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 .
Remarks
1. This office action is in response to applicant's Arguments/ Remarks filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1-15 and 27-28 are pending, and claims 16-26 and 29-30 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 27-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the amended claims 1 and 27, applicant argues that the combination of cited reference fails to disclose perform one or more transmissions comprising at least one or more uplink transmissions at a transmission power that is based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS. In support of argument , applicant cited that paragraph 0122 of “..Yeo establishes that the SL transmission power can be based on PLSL and PLuu, not that the UL transmission power used for the power headroom report would be based on both pathloss types, but the UL transmission power in Yeo appears to be based solely on PLuu…As shown figure 21 and paragraph 0278 of Guo, sidelink pathloss is only factored into UE-A's sidelink transmission power calculation if that pathloss is associated with one of the target UEs, and not uplink transmission power.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Yeo clearly discloses UL transmission power used for the power headroom report would be based on both pathloss types (figure 13, step 1330; paragraphs 0114-0115, “…second UE may estimate a pathloss between the first UE and the second UE; figure 13, step 1360; paragraphs 0117-0118, “…second UE may estimate a pathloss between the BS and the second UE”; figure 13, step 1380; paragraph 0120, “…the process in which the second UE receives configuration information related to a reference signal from the BS and estimates a pathloss, and the process in which the second UE receives configuration information related to a reference signal from the first UE and estimates a pathloss may be performed in parallel” and paragraphs 0121 and 0124-0125, “…the second UE may report a power headroom of the second UE 1205 to the BS 1211 or the first UE 1201”). Thus, Yeo et al clearly discloses performing one or more transmissions comprising at least one or more uplink transmissions at a transmission power that is based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS (figure 13, step 1380; paragraphs 0124-0125 and 0127, “… the second UE may transfer a power headroom report (PHR) to base station BS”).
Regarding the argument of Guo, sidelink pathloss is only factored into UE-A's sidelink transmission power calculation if that pathloss is associated with one of the target UEs, and not uplink transmission power, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Guo not only discloses “…sidelink pathloss is only factored into UE-A's sidelink transmission power calculation if that pathloss is associated with one of the target UEs”, but also discloses “..the UE-A may include the pathloss between the UE-A 2101 and the gNB 2105 in the calculation of Tx power for sidelink if the carrier frequency used for sidelink transmission is same to the carrier frequency used for uplink transmission of the gNB 2105”(paragraph 0279). Thus, Guo clearly discloses uplink transmission.
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 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al (U.S. 2022/0086768 A1) in view of Bhushan et al (U.S. 2015/0382375 A1) further in view of Guo (U.S. 2020/0022089 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yeo et al discloses a first user equipment (UE) (figure 12-13 a second UE 1205) , comprising: a memory; at least one transceiver; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (figure 22, a transceiver 2200, 2204 and a processor 2202; paragraphs 0042 and 0237-0239), the at least one processor configured to: receive, via the at least one transceiver, a pathloss (PL) reference signal (RS) from a second UE (figure 13, step 1310; paragraph 0112, “…UE1205 receives a reference signal (e.g., information associated with a reference signal from 1501”); determine a PL associated with the PL RS (figure 13, step 1330; paragraphs 0113-0114, “…the second UE 1205 measures the reference signal transmitted from the first UE 1201, and calculates a reception power… estimate a pathloss between the first UE and the second UE”); and perform, in one or more full duplex (FD) resources, one or more transmissions comprising at least one or more uplink transmissions at a transmission power that is based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS (figure 13, step 1380; paragraphs 0124-0125 and 0127, “… the second UE may transfer a power headroom report (PHR) to base station BS“).
Yeo et al does not disclose one or more full duplex (FD) resources, the one or more transmissions to the wireless node other than the second UE a transmission power.
Bhushan et al discloses a user equipment UE performs in one or more full duplex (FD) resources, one or more transmissions based on path loss (paragraphs 0079-0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bhushan et al in to the apparatus of Yeo et al such that a user equipment UE could be performed in one or more full duplex (FD) resources, one or more transmissions as desired in order to provide simultaneous communication to and from a device as taught by Bhushan et al (paragraph 0051).
Guo discloses performing one or more transmissions to a wireless node other than the second UE a transmission power that is based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS (figure 21, UE-A to UE-B and UE-D; paragraphs 0278-0279 and 0282-0284).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo in to the apparatus of Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al such that a user equipment UE could be performed one or more transmissions to a wireless node other than the second UE a transmission power that is based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS as desired in order to improve the transmission reliability as taught by Guo (paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 2, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yeo et al discloses wherein the transmission power is based at least in part on a maximum transmission power that is determined based at least in part on the PL associated with the PL RS (paragraphs 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 3, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1.Yeo et al discloses wherein the one or more transmissions further comprise one or more sidelink transmissions (paragraphs 0122 and 0124, “…the second UE may transfer a power headroom report (PHR) to the first UE 1201” ).
Regarding claim 4, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yeo et al silent to wherein the transmission power is based at least in part on crosslink interference (CLI), caused by transmission by the first UE on the one or more FD resources to one or more downlink or sidelink signals received by the second UE, to satisfy a threshold.
Bhushan et al discloses a transmission power is based at least in part on crosslink interference (CLI), caused by transmission by a first UE on the one or more FD resources to one or more downlink or sidelink signals received by a second UE (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 5, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yeo et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a transmission power associated with the PL RS, wherein the PL is based at least in part on the transmission power associated with the PL RS ( figure 13, stepb1370; paragraph 0122, “… the second UE may calculate the transmission power based on the calculated pathloss PLSL of the link 1203 with the first UE”).
Regarding claim 6, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Yeo et al discloses wherein the transmission power associated with the PL RS is preconfigured at the first UE in advance of reception of the PL RS (paragraph 0150, “… the pathloss may be the difference between the transmission power of the signal transmitted from the first UE 1201 and the reception power measured by the second UE 1205. This may be an RSRP. The RSRP may be a linear average value of power transmitted in a resource element in which a predetermined reference signal is mapped”
Regarding claim 7, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yeo et al discloses wherein the PL RS corresponds to a sounding reference signal (SRS) (paragraph 0150).
Regarding claim 8, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Yeo et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, via the at least one transceiver and from a network entity, a configuration of the PL RS (figure 13, step 1340; paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 9, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 8. Yeo et al discloses wherein the network entity provides an indication of a transmission power associated with the PL RS (paragraphs 0116 and 0120).
Regarding claim 10, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Bhushan et al discloses wherein the PL RS is communicated via at least one half-duplex (HD) resource associated with the one or more FD resources (figure 3,items 302-306; paragraphs 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 11, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Bhushan et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, via the at least one transceiver, one or more signals from a network entity or another UE on the one or more FD resources concurrently with the one or more transmissions by the first UE (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 13, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Bhushan et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that one or more other transmissions by the first UE are not co-scheduled with any signal reception at the second UE, and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the one or more other transmissions with another transmission power that is determined without the PL being used as a power control constraint (paragraph 0059 and 0085).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is similar in scope to the claim 1 except in method form and thus the rejection to claim 1 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, and as applied to the claim 27, claim 28 is similar in scope to the claim 2 except in method form and thus the rejection to claim 2 hereinabove is also applicable to claim 28.
4. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al (U.S. 2022/0086768 A1) in view of Bhushan et al (U.S. 2015/0382375 A1) further in view of Guo (U.S. 2020/0022089 A1) further in view of Fakoorian et al (U.S. 2021/0051670 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo discloses the apparatus of claim 11. Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al does not disclose wherein the one or more signals are communicated during a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) occasion and the one or more transmissions by the first UE are communicated via a configured grant (CG) occasion.
Fakoorian et al discloses a UE configured to: receive one or more signals from a network entity, wherein the one or more signals are communicated during a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) occasion and the one or more transmissions by the first UE are communicated via a configured grant (CG) occasion (paragraph 0129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fakoorian et al in to the apparatus of Yeo et al in view of Bhushan et al and Guo, such that a user equipment UE could be configured to: receive one or more signals from a network entity, wherein the one or more signals are communicated during a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) occasion and the one or more transmissions by the first UE are communicated via a configured grant (CG) occasion in order to provide for efficiently scheduling SPS downlink transmissions and dynamic downlink transmissions to maximize throughput in a wireless communications system as taught by Fakoorian et al (paragraph 0005).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATUMA G SHERIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7189. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, PAN YUWEN can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/FATUMA G SHERIF/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights