NON-FINAL REJECTION
The instant 19/030,002 application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. 11,923,945 B2 to Koskela et al. (“the ‘945 Patent”), which issued March 5, 2024 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 17/272,979, filed March 2, 2021 as a 371 Application of PCT/FI2019/050626 filed September 4, 2019. Due to a dependence on U.S. Pat. Provisional App. Ser. No. 62/728,177, the ‘945 Patent has an earliest possible U.S. effective filing date of September 7, 2018.
Claims 1-20 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application as well as the instant Amendment, claims 1-20 are canceled and new claims 21-30 are presented, of which claims 21 and 26 are independent. Thus claims 21-30 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Non-Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘945 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘945 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,923,945 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘945 Patent is deemed not to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration filed July 30, 2025 is objected to because of the following:
The Declaration fails to identify an error upon which the instant reissue is filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.175. The Examiner further notes that the statement as to how broadened claim 21 is presented without matter from issued claim 1 is improper as such removal is deemed by the Examiner below to be impermissible recapture of surrendered subject matter which is not an error upon which reissue may be based.
Reissue Amendment
The amendment filed January 17, 2025 is objected to because of the following:
New claims 21-30 are presented without being underlined in their entirety. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(2) and MPEP § 1453 II. and V.
A supplemental paper correctly amending the reissue application is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations in means-plus-function format. See, for example:
“means for determining whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station” in claim 26;
“means for determining whether a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold, when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station” in claim 26; and
“means for transmitting a message to the base station, wherein the message indicates that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed and a new uplink beam candidate, when the downlink beam signal is not being received from the base station or when the measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet the preselected threshold, wherein uplink power reduction is taken into account when determining at least one of uplink beam failure and the candidate for the new uplink beam” in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Looking to the specification, no specific structure is disclosed as the means for determining, means for determining, and means for transmitting claimed here except the UE generally. See inter alia ‘945 Patent at 16: 11-26 and FIG 5:
“In block 502, the user equipment determines whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station. In block 504, the user equipment determines whether a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station. In block 506, the user equipment transmits a message to the base station indicating that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed, when the downlink beam signal is not being received from the base station or when the measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet the preselected threshold.”
The ‘945 Patent states that the UE comprises a controller which “is assumed to include program instructions that, when executed by the associated DP, enable the device to operate in accordance with the exemplary embodiments of this invention”. However, this is not sufficient detail to determine what elements are the means for determining and means for transmitting, and even assuming that it was, the steps of determining and transmitting are not recited in a manner that rises to the level of an algorithm necessitated by disclosing a general purpose processor in means-plus-function format.
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.
Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Contingent Limitations
It is noted that claim 21 includes contingent limitations, notably “when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station, determining whether a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold” and “when the downlink beam signal is not being received from the base station or when the measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet the preselected threshold, transmitting a message to the base station”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Thus as to claim 26, both limitations must be met by the prior art to read on the claim.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
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.
Claims 22 and 26-30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 22 and 27 disclose a means and method for measuring a downlink beam by measuring an uplink control channel. This is indefinite as the Examiner cannot ascertain how a UE measures a downlink beam by way of an uplink control channel.
Claim 26 recites several limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the reasons set forth above under Claim Construction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 21-30 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02 II.):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
Step 1: MPEP 1412.02 II. A. In the instant case and by way of the recent amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden or present broadened independent claims 21 and 26 which are broader than the original independent claims, at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring that, when the DL beam signal is received, a positive determination is made of a measurable property of the beam (rather than the current “whether”, as well as the indicating message transmitted to the BS being a CFRA preamble signal comprising an indication as well as corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal, and providing an indication that the new uplink candidate is the new uplink.
Thus claims 21 and 26 are broadened claims.
Step 2: MPEP 1412.02 II. B. The record of the prior 17/272,797 application prosecution indicates that in an Amendment filed December 12, 2023 in an attempt to overcome rejections, Patent Owner added this matter to independent claims 1 and 8. Note the changes to application claim 23 shown below, which is issued as issued claim 1, and is representative:
23. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
determining whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station;
when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station, determining that a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold;
based on the determining, transmitting a contention-free random access (CFRA) preamble signal to the base station, the CFRA signal comprising:
an indication the CFRA preamble signal corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH);
and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal; and providing an indication that the new uplink candidate is the new uplink.
17/272,797 December 12, 2023 Amendment at 2
If an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. The reliance by applicant can also be created by presentation of new/amended claims or arguments/statements to obviate rejections based on other grounds. See In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1348, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Step 3: MPEP 1412.02 II. C. It is noted that the previous requirement of a positive determination being made of a measurable property of the beam as well as the indicating message transmitted to the BS being a CFRA preamble signal comprising an indication as well as corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal have been entirely eliminated from the claims Thus there is recapture.
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.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2020/0374960A1 to Deenoo et al. in view of U.S. Pat. 10,985,825B2 to Xiong et al. (both newly cited) as well as U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2020/0145079A1 to Marinier et al., of record.
As to claim 21, Deenoo discloses:
A method comprising:
[…]
when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station, determining whether a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold;
Deenoo discloses a method and system for re-selecting a communication beam in a UE wherein a downlink beam signal is monitored for failure. Deenoo at ¶¶98-100 “A WTRU may perform one or more PDCCH monitoring functions on the beams of the PDCCH monitoring set and/or beam link monitoring beam. With respect to the PDCCH serving beam, the WTRU may be configured to perform primary PDCCH monitoring in CSS and/or USS according to the serving beam PDCCH resource and monitoring configuration.” Specifically, Deenoo discloses monitoring the beam as to a measurable property meeting a specified threshold. Id. at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).”.
and
when the downlink beam signal is not being received from the base station or when the measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet the preselected threshold, transmitting a message to the base station, wherein the message indicates that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed and a new uplink beam candidate […]
Deenoo discloses that, when the measurement shows beam failure, transmitting a message to the BS indicating failure of the beam as well as a new uplink beam candidate. Deenoo at ¶87 “ In the event of a beam failure 205, the WTRU 201 may perform candidate beam identification and selection 206. The WTRU 201 may perform beam recovery resource selection 208 for the selected candidate beam. The WTRU 201 may send a beam recovery request message 210 to the gNB 202, and may indicate the selected candidate beam ” as well as ¶¶123-124 “The WTRU may be configured with a UL signal for which the characteristics/properties/contents may indicate one or more of the following information…explicit/implicit identity of candidate beams” and at FIGS 2 and 3.
Deenoo fails to specify first determining whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station, and does not disclose wherein an uplink power reduction is taken into account when determining at least one of uplink beam failure and the candidate for the new uplink beam.
As to determining if a beam is being received, Xiong discloses a related invention, namely a method and system in a wireless network communicating between a base station and UE (FIGS 11 and 12) for detecting a beam failure at a UE and determining a candidate beam for informing the BS. Xiong at FIG 2A and 7:49-8:24. Specifically, Xiong states that determining beam failure is based on both detecting the beam (determining that a beam is being received) and also monitoring a measurable quantity of the beam (when it is being received). Id. at 20:62-67 and at 7:13-33 “[o]n the UE side, after a beam failure is detected, by detecting and measuring an downlink signal”.
As to taking UPR into account, Marinier discloses an analogous system and method for measuring transmission beams in a wireless device and determining if a beam re-selection should occur. Marinier at ¶¶257-262. Specifically, Marinier discloses that beam re-selection may be based on maximum uplink power reduction. Id. at ¶8 “for beam re-selection due to MPR” and ¶257 “The UE 602 may re-select the uplink beam of the active beam processed as a result of the MPR cause by SAR.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Deenoo to include detecting a beam and using power reduction to determine a candidate beam. As to detecting a beam, Xiong discloses that detecting and measuring were known at the time and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, as to using uplink power reduction, Deenoo discloses that “power reduction may be applied to uplink transmissions to comply with requirements for spectral emission into adjacent bands.” Deenoo at ¶75. This motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the MPR of Marinier to Deenoo in order to comply with spectral emissions requirements.
Further as to claim 22:
The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the measurable property is one of reference signal received power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR), and hypothetical Block Error Rate (BLER) evaluated for physical uplink control channel or physical downlink control channel.
Deenoo discloses measuring RSRP of the PDCCH. Deenoo at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).” Deenoo also speaks of measuring BLER in ¶91. Further as to claim 23:
The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the message to the base station is a contention-free random access (CFRA) preamble signal.
Deenoo discloses that the indication may be a contentionless random access message. Deenoo at ¶126 “The WTRU may transmit the beam recovery request in a time and frequency resource configured for PRACH” and at ¶215 “if the lower layer indicates as an error beam failure (e.g. upon first indication or upon receiving N consecutive indications from lower layer) and the RS from the second set of resources is associated with a dedicated preamble, the WTRU may trigger a random access procedure using the dedicated resource associated with the RS from second set of resources”. Further, Xiong discloses the same process. Xiong at 7:3-12 “when a user equipment (UE) needs to transmit a beam failure recovery request, it may inform a base station of its beam failure request in a manner similar to the random access. The UE may also explicitly or implicitly inform the base station of information such as available candidate beams”, and at 13:64-14:1 “when the beam failure recovery request resource is a time-frequency resource for the beam failure recovery request, the time-domain position of the beam failure recovery request resource may be the same as that of the corresponding random access channel resource.”
Further as to claim 24:
The method as claimed in claim 23, wherein the CFRA preamble signal corresponds to an active transmission configuration indication state for one of a physical downlink control channel or a physical downlink shared channel.
Deenoo discloses that the candidate beam indication corresponds to an active SPS configuration state. Deenoo at ¶¶176-177 “A WTRU may re-use/keep an existing SPS configuration when switching from one beam to another (beam management) or when performing beam recovery.”
Further as to claim 25:
The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the measurable property further comprises calculating a maximum power reduction (MPR), or Power Head Room (PHR) for the at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam.
Marinier discloses measuring MPR for a pair of beams. Marinier at ¶130 and 251.
As to claim 26:
An apparatus comprising:
[…]
means for determining whether a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold, when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station; and
Deenoo discloses a method and system for re-selecting a communication beam in a UE wherein a downlink beam signal is monitored for failure at a UE. Deenoo at ¶¶98-100 “A WTRU may perform one or more PDCCH monitoring functions on the beams of the PDCCH monitoring set and/or beam link monitoring beam. With respect to the PDCCH serving beam, the WTRU may be configured to perform primary PDCCH monitoring in CSS and/or USS according to the serving beam PDCCH resource and monitoring configuration.” Specifically, Deenoo discloses monitoring the beam as to a measurable property meeting a specified threshold. Id. at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).” The UE operates with a processor means 118 and transmitter 120 for performing these operations. Id. at FIG 1B and at ¶¶31-35.
means for transmitting a message to the base station, wherein the message indicates that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed and a new uplink beam candidate, when the downlink beam signal is not being received from the base station or when the measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet the preselected threshold […]
Deenoo discloses that, when the measurement shows beam failure, the UE transmits a message to the BS indicating failure of the beam as well as a new uplink beam candidate. Deenoo at ¶87 “ In the event of a beam failure 205, the WTRU 201 may perform candidate beam identification and selection 206. The WTRU 201 may perform beam recovery resource selection 208 for the selected candidate beam. The WTRU 201 may send a beam recovery request message 210 to the gNB 202, and may indicate the selected candidate beam ” as well as ¶¶123-124 “The WTRU may be configured with a UL signal for which the characteristics/properties/contents may indicate one or more of the following information…explicit/implicit identity of candidate beams” and at FIGS 2 and 3. This is also performed by the processing and transmitting means of FIG 1B.
Deenoo fails to specify first determining whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station, and does not disclose wherein an uplink power reduction is taken into account when determining at least one of uplink beam failure and the candidate for the new uplink beam.
As to determining if a beam is being received, Xiong discloses a related invention, namely a method and system in a wireless network communicating between a base station and UE (FIGS 11 and 12) for detecting a beam failure at a UE and determining a candidate beam for informing the BS. Xiong at FIG 2A and 7:49-8:24. Specifically, Xiong states that determining beam failure is based on both detecting the beam (determining that a beam is being received) and also monitoring a measurable quantity of the beam (when it is being received). Id. at 20:62-67 and at 7:13-33 “[o]n the UE side, after a beam failure is detected, by detecting and measuring an downlink signal”.
As to taking UPR into account, Marinier discloses an analogous system and method for measuring transmission beams in a wireless device and determining if a beam re-selection should occur. Marinier at ¶¶257-262. Specifically, Marinier discloses that beam re-selection may be based on maximum uplink power reduction. Id. at ¶8 “for beam re-selection due to MPR” and ¶257 “The UE 602 may re-select the uplink beam of the active beam processed as a result of the MPR cause by SAR.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Deenoo to include detecting a beam and using power reduction to determine a candidate beam. As to detecting a beam, Xiong discloses that detecting and measuring were known at the time and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, as to using uplink power reduction, Deenoo discloses that “power reduction may be applied to uplink transmissions to comply with requirements for spectral emission into adjacent bands.” Deenoo at ¶75. This motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the MPR of Marinier to Deenoo in order to comply with spectral emissions requirements.
Further as to claim 27:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the measurable property is one of reference signal received power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-and-noise (SINR), ratio, and hypothetical Block Error Rate (BLER), evaluated for physical uplink control channel or physical downlink control channel.
Deenoo discloses the UE measuring RSRP of the PDCCH. Deenoo at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).” Deenoo also speaks of measuring BLER in ¶91. Further as to claim 28:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the message to the base station is a contention-free random access (CFRA), preamble signal.
Deenoo discloses that the indication may be a contentionless random access message. Deenoo at ¶126 “The WTRU may transmit the beam recovery request in a time and frequency resource configured for PRACH” and at ¶215 “if the lower layer indicates as an error beam failure (e.g. upon first indication or upon receiving N consecutive indications from lower layer) and the RS from the second set of resources is associated with a dedicated preamble, the WTRU may trigger a random access procedure using the dedicated resource associated with the RS from second set of resources”. Further, Xiong discloses the same process. Xiong at 7:3-12 “when a user equipment (UE) needs to transmit a beam failure recovery request, it may inform a base station of its beam failure request in a manner similar to the random access. The UE may also explicitly or implicitly inform the base station of information such as available candidate beams”, and at 13:64-14:1 “when the beam failure recovery request resource is a time-frequency resource for the beam failure recovery request, the time-domain position of the beam failure recovery request resource may be the same as that of the corresponding random access channel resource.”
Further as to claim 29:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 28, wherein the contention-free random access (CFRA), preamble signal corresponds to an active transmission configuration indication state for one of a physical downlink control channel or a physical downlink shared channel.
Deenoo discloses that the candidate beam indication corresponds to an active SPS configuration state. Deenoo at ¶¶176-177 “A WTRU may re-use/keep an existing SPS configuration when switching from one beam to another (beam management) or when performing beam recovery.”
Further as to claim 30:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the measurable property further comprises calculating a maximum power reduction (MPR), or Power Head Room (PHR), for the at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam.
Marinier discloses measuring MPR for a pair of beams. Marinier at ¶130 and 251.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992