Beam Failure Recovery CORESET Configuration Across Cells and BWPs

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing technologies lack a flexible configuration solution for Control Resource Set Beam Failure Recovery (CORESET-BFR) in multi-carrier systems using digital-analog hybrid beamforming in 5G NR communications.

Innovation Solution

Incorporating cell and bandwidth part (BWP) indices into the configuration information of CORESET-BFR via higher layer signaling to enable flexible configuration, allowing beam failure recovery by switching to a different cell or BWP and determining quasi-colocation (QCL) information.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If beam failure recovery procedure is triggered and reconfiguration is performed, then connection reliability is improved, but time loss increases due to the complexity of the recovery procedure

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconnection reliabilityVSAvoidtime loss
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The beam failure recovery procedure is divided into two independent parts: (1) a first part executed by the terminal device that does not require network cooperation, and (2) a second part executed by the network side device that requires terminal feedback. This segmentation allows the terminal to perform initial recovery actions independently, reducing the overall time loss while maintaining connection reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The terminal device performs the first part of the recovery procedure proactively without waiting for network instructions. By initiating recovery actions in advance and independently, the terminal reduces the time loss associated with waiting for network response while still ensuring reliable reconnection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If existing beam failure recovery procedures are used, then connection reliability is maintained, but device complexity increases due to additional configurations and feedback mechanisms

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconnection reliabilityVSAvoiddevice complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The recovery procedure is segmented into terminal-executed actions and network-executed actions. The terminal device only needs to implement the first part, which simplifies its complexity, while the network side device handles the second part that requires additional configurations. This division reduces the complexity burden on the terminal device.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

A feedback mechanism acts as an intermediary between the terminal device and the network side device. The terminal feeds back status information to the network, which then decides whether to execute the second part of the recovery procedure. This intermediary approach simplifies the terminal's complexity by allowing it to rely on network coordination for complex operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP3826358B1Beam failure recovery method, terminal device, and network side device
Publication Date: 2026.05.13 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV
  • EP3826358B1 patent drawingFigure 1~4
  • EP3826358B1 patent drawingFigure 5~7

AI summary

A beam failure recovery method, a terminal device, and a network side device are provided. The method includes: receiving higher layer signaling, where the higher layer signaling includes configuration information of a control resource set for beam failure recovery CORESET-BFR configured for the terminal device. The configuration information of the CORESET-BFR includes at least one of the following: a cell index of a cell on which the CORESET-BFR is located and a BWP index of a bandwidth part BWP on which the CORESET-BFR is located.