Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/810,667

SIGNALING AND CONFIGURATION OF MAXIMUM TRANSMIT POWER USING VIRTUAL PORTS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 05, 2022
Examiner
ALAWDI, SHEHAB A
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 25 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -17% lift
Without
With
+-17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
63
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
60.5%
+20.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.8%
-4.2% vs TC avg
§112
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 25 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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 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. Claims [1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-13, 15-17, 20, 23 and 27] are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20200267701 A1)] in view of Saifur (US 20200336998 A1). In regards to claims 1, 12, 23 and 27 Park a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, individually or collectively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: [0051] FIG. 26 illustrates a wireless device which may be applied to the present disclosure, transmit, to a network node, a bitmap associated with a subset of a set of transmit precoding matrix indicators (TPMIs), wherein each TPMI, of the set of TPMIs, supports a maximum transmit power for uplink communications according to a power class of the UE, [0505] In other words, in Proposal 4, the UE may transmit the information associated with the capability, which includes a subset of TPMI including at least one TPMI capable of performing the uplink transmission with the full transmission power by the UE while transmitting the information associated with the capability of the UE to the eNB., the set of TPMIs includes more TPMIs than the set subset of TPMIs; [0011] transmitting to a base station information associated with a capability of the UE, in which the information includes a subset including at least one transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) supported by the UE, the bitmap include. [0498] In other words, when the UE reports to the eNB the codebook subset as the capability of the UE, the eNB may determine that the uplink transmission of the corresponding TPMIs is available with the full power and use 1 as the power scaling value at the time of transmitting the PUSCH using the corresponding TPMI. Wireless communication [0005] An embodiment of the present disclosure provides a method and a device for transmitting and receiving data in a wireless communication system. Network node [0093] Network function: A network function is a logical node within a network infrastructure that has well-defined external interfaces and well-defined functional behavior. Park does not teach the bitmap includes one or more bits indicating one or more TPMIs of the subset of TPMIs that support the maximum transmit power. However, Saifur does teach the bitmap includes one or more bits indicating one or more TPMIs of the subset of TPMIs that support the maximum transmit power [0122] When the UE reports additional details about the UE capability signaling, then the additional detail includes a B-bit signaling, where the B-bit signaling S=b.sub.0 . . . b.sub.B−1 indicates (reports) TPMIs or TPMI groups that can be used to transmit UL transmission at full power. In one example, each bit b.sub.i is associated with a TPMI or TPMI group in the rank-1 UL codebook, i.e., the B-bit signaling is a bitmap of size (or length) equal to the total number of TPMIs or TPMI groups (let us denote this number by Z) with which the UE can support full power UL transmission. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park and Saifur before him or her, to modify the method of Park to include TPMI as taught by Saifur. The motivation for doing so would be to improved network performance. (Paragraph 0107 by Saifur)]. In regards to claim 2 and 13 Park and Saifur teach the limitations of the parent claims. Park also teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein the bitmap is 2 bits in length when the UE includes two transmit chains. [0502] For example, when the UE reports the capability to the eNB only with rank 1 and the non-coherent codebook, the UE may report to the eNB an available part with a 2-bit bitmap (TPMIs 0 and 1) for 2 ports and a 4-bit bitmap (TPMIs 0 to 3) for 4 ports. In regards to claim 4 and 15 Park and Saifur teach the limitations of the parent claims. Park also teaches wherein the at least one TPMI includes a TPMI in which all transmit chains of the UE are used. [0500] Alternatively, the UE may report to the eNB available TPMI among all available TPMIs with the 9-bit bitmap (6+3) in the case of 2 ports and report to the eNB whether to use full TPMI using the 62-bit bitmap (28+22+7+5) in the case of 4 ports. In regards to claim 5 and 16 Park and Saifur teach the limitations of the parent claims. Park also teaches wherein each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single-layer TPMI. [0503] As another example, when the UE reports the capability to the eNB only with rank 1 and the non-partial coherent codebook, the UE may report to the eNB information on available TPMI with the 2-bit bitmap for 2 ports as it is and a 12-bit bitmap (TPMIs 0 to 11) for 4 ports. In regards to claim 6 and 17 Park and Saifur teach the limitations of the parent claims. Park also teaches wherein the at least one TPMI includes a multi-layer TPMI [0482] <Proposal 2: When the UE reports UE capability 1, the power scaling value is calculated as a at the time of transmitting the PUSCH for active BWP and antenna ports of performing non-zero power PUSCH transmission of the UE evenly divide and transmit power. Here, the value of α may be determined by higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC or MAC CE) or dynamic signaling (e.g., DCI).> In regards to claim 9 and 20 Park and Saifur teach the limitations of the parent claims. Park also teaches wherein the UE is required to support the maximum transmit power using only a first transmit chain of the UE if the UE has only two transmit chains and is capable of combining antenna ports to transmit uplink communications using the maximum transmit power. [0481 and Table 22] In this regard, for an SRS resource having one or more ports, in order to at least support UE capability 3, the UE may signal to the eNB a TPMI set of transferring the full power. Claim [3, 7, 10,11,14, 18, 21-22, 25-26 and 29-34] is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Saifur further in view of Haghighat (US 20220109474 A1). Regarding claim 3 and 14 Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur do not teach wherein the bitmap is 2 bits in length when the UE includes two transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the bitmap is 2 bits in length when the UE includes two transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. [0082] In examples, a WTRU with N TX chains may use a bitmap with length N bits, for example, to indicate which TX chains are equipped with full rated PAs. Other (e.g., remaining) TX chains may be assumed, for example, to employ PAs with a lower power rating (e.g., P.sub.Amp=P.sub.Max/N). In examples (e.g., for a Power Class 3 WTRU with 4 TX antennas), a bitmap “0 0 1 1” may indicate utilization of PAs with ratings “17 dBm,17 dBm, 23 dBm,23 dBm,” while “0 0 0 0” may indicate an implementation based on “17 dBm,17 dBm, 17 dBm, 17 dBm” PA ratings. xxxvii. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to modify the method of Park to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 7 and 18 Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur do not teach wherein the bitmap is 11 bits in length when the UE includes four transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the bitmap is 11 bits in length when the UE includes four transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. [0086] In examples, a WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) indicate a coherence capability of the WTRU through indication of a PA rating. In an example (e.g., where a WTRU with N TX chains uses a bitmap with length N bits to indicate which TX chains are equipped with a full rated PA), the indicated chains with full rated PAs may be assumed to be coherent transmit chains. For example (e.g., for a Power Class 3 WTRU with 4 TX antennas), a bitmap “0 0 1 1” may indicate utilization of PAs with the ratings “17 dBm, 17 dBm, 23 dBm, 23 dBm.” Such a WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) indicate (e.g., in the foregoing PA ratings) that transmit chains 3 and 4 (e.g., 23 dBm and 23 dBm) are the coherent transmission units (e.g., panels). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Jiwon and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 10 and Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur do not teach wherein the bitmap is 11 bits in length when the UE includes four transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the bitmap is 11 bits in length when the UE includes four transmit chains and when corresponding connections between transmit chains and transmit antennas are not reconfigurable. [0085] A WTRU may send a coherency indication. A WTRU may, for example, use a bitmap to indicate the coherence capability of its transmitter structure. A WTRU with N TX chains may, for example, use a bitmap with length N bits, e.g., to indicate which TX chains may be considered as coherent transmission units. In examples, “0” and “1” may indicate coherent and non-coherent transmission chains (e.g., panels). In examples (e.g., for a WTRU with 4 TX antennas), a bitmap “0 0 0 1” may indicate a PNC capable WTRU, for example, where the 4th transmit chain (e.g., panel) does not exhibit a coherent transmission behavior with respect to the first three transmit chains. A coherence capability may be indicated per pair of TX chains. For example (e.g., in a 4TX WTRU), the WTRU may use a 2-bit length bitmap to indicate the coherency of a (e.g., each) TX pair. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 11 and 22 Park and Jiwon teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur do not teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the network node, an indication of whether connections between transmit chains of the UE and transmit antennas of the UE are reconfigurable. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the network node, an indication of whether connections between transmit chains of the UE and transmit antennas of the UE are reconfigurable [0085] A WTRU may send a coherency indication. A WTRU may, for example, use a bitmap to indicate the coherence capability of its transmitter structure. A WTRU with N TX chains may, for example, use a bitmap with length N bits, e.g., to indicate which TX chains may be considered as coherent transmission units. In examples, “0” and “1” may indicate coherent and non-coherent transmission chains (e.g., panels). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 25 and 29, Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur does not teach wherein the at least one TPMI includes a TPMI in which all transmit chains of the UE are used. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the at least one TPMI includes a TPMI in which all transmit chains of the UE are used, [0077] Uplink transmission may support one or more (e.g., all) ranks, for example, with full power capability (e.g., assuming FPNC capability). For example, for rank 1 transmission (e.g., as shown in Table 1), transmitted precoding matrix indicators (TPM Is) {0, 1, 2, 3} may enable antenna selection, while TPMIs {0, 4, 12} may be utilized for WTRU power saving (e.g., if needed). The power saving capability of a WTRU may be maintained (e.g., while antenna selection is supported), for example, by turning OFF/ON RF chains. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 26 and 30, Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur does not teach wherein each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single-layer TPMI. However, Haghighat does teach wherein each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single-layer TPMI, [0085] WTRU may, for example, use a bitmap to indicate the coherence capability of its transmitter structure. A WTRU with N TX chains may, for example, use a bitmap with length N bits, e.g., to indicate which TX chains may be considered as coherent transmission units. In examples, “0” and “1” may indicate coherent and non-coherent transmission chains (e.g., panels). In examples (e.g., for a WTRU with 4 TX antennas), a bitmap “0 0 0 1” may indicate a PNC capable WTRU. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Regarding claim 31, 32, 33 and 34 Park and Saifur teaches the limitations of the parent claims. Park and Saifur do not teach wherein the bitmap is two bits and includes a first bit and a second bit, wherein the first bit indicates support for the maximum transmit power using only a first antenna of the UE, and the second bit indicates support for the maximum transmit power using only a second antenna of the UE. However, Haghighat does teach wherein the bitmap is two bits and includes a first bit and a second bit, wherein the first bit indicates support for the maximum transmit power using only a first antenna of the UE,) and the second bit indicates support for the maximum transmit power using only a second antenna of the UE. [0082] a WTRU with N TX chains may use a bitmap with length N bits, for example, to indicate which TX chains are equipped with full rated PAs. Other (e.g., remaining) TX chains may be assumed, for example, to employ PAs with a lower power rating (e.g., P.sub.Amp=P.sub.Max/N). In examples (e.g., for a Power Class 3 WTRU with 4 TX antennas xxxvii. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Park, Saifur and Haghighat before him or her, to modify the method of Park and Jiwon to modify the method of Park and Saifur to include bitmap as taught by Haghighat. The motivation for doing so would be to improved efficiency. (Paragraph 0088 by Haghighat)]. Response to Argument Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new rejection stated above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEHAB A ALAWDI whose telephone number is (571)270-3203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, [ Hamza, Faruk ] can be reached at [ (571) 272-7969 ]. 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. /SHEHAB A ALAWDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466 /JAY P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 18, 2025
Interview Requested
May 01, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 20, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 13, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593324
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR COORDINATING DATA TRANSMISSION IN A COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587307
METHODS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR DETERMINING PARAMETERS OF BURSTS FOR DATA FLOW TRANSMISSION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK BASED ON CHANNEL QUALITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581330
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580680
INTERLEAVER DESIGN FOR NONCOHERENT REED MULLER CODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581435
METHOD FOR SIDELINK COMMUNICATION IN NR V2X BY TERMINAL IN WHICH NR MODULE AND LTE MODULE COEXIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (-17.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 25 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month