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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6, recites, “larger than a second threshold that is indicated by a base station”. However, claim 6 depends from claim 1, and neither claim 1 nor claim 6 previously introduces a first threshold or otherwise defines what makes the recited threshold a “second” threshold. If no distinction from another threshold is intended “a second threshold” may be amended to “a threshold”. If two distinct thresholds are intended, the claims should introduce and distinguish both threshold and identify the quality to which each threshold applies.
Claims 13 and 20 contain a similar issue as discussed for claim 6 above, thus, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela et al(US 2022/0061087 A1) in view of Xu et al(US 2022/0014253 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 Koskela ‘087 teaches, a integrated circuit comprising ([0032], [0138], [0139], a terminal device comprising processor and memory): reception circuitry, which, in operation, controls a reception of (1) group information indicating one or more component carriers included in a group of secondary cells (SCells) ([0038], [0065] and Fig. 2B, a terminal device that utilizes carrier aggregation to combine two or more component carriers and receives configurations establishing groups of secondary cells (SCells). A group of SCells can function as a beam management group comprising multiple SCells) and (2) configuration information relating to a beam failure recovery (BFR) of the group of SCells, ([0041], [0065] and Fig. 2B, the network device configures the terminal device with reference signals for link monitoring and beam failure recovery (BFR) operations. This configuration applies to beam management group where the grouped SCells share a common beam failure criterion for detection and recovery);
and (3) an identifier for the group of SCells([0074], [0083] and Figs. 4, 5, a bitmap used for failure reporting can indicate failed SCell indexes or group indexes. Koskela further teaches that to indicate failure for an SCell group, it is necessary to indicate the group identifier for the beam failure) and transmission circuitry, which, in operation, controls transmission of reporting information including a result of beam failure detection (BFD) based on (1) the group information, (2) the configuration information and (3) the identifier relating to the group of SCells([0063], [0067], [0085] and Figs. 3, 4, 7, the terminal device using circuitry to send MAC CE that reports the beam failure detection result, that are determined based on the configured RS, to the network device. The reporting information is mapped logically to indicate failures for specific SCell groups using the group identifier).
Koskela ‘087 does not explicitly teach, receiving an identifier for the group of SCells.
Xu ‘253 teaches, receiving an identifier for the group of SCells([0070], [0080], [0082], Figs. 17, 18, receiving a correspondence between physical cell identifiers and group/local identifiers, where the group identifier identifies a cell subset, Xu ‘253 further teaches that the base station configures the groupID and localID through RRC parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Koskela ‘087, by incorporating the teaching of Xu ‘253, since such modification would enable to perform beam failure recovery (BFR) effectively for different cells in a carrier aggregation scenario, as suggested by ([0012]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the reporting information includes indices of failed SCells, which are identified as failed in the BFD([0065],[0066], [0074], Figs. 4-5, the SCell BFR MAC CE includes bitmap in which each filed corresponds to an SCell index, and a bit value of “1” identifies that SCell as having experienced beam failure. The bitmap indicates the failed SCell indexes/group indexes[0074]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the reporting information includes new beam information for each of the failed SCells ([0091], [0092] and Figs, 4-5, the terminal selects a candidate beam after detecting beam failure and includes information identifying the selected candidate beam in the SCell BFR MAC CE) which are identified as failed in the BFD([0092]-[0094] and Figs. 4-5, including selected candidate beam information for each serving cell indicated as being in a failure condition, with the information placed after the failed-cell bitmap).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the reporting information is transmitted in a case a number of beam failure instance (BFI) of any SCell in the group of SCells is equal to or larger than a first threshold that is indicated by a base station([0049], [0050], [0068] and Fig. 3, the MAC layer counts beam failure instance(BFI) indications and declares a beam failure when this counter reaches a maximum value configured by the network device. It further explains that detecting this failure on a single SCell determines the beam failure for the entire associated group of SCells, which subsequently triggers the transmission of the reporting information).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the reporting information is transmitted in a case a number of SCells in the group of SCells([0066], [0068], [0069] and Figs. 2B and 4, bitmap identifies individual failed SCells, while its group embodiment treats detection of failure on a representative SCell as establishing beam failure for the corresponding SCell group), which are identified as failed in the BFD, is equal to or larger than one([0079], [0085] Fig. 3-5, triggering transmission of the SCell BFR MAC CE when at least one of the SCells is in failure condition, including where one SCell represents a group of SCells).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the reporting information is transmitted in a case a number of SCells in the group of SCells, which are identified as failed in the BFD, is equal to or larger than a second threshold that is indicated by a base station([0081]-[0083], triggering and sending report when at least two SCells or two SCell groups have failed, based on configuration from the network).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the combination of Koskela ‘087 and Xu ‘253 teaches all claim limitations, Koskela ‘087 further teaches, wherein the configuration information indicates reporting configuration of the BFD([0041], [0087] and Fig. 3, the network device configures the terminal device with specific uplink signaling resources (such as SR, PRACH, or configured grant resources) to indicate a beam failure on an SCell or group of SCells. This demonstrates that the configuration information provided to the terminal device explicitly dictates the reporting configuration for the beam failure detection (BFD)).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights