-8).
For Claim 6, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second CORESET pool index corresponds to a second transmission reception point (TRP) (Zho ¶ 0083, Figs. 7-8).
For Claim 7, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first RSs comprise at least one of: one or more first synchronization signal blocks (SSBs); or one or more first channel sate information reference signals (CSI-RSs) (Zho ¶ 0086, 0097, 0100).
For Claim 8, Zho-Jun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second RSs comprise at least one of: one or more second synchronization signal blocks (SSBs); or one or more second channel sate information reference signals (CSI-RSs) (Zho ¶ 0086, 0097, 0100).
For Claim(s) 9 & 15, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 10 & 16, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 11 & 17, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 12 & 18, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 13 & 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 14 & 20, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon.
i. TS 38.331 V16.2.0 Nov 2020, Pg 388-389
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights