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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following reason:
Regarding claims 1, 13, 22 and 30,
In pages 11-12, Applicant argues that:
Abotabl, Harrebek, Zhang, Chen, and Hu-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 30.
The Office Action states that "Abotabl does not disclose, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission performed in accordance with the configuration information," as recited in independent claim 1. Office Action, pp. 4-5. Instead, the Office Action relies on Harrebek to allegedly teach or suggest these features of independent claim 1. See id., pp. 5-6.
Harrebek is generally directed to "cross link interference (CLI) sounding reference signal (SRS)-reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement conditions reporting." Harrebek, Abstract. At portions cited by the Office Action, Harrebek describes "[w]ith the UE reporting of both the CLI SRS RSRP measurement results and the used time offsets, ... the gNB may obtain visibility of the full conditions and may select the most appropriate measurement configuration/result values based on a trade-off between accuracy, offset and speed." Id.[0054] (emphasis add ed). At another portion cited by the Office Action, Harrebek describes that "the gNB may process the UE measurement reporting as input for CLI mitigation planning. For example, in one embodiment, the gNB may, at 507 a, use the measurement result directly in CLI mitigation planning." Id. [0064] (emphasis added). That is, Harrebek discusses that a gNB may perform CLI mitigation planning based on measurement results, such as CLI SRS RSRP measurement results, received from a UE.
The Office Action appears to equate the "CLI SRS RSRP measurement results" of Harrebek with the "one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements" of independent claim 1. However, even under such an interpretation-which Applicant does not concede to be correct Harrebek does not teach or suggest a recommended downlink transmission power level that is based on the "CLI SRS RSRP measurement results" of Harrebek. Further, Harrebek does not teach or suggest that a UE may transmit such a recommended downlink transmission power level that is based on any one or more measurements. The Office Action appears to rely on Harrebek to suggest "CLI mitigation planning" based on "CLI SRS RSRP measurement results." However, the Office Action has not shown how Harrebek may be relied on to suggest how such "CLI SRS RSRP measurement results" may be relevant to a recommended downlink transmission power level transmitted by a UE. Thus, Harrebek does not teach or suggest "transmit, by the UE ... [a] recommended downlink transmission power level [that] is based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission performed in accordance with the configuration information," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Zhang, Chen, and Hu-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1, nor does the Office Action suggest otherwise. Therefore, for at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1 is allowable, including but not limited to over any combination of Abotabl, Harrebek, Zhang, Chen, and Hu. Amended independent claims 13, 22, and 30 are allowable for at least similar reasons.
Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they focus on Harrebek in isolation, rather than addressing what the references teach in combination, which is the basis of the rejection. The rejection relies on Abotabl for the overall framework of UE-generated signaling, and on Harrebek for the specific measurement basis for that signaling.
First, with respect to the claimed steps of receiving configuration signaling, receiving a downlink transmission in accordance with that configuration, and transmitting a message that includes an indication for subsequent network transmission behavior, Abotabl clearly teaches this overall framework. As described in Abotabl [0063]-[0066], the UE operates in a configured mode and determines assistance information based on its operating conditions. Abotabl [0075] further teaches that the UE transmits this assistance information to the base station so that the network can use it to guide its operation. In plain terms, Abotabl already teaches that the UE collects information about its condition and sends that information back to the network to influence how the network transmits in the future. That aligns with the claimed idea of sending a message that includes an indication affecting later downlink transmission behavior.
Applicant does not really dispute what Abotabl teaches. Instead, the argument focuses on Harrebek and says that Harrebek does not disclose a “recommended downlink transmission power level” or that the UE transmits such a recommendation. However, this argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Harrebek alone to teach that feature. Harrebek is being used for a different purpose, namely, to show that UE-reported information can be based on interference or channel measurements.
Looking more closely at Harrebek, paragraphs [0061]-[0062] explain that the UE receives measurement configuration information from the network (such as SRS configuration), performs cross link interference measurements (CLI SRS RSRP) according to that configuration, and reports the results back to the network. This directly corresponds to the claim requirement that the information is based on measurements that correspond to transmissions performed according to configuration information. In other words, Harrebek clearly shows that the UE's reported information is derived from measurements taken under network-configured conditions.
Harrebek also makes clear that these measurements are not just raw data with no purpose. For example, paragraph [0054] explains that the network uses the reported measurement results and related information to understand the conditions and choose appropriate configurations. Paragraph [0064] further explains that the network processes the UE's measurement reporting as input for cross link interference mitigation planning, and in some cases uses the measurement results directly. So Harrebek is very clear that the UE's measurement-based reporting is used to influence how the network manages interference and adjusts its transmissions.
Applicant argues that Harrebek does not disclose a “recommended downlink transmission power level.” That may be true in a literal sense, but it does not overcome the rejection. The rejection relies on Abotabl for the concept of the UE sending assistance information to influence network behavior, and on Harrebek for the idea that such information can be based on measured interference or channel conditions. When these teachings are combined, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to base the UE's assistance information (from Abotabl) on the measurement results (from Harrebek). Once that is done, expressing that assistance information in the form of a recommendation, such as a recommended transmission parameter is a straightforward and predictable step.
Applicant also argues that Harrebek does not teach the UE transmitting a recommendation. However, Harrebek [0004]-[0006] and [0061]-[0062] clearly show that the UE performs measurements and reports results to the network, and paragraphs [0054] and [0064] show that the network uses those results to make transmission-related decisions. Given this, it would have been an obvious design choice for the UE to provide processed or derived information (such as a recommendation) instead of only raw measurement values, especially since the purpose of the reporting is to help the network adjust its behavior.
Finally, Applicant argues that the Office Action has not explained how the measurement results relate to a recommended transmission power level. However, Harrebek directly links the reported measurements to interference mitigation planning at the network side [0064]. Interference mitigation naturally involves adjusting transmission parameters such as power, scheduling, or configuration. A person of ordinary skill would readily understand that interference measurements (like CLl or CSI) are directly relevant to deciding or recommending transmission power levels.
In summary, when Abotabl and Harrebek are read together, Abotabl provides the mechanism for UE generated assistance information that influences network transmissions, and Harrebek provides the teaching that such information can be based on measurements obtained under network configuration [0061]-[0062] and used to guide transmission decisions [0054], [0064]. The claimed feature is therefore at least obvious from their combination. Applicant has not provided sufficient reasoning to show otherwise. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Regarding claims 12,
In pages 13-14, Applicant argues that:
Dependent claim 12 depends from independent claim 1 and is therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 is allowable. Dependent claim 12 also recites additional allowable features. For example, dependent claim 12 recites: determine a change in a cross link interference measurement at the UE or in a channel state information measurement at the UE based at least in part on the downlink transmission, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on the change.
The Office Action has not shown the cited portions of Abotabl to disclose all the features of dependent claim 12. In the rejection of dependent claim 12, the Office Action states that "FIG. 4 includes
diagrams 410, 420, and 430 illustrating a base station 412 engaging in FD communication, a UE 424 engaging in FD communication, and both a base station 432 and a UE 434 engaging in FD communication. Diagram 410 illustrates a base station 412 engaging in FD communication."Office Action, pp. 8-9 (citing Abotabl [0059] and [0060], and Figure 4 (reproduced above)).At the portions cited by the Office Action, Abotabl describes: FIG. 4 includes diagrams 410, 420, and 430 illustrating a base station 412 engaging in FD communication, a UE 424 engaging in FD communication, and both a base station 432 and a UE 434 engaging in FD communication. Diagram 410 illustrates a base station 412 engaging in FD communication. Specifically, the base station 412 transmits DL data 418 to a first UE 414 and receives UL data 416 from a second UE 415 at a same time. The UL data 416 received by the base station and the DL data 418 transmitted by the base station may result in self-interference at the base station (e.g., interference between the UL data transmission and the DL data transmission). Diagram 420 illustrates a UE 424 engaging in FD communication.
Specifically, the UE 424 transmits UL data 426 to a first base station 422 and receives DL data 428 from a second base station 423. The UL data 426 transmitted by the UE and the DL data 428 received by the UE may result in self-interference at the UE (e.g., interference between the UL data transmission and the DL data transmission). Diagram 430 illustrates a UE 434 and base station 432 engaging in FD communication with each other. Both the base station 432 and the UE 434 may experience self-interference between the UL data transmission 436 and the DL data transmission 438.
Abotabl [0059] and [0060] (emphasis added). That is, the Office Action appears to rely on Abotabl's description of "self-interference" to allegedly disclose the features of claim 12.
However, the Office Action has not pointed to any portion of Abotabl that suggests consideration of a cross link interference measurement or a channel state information measurement. An occurrence of self-interference is not the same as a cross link interference measurement or a channel state information measurement. Further, the Office Action has not shown the cited portions of Abotabl to disclose that the "recommendation about a DL transmission power" may be based on a change in a cross link interference measurement or a channel state information measurement. Indeed, the Office Action has not shown the cited portions of Abotabl to disclose the "recommendation about a DL transmission power" may be based on a measurement such as a cross link interference measurement or a channel state information measurement. Thus, the Office Action has not shown the cited portions of Abotabl to disclose "determin[ing] a change in a cross link interference measurement at the UE or in a channel state information measurement at the UE based at least in part on the downlink transmission, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on the change," as recited in dependent claim 12.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, dependent claim 12 is allowable over Abotabl. Harrebek, Zhang, Chen, and Hu-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest the features of dependent claim 12, nor does the Office Action suggest otherwise. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 12 are not persuasive because they again focus too narrowly on whether the cited portions of Abotabl explicitly use the exact terminology “cross link interference measurement” or “channel state information measurement,” rather than considering what the reference reasonably teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As cited in the Office Action, Abotabl [0059]-[0060] and FIG. 4 describe a UE operating in a full-duplex (FD) mode in which uplink and downlink transmissions occur simultaneously. In this scenario, the UE both transmits UL data and receives DL data at the same time, and the reference explicitly explains that this results in self-interference at the UE due to interaction between the UL and DL transmissions. FIG. 4 further illustrates that this interference condition is directly tied to the concurrent UL/DL activity at the UE. In practical wireless systems, such interference is not merely present but must be evaluated and managed by the UE in order to maintain reliable communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that the UE necessarily observes and evaluates these interference conditions during operation.
When Abotabl [0059]-[0060] is read together with Abotabl [0063]-[0066] and [0075], the reference teaches that the UE determines assistance information based on its operating conditions (which include the interference conditions arising from FD operation) and transmits that information to the base station to assist network decisions. Because the interference described in [0059]-[0060] arises directly from the UE's simultaneous UL and DL transmissions, and because those transmissions vary over time depending on traffic and scheduling, the resulting interference condition at the UE is inherently dynamic. As a result, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the UE evaluates not only the presence of interference but also variations or changes in that interference condition as communication continues.
Applicant argues that “self-interference” is not the same as a cross link interference measurement or a channel state information measurement. However, this distinction is not persuasive in the context of the rejection. The claim does not require a specific labeled measurement procedure, but rather a determination based on interference or channel conditions at the UE. Abotabl clearly teaches that the UE operates under interference conditions caused by concurrent UL and DL transmissions [0059]-[0060], and that the UE determines and report, assistance information based on those conditions [0063]-[0066], [0075]. It’s very well known in the telecommunication industry that evaluating interference conditions at the UE necessarily involves assessing signal interactions (I.e., channel or interference characteristics), which corresponds
to the claimed concept of using interference or channel-related information.
Moreover, to the extent that Applicant argues that Abotabl does not explicitly disclose a “change” in such measurement, this is also not persuasive. The interference described in [0059]-[0060] depends directly on ongoing UL and DL transmissions, which vary over time. As such, the interference condition at the UE inherently changes as transmission conditions change. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized it as obvious to account for such variations when determining UE assistance information, particularly where the purpose of that information is to help the network adapt its transmission behavior. Determining or responding to changes in interference or channel conditions is a routine and well-understood aspect of wireless system design.
Accordingly, Abotabl teaches or at least suggests determining UE-side information based on interference conditions arising from downlink transmission and using that information to influence network behavior. When considered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, this reasonably encompasses determining changes in interference-related conditions and using those changes to derive transmission-related guidance. Applicant has not shown that the claimed limitation requires anything beyond this level of understanding or that such functionality would have been non- obvious.
Therefore, the rejection of dependent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Rejections for Dependent claims 3-11, 14-21 and 23-29 are maintained for the same reason as the independent claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-15, 22, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl et al. (US 20220303105, hereinafter “Abotabl”) and further in view of Harrebek et al. (US 20210006438, hereinafter “Harrebek”).
Regarding claim 1, Abotabl discloses,
A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 6, UE 602) for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 6 is a call flow diagram 600 illustrating a UE 602 operating in a FD mode providing FD UE assistance information to a base station 604, [0063]), comprising:
One or more processor (Fig. 3, processor 359);
memory coupled with the one or more processor (The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data, [0053]); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processor to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network entity, control signaling indicating configuration information for dynamic reporting of a recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission (Fig. 6:610, [0063], "the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information."; [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.");
receive, from the network entity, a downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information (Fig. 6: 606, 610); and
transmit, by the UE to the network entity, a dynamic message including an indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission (Fig. 6:616, [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference."; [0071] (...) The FD UE assistance information may include a DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 that may indicate a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable a UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.The DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 may include a DLTxPower that may indicate a DL transmission power via an absolute value or an offset value from a reference value.; [0075]). However, Abotabl does not disclose, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission performed in accordance with the configuration information. In the same field of endeavor, Harrebek discloses, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level (the gNB may process the UE measurement reporting as input for CLI mitigation planning. For example, in one embodiment, the gNB may, at 507a, use the measurement result directly in CLI mitigation planning, [0063]-[0067]) is based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission performed in accordance with the configuration information ( With the UE reporting of both the CLI SRS RSRP measurement results and the used time offsets, for both fixed offset and search enabled measurements, the gNB may obtain visibility of the full conditions and may select the most appropriate measurement configuration/result values based on a trade-off between accuracy, offset and speed…The gNB has or may obtain information on parameters necessary for the UE to determine the timing offset to be applied to perform CLI SRS RSRP measurements, such as TA_OFFSET, TA_1, and potentially UE1 & UE2 positions to assist setting reasonable timing offset(s) for the measurement(s) [0052]-[0057]…..At 504, the serving gNB may provide the SRS configuration, e.g., via CLI SRS RSRP measurement request, to the victim UE. For example, in one embodiment, the serving gNB may request, at 504a, single SRS RSRP measurement at specified timing offset…….. at 505, the victim UE may then perform the SRS RSRP measurement(s) as specified in the measurement request received from the serving gNB. For example, in one embodiment, the UE may, at 505a, perform SRS RSRP measurement at the specified timing offset relative to own DL timing, Fig. 5 and [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abotabl by specifically providing wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission performed in accordance with the configuration information, as taught by Harrebek for the purpose of improving throughput, latency, and/or processing speed of network nodes and UEs [0121].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of periodic reporting resources for the dynamic reporting, and wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of the dynamic message via a periodic reporting resource of the set of periodic reporting resources (the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information, [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: generate measurement information based on the downlink transmission, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on the measurement information (the controller/processor 359 provides RRC layer functionality associated with system information (e.g., MIB, SIBs) acquisition, RRC connections, and measurement reporting… Channel estimates derived by a channel estimator 358 from a reference signal or feedback transmitted by the base station 310 may be used by the TX processor 368 to select the appropriate coding and modulation schemes, and to facilitate spatial processing. The spatial streams generated by the TX processor 368 may be provided to different antenna 352 via separate transmitters 354 TX. Each transmitter 354 TX may modulate an RF carrier with a respective spatial stream for transmission, [0053]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 9), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to generate the measurement information by being executable by the one or more processor to: generate one of a log likelihood ratio or a block error rate based on the downlink transmission (the UE, at 808, may determine that an error rate (e.g., a block error rate (BLER)) of FD communication is greater than a threshold, where the indication of the FD UE assistance information determined at 804 may be transmitted, at 812, based on the determination at 808 that the error rate of the FD communication is greater than the threshold, [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 9), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to generate the measurement information by being executable by the one or more processor to: measure a decoding performance of downlink transmission (UE may determine 612 that an error rate of FD communication is above a threshold error rate. The UE 602 and the base station 604 may establish an RRC reconfiguration procedure and exchange RRC reconfiguration information 614, [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a change in a cross link interference measurement at the UE or in a channel state information measurement at the UE based on the downlink transmission, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level is based at least in part on the change (FIG. 4 includes diagrams 410, 420, and 430 illustrating a base station 412 engaging in FD communication, a UE 424 engaging in FD communication, and both a base station 432 and a UE 434 engaging in FD communication. Diagram 410 illustrates a base station 412 engaging in FD communication, [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Abotabl discloses,
A network entity (Fig. 6, BS 604) for wireless communications (FIG. 6 is a call flow diagram 600 illustrating a UE 602 operating in a FD mode providing FD UE assistance information to a base station 604, [0063]), comprising:
a processor (Fig. 3, processor 375);
memory coupled with the one or more processor (The controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 that stores program codes and data, [0057]); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), control signaling indicating configuration information for dynamic reporting of a recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission (Fig. 6:610, [0063], "the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information."; [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.");
transmit, to the UE, a downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information (Fig. 6: 606, 610); and
receive, from the UE, a dynamic message including an indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity (Fig. 6:616, [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference."; [0071] (...) The FD UE assistance information may include a DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 that may indicate a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable a UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.The DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 may include a DLTxPower that may indicate a DL transmission power via an absolute value or an offset value from a reference value.; [0075]).
However, Abotabl does not disclose, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information. In the same field of endeavor, Harrebek discloses, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level (the gNB may process the UE measurement reporting as input for CLI mitigation planning. For example, in one embodiment, the gNB may, at 507a, use the measurement result directly in CLI mitigation planning, [0063]-[0067]) for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information ( With the UE reporting of both the CLI SRS RSRP measurement results and the used time offsets, for both fixed offset and search enabled measurements, the gNB may obtain visibility of the full conditions and may select the most appropriate measurement configuration/result values based on a trade-off between accuracy, offset and speed…The gNB has or may obtain information on parameters necessary for the UE to determine the timing offset to be applied to perform CLI SRS RSRP measurements, such as TA_OFFSET, TA_1, and potentially UE1 & UE2 positions to assist setting reasonable timing offset(s) for the measurement(s) [0052]-[0057]…..At 504, the serving gNB may provide the SRS configuration, e.g., via CLI SRS RSRP measurement request, to the victim UE. For example, in one embodiment, the serving gNB may request, at 504a, single SRS RSRP measurement at specified timing offset…….. at 505, the victim UE may then perform the SRS RSRP measurement(s) as specified in the measurement request received from the serving gNB. For example, in one embodiment, the UE may, at 505a, perform SRS RSRP measurement at the specified timing offset relative to own DL timing, Fig. 5 and [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abotabl by specifically providing wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information, as taught by Harrebek for the purpose of improving throughput, latency, and/or processing speed of network nodes and UEs [0121].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, a second downlink transmission based at least in part on the recommended downlink transmission power level and one or more second recommended downlink transmission powers received from one or more other UEs (The UE 602 may determine 608 FD UE assistance information. In some aspects, the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information, [0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), further Abotabl discloses,
wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to transmit the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of periodic reporting resources for the dynamic reporting, and wherein reception of the dynamic message comprises reception of the dynamic message via a periodic reporting resource of the set of periodic reporting resources (the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information, [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 22, Abotabl discloses,
A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 6 is a call flow diagram 600 illustrating a UE 602 operating in a FD mode providing FD UE assistance information to a base station 604, [0063]), comprising:
receiving, from a network entity, control signaling indicating configuration information for dynamic reporting of a recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission (Fig. 6:610, [0063], "the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information."; [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.");
receiving, from the network entity, a downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information (Fig. 6: 606, 610); and
transmitting, by the UE to the network entity, a dynamic message including an indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity (Fig. 6:616, [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference."; [0071] (...) The FD UE assistance information may include a DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 that may indicate a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable a UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.The DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 may include a DLTxPower that may indicate a DL transmission power via an absolute value or an offset value from a reference value.; [0075]).
However, Abotabl does not disclose, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information. In the same field of endeavor, Harrebek discloses, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level (the gNB may process the UE measurement reporting as input for CLI mitigation planning. For example, in one embodiment, the gNB may, at 507a, use the measurement result directly in CLI mitigation planning, [0063]-[0067]) for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information ( With the UE reporting of both the CLI SRS RSRP measurement results and the used time offsets, for both fixed offset and search enabled measurements, the gNB may obtain visibility of the full conditions and may select the most appropriate measurement configuration/result values based on a trade-off between accuracy, offset and speed…The gNB has or may obtain information on parameters necessary for the UE to determine the timing offset to be applied to perform CLI SRS RSRP measurements, such as TA_OFFSET, TA_1, and potentially UE1 & UE2 positions to assist setting reasonable timing offset(s) for the measurement(s) [0052]-[0057]…..At 504, the serving gNB may provide the SRS configuration, e.g., via CLI SRS RSRP measurement request, to the victim UE. For example, in one embodiment, the serving gNB may request, at 504a, single SRS RSRP measurement at specified timing offset…….. at 505, the victim UE may then perform the SRS RSRP measurement(s) as specified in the measurement request received from the serving gNB. For example, in one embodiment, the UE may, at 505a, perform SRS RSRP measurement at the specified timing offset relative to own DL timing, Fig. 5 and [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abotabl by specifically providing wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information, as taught by Harrebek for the purpose of improving throughput, latency, and/or processing speed of network nodes and UEs [0121].
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses, everything claimed as applied above (see claim 22), further Abotabl discloses,
receiving, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of periodic reporting resources for the dynamic reporting, and wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of the dynamic message via a periodic reporting resource of the set of periodic reporting resources (the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information, [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 30, Abotabl discloses,
A method for wireless communications at a network entity (FIG. 6 is a call flow diagram 600 illustrating a UE 602 operating in a FD mode providing FD UE assistance information to a base station 604, [0063]), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), control signaling indicating configuration information for dynamic reporting of a recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission (Fig. 6:610, [0063], "the base station 604 may transmit, and the UE 602 may receive, a UE assistance information request 610 (e.g., a request for an indication of a set of UE assistance parameters) to the UE 602. The UE assistance information request 610 may be a request for periodic transmission of UE assistance information transmitted by the base station 604 to the UE 602 in RRC configuration information."; [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.");
transmitting, to the UE, a downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information (Fig. 6: 606, 610); and
receiving, from the UE, a dynamic message including an indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level (Fig. 6:616, [0066], "The FD UE assistance information 616 may include a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable the UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference."; [0071] (...) The FD UE assistance information may include a DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 that may indicate a recommendation about a DL transmission power to enable a UE to decode a DL transmission with UL self-interference.The DLTxPowerRecommendation IE 745 may include a DLTxPower that may indicate a DL transmission power via an absolute value or an offset value from a reference value.; [0075]).
wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information. In the same field of endeavor, Harrebek discloses, wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level (the gNB may process the UE measurement reporting as input for CLI mitigation planning. For example, in one embodiment, the gNB may, at 507a, use the measurement result directly in CLI mitigation planning, [0063]-[0067]) for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information ( With the UE reporting of both the CLI SRS RSRP measurement results and the used time offsets, for both fixed offset and search enabled measurements, the gNB may obtain visibility of the full conditions and may select the most appropriate measurement configuration/result values based on a trade-off between accuracy, offset and speed…The gNB has or may obtain information on parameters necessary for the UE to determine the timing offset to be applied to perform CLI SRS RSRP measurements, such as TA_OFFSET, TA_1, and potentially UE1 & UE2 positions to assist setting reasonable timing offset(s) for the measurement(s) [0052]-[0057]…..At 504, the serving gNB may provide the SRS configuration, e.g., via CLI SRS RSRP measurement request, to the victim UE. For example, in one embodiment, the serving gNB may request, at 504a, single SRS RSRP measurement at specified timing offset…….. at 505, the victim UE may then perform the SRS RSRP measurement(s) as specified in the measurement request received from the serving gNB. For example, in one embodiment, the UE may, at 505a, perform SRS RSRP measurement at the specified timing offset relative to own DL timing, Fig. 5 and [0061]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abotabl by specifically providing wherein the recommended downlink transmission power level for the network entity to apply for subsequent downlink transmission based at least in part on one or more cross link interference measurements or one or more channel state information measurements corresponding to the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration information, as taught by Harrebek for the purpose of improving throughput, latency, and/or processing speed of network nodes and UEs [0121].
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.
Claims 3, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl, in view of Harrebek and further in view of Zhang (US 20190044681, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling (each set of the one or more power control factors and each of the downlink reference signals may be mapped to each SRS resource. For example, a first set of the one or more power control factors and a first downlink reference signal may be configured for a first SRS resource, and a second set of the one or more power control factors and a second downlink reference signal may be configured for a second SRS resource. In some embodiments, one or more of the resource block power, the path loss compensation factor, the closed-loop power control factor and the downlink reference signal are different in different SRS resources, [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling, as taught by Zhang for the purpose providing a uniform power control framework for different SRS in wireless communication system [0004].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein reception of the dynamic message is based at least in part on the second control signaling.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein reception of the dynamic message is based at least in part on the second control signaling (each set of the one or more power control factors and each of the downlink reference signals may be mapped to each SRS resource. For example, a first set of the one or more power control factors and a first downlink reference signal may be configured for a first SRS resource, and a second set of the one or more power control factors and a second downlink reference signal may be configured for a second SRS resource. In some embodiments, one or more of the resource block power, the path loss compensation factor, the closed-loop power control factor and the downlink reference signal are different in different SRS resources, [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein reception of the dynamic message is based at least in part on the second control signaling, as taught by Zhang for the purpose providing a uniform power control framework for different SRS in wireless communication system [0004].
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 22), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: receiving, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses, receiving, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling (each set of the one or more power control factors and each of the downlink reference signals may be mapped to each SRS resource. For example, a first set of the one or more power control factors and a first downlink reference signal may be configured for a first SRS resource, and a second set of the one or more power control factors and a second downlink reference signal may be configured for a second SRS resource. In some embodiments, one or more of the resource block power, the path loss compensation factor, the closed-loop power control factor and the downlink reference signal are different in different SRS resources, [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abotabl by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the network entity, second control signaling requesting that the UE report the recommended downlink transmission power level in accordance with the configuration information, wherein transmission of the dynamic message is responsive to the second control signaling, as taught by Zhang for the purpose providing a uniform power control framework for different SRS in wireless communication system [0004].
Claims 4-7, 17-20 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl, in view of Harrebek and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20200196245, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets, as taught by Chen for the purpose of providing a better improve utilization of spectrum resources, thereby solving a problem of how to efficiently use the gradually exhausted frequency resources to transmit data information at a higher speed [0051].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 4), in addition Chen discloses, wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level further comprises an indication of a reference power of the set of reference powers (calculating the transmission power of the mobile station based on an initial transmission power of the mobile station and the selected transmission power offset value. For example, the initial transmission power may be a transmission power of the user equipment at the time of initially accessing the base station, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 4), in addition Chen discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of resources associated with the set of reference powers, and wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of the dynamic message via a resource of the set of resources (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 4), further Abotabl discloses, wherein the set of reference powers is a channel state information reference signal transmission power (As illustrated in FIG. 2A, some of the REs carry reference (pilot) signals (RS) for the UE. The RS may include demodulation RS (DM-RS) (indicated as R for one particular configuration, but other DM-RS configurations are possible) and channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) for channel estimation at the UE, [0046]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to transmit the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to transmit the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to transmit the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets, as taught by Chen for the purpose of providing a better improve utilization of spectrum resources, thereby solving a problem of how to efficiently use the gradually exhausted frequency resources to transmit data information at a higher speed [0051].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 17), in addition Chen discloses, wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level further comprises an indication of a reference power of the set of reference powers (calculating the transmission power of the mobile station based on an initial transmission power of the mobile station and the selected transmission power offset value. For example, the initial transmission power may be a transmission power of the user equipment at the time of initially accessing the base station, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 17), in addition Chen discloses, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to transmit the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of resources associated with the set of reference powers, and wherein reception of the dynamic message comprises reception of the dynamic message via a resource of the set of resources (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 17), further Abotabl discloses, wherein the set of reference powers is a channel state information reference signal transmission power (As illustrated in FIG. 2A, some of the REs carry reference (pilot) signals (RS) for the UE. The RS may include demodulation RS (DM-RS) (indicated as R for one particular configuration, but other DM-RS configurations are possible) and channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) for channel estimation at the UE, [0046]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 22), however Abotabl does not disclose, receiving, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses, receive, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of power offsets and a set of reference powers, and wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level comprises an indication of a selected power offset of the set of power offsets, as taught by Chen for the purpose of providing a better improve utilization of spectrum resources, thereby solving a problem of how to efficiently use the gradually exhausted frequency resources to transmit data information at a higher speed [0051].
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 25), in addition Chen discloses, wherein the indication of the recommended downlink transmission power level further comprises an indication of a reference power of the set of reference powers (calculating the transmission power of the mobile station based on an initial transmission power of the mobile station and the selected transmission power offset value. For example, the initial transmission power may be a transmission power of the user equipment at the time of initially accessing the base station, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebek and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 25), in addition Chen discloses, receiving, with the configuration information, an indication of a set of resources associated with the set of reference powers, and wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of the dynamic message via a resource of the set of resources (the reference power control parameter may include a reference transmission power which is obtained by each mobile station based on the received power control pattern, or may be a transmission power selected by the mobile station from transmission power sets, or may be obtained by calculating, based on a number of the transmission power offset values in a selected transmission power offset set, accessing probability for accessing each of the transmission power offset values in the set, and selecting a transmission power offset value from the selected transmission power offset set according to the accessing probability as the reference power control parameter, [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Abotabl, Harrebak and Chen discloses everything claimed as applied above (claim 25), further Abotabl discloses, wherein the set of reference powers is a channel state information reference signal transmission power (As illustrated in FIG. 2A, some of the REs carry reference (pilot) signals (RS) for the UE. The RS may include demodulation RS (DM-RS) (indicated as R for one particular configuration, but other DM-RS configurations are possible) and channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) for channel estimation at the UE, [0046]).
Claims 8, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl, in view of Harrebek and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20200344699, hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels.
In the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: receive, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels (the power control parameter includes the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value, and a value set of the accumulated power correction value and/or a value set of the absolute power correction value are/is configured by using higher layer signaling. Specifically, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value that are/is included in the power control parameter may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. For example, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value in the foregoing Table 2 to Table 8 may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. The higher layer signaling may be, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, [0164]-[0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing receive, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels, as taught by Hu for the purpose of providing an uplink information transmission method and apparatus, to meet a requirement on an operating point change from an eMBB service to a URLLC service [0005].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein reception of the dynamic message comprises reception of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels.
In the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein reception of the dynamic message comprises reception of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels (the power control parameter includes the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value, and a value set of the accumulated power correction value and/or a value set of the absolute power correction value are/is configured by using higher layer signaling. Specifically, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value that are/is included in the power control parameter may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. For example, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value in the foregoing Table 2 to Table 8 may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. The higher layer signaling may be, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, [0164]-[0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to receive the control signaling by being executable by the one or more processor to: transmit, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein reception of the dynamic message comprises reception of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels., as taught by Hu for the purpose of providing an uplink information transmission method and apparatus, to meet a requirement on an operating point change from an eMBB service to a URLLC service [0005].
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 22), however the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek does not disclose, receiving, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels.
In the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses receiving, with the configuration information, a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels (the power control parameter includes the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value, and a value set of the accumulated power correction value and/or a value set of the absolute power correction value are/is configured by using higher layer signaling. Specifically, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value that are/is included in the power control parameter may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. For example, the accumulated power correction value and/or the absolute power correction value in the foregoing Table 2 to Table 8 may be configured by using the higher layer signaling. The higher layer signaling may be, for example, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, [0164]-[0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abotabl and Harrebek by specifically providing receiving a set of absolute power levels, wherein transmission of the dynamic message comprises transmission of an indication of a selected absolute power level of the set of absolute power levels, as taught by Hu for the purpose of providing an uplink information transmission method and apparatus, to meet a requirement on an operating point change from an eMBB service to a URLLC service [0005].
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20200336194: A technique includes measuring a received power for each resource of one or more resource pairs, wherein each of the one or more resource pairs includes a resource of a first resource type and a set of resources of a second resource type, wherein the resource of the first resource type is spatially quasi-colocated with the set of resources of the second resource type; selecting, based on a strongest received power, one of the one or more resource pairs for providing a joint quasi-colocation multiple-resource beam report.
US 20200196245: Provided are a method for controlling a transmission power, a mobile station and a base station. The method for controlling the transmit power can be applied to a mobile station, and the method includes: acquiring a power control pattern, which is information related to a scheme of controlling the transmission power; determining a reference power control parameter for the mobile station according to the power control pattern; and determining the transmission power of the mobile station based on the reference power control parameter.
US 9622185: A wireless communication method including: transmitting a first control signal from a connected wireless station to a wireless terminal, the connected wireless station being one of a plurality of wireless stations that is connected to the wireless terminal, the first control signal relating to a communication level between the wireless terminal and at least one wireless station that is selected from among the plurality of the wireless station, and controlling, by the wireless terminal that receives the first control signal, a transmission power of a transmission signal to the selected at least one wireless station based on the received first control signal.
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 GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights