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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 22, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayeb Nazar et al. (US Patent #10,904,895) in view of Papasakellariou (US 2018/0227156).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Nayeb Nazar teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, a control message indicating an activation of channel state information (CSI) reporting (Claims 1 and 9, especially Claim 9, Nayeb Nazar teaches a transceiver configured to receive an indication to activate a semi-persistent channel state information (CSI) reporting), but does not specifically teach transmitting at least one CSI report, via an uplink channel, using a transmission power that is adjusted based on: the activation of CSI reporting; at least one value associated with the activation of CSI reporting a transmission power that is adjusted based on the activation of CSI reporting.
However, in related art, Papasakellarionu teaches transmitting at least one CSI report, via an uplink channel, using a transmission power that is adjusted based on: the activation of CSI reporting; at least one value associated with the activation of CSI reporting a transmission power that is adjusted based on the activation of CSI reporting (Paragraph [0279]……. to avoid simultaneous transmissions from a UE of a first PUCCH conveying a HARQ-ACK report and of a second PUCCH conveying a CSI report, the UE can transmit the CSI report (activation of CSI report) in a next slot, or in a predetermined slot, after the slot where the UE transmits the CSI report……. The DL DCI format can also include a TPC command for the UE to adjust a PUCCH transmission power for HARQ-ACK reporting, and assuming a same closed-loop power control process for PUCCH transmissions, the UE applies the TPC command also for adjusting a PUCCH transmission power for CSI reporting…..Paragraph [0297]…. A UE receives from the gNB a configuration for a set of NBs, for a CSI-RS-RNTI that scrambles a CRC of a DCI format, and for a location in the DCI format of a CSI-RS trigger field that can trigger CSI-RS transmissions in a subset of NBs and the TPC field for adjusting a power of a PUCCH that conveys a CSI report 2850…….paragraph [0298]…… The DCI format also includes a PUCCH resource field that indicates a PUCCH resource n.sub.PUCCH that is used by a UE having the first CSI-RS trigger in the DCI format with value different than “00” to transmit a PUCCH that conveys a CSI report, and a UE having the n.sub.CSI-RS+1 CSI-RS trigger in the DCI format with value different than “00” used PUCCH resource n.sub.PUCCH+n.sub.CSI-RS to transmit a PUCCH that conveys a CSI report with a power adjusted based on the TPC command field value 2890). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Papasakellariou’s teaching about transmitting at least one CSI report, via an uplink channel, using a transmission power that is adjusted based on: the activation of CSI reporting; at least one value associated with the activation of CSI reporting a transmission power that is adjusted based on the activation of CSI reporting with Nayeb Nazar’s invention in order to enhance signal quality in communication system.
Regarding claims 7 and 28, the combination of Nayeb Nazar and Papasakellariou teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Nayeb Nazar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a radio network temporary identifier associated with CSI reporting, wherein the activation of CSI reporting is based on the radio network temporary identifier and downlink control information of the control message (Claims 7 and 15).
Regarding claims 10 and 31, the combination of Nayeb Nazar and Papasakellariou teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Nayeb Nazar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the CSI reporting comprises at least one of: periodic CSI reporting; semi-persistent (SP) CSI reporting; or aperiodic CSI reporting (Col 23, lines 35-50).
. Claims 8 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayeb Nazar et al. (US Patent #10,904,895) in view of in view of Papasakellariou (US 2018/0227156) and further in view of Ouchi et al. (US 2014/0226551).
Regarding claims 8 and 29, the combination of Nayeb Nazar and Papasakellariou fail to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a base station, at least one message comprising the at least one uplink power control parameter, wherein the at least one value comprises at least one of: a correction value; an accumulated value; or a value associated with accumulation of a transmit power control (TPC) command.
However, in related art, Ouchi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a base station, at least one message comprising the at least one uplink power control parameter, wherein the at least one value comprises at least one of: a correction value; an accumulated value; or a value associated with accumulation of a transmit power control (TPC) command (Paragraph 0246). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ouchi’s teaching about receiving, from a base station, at least one message comprising the at least one uplink power control parameter, wherein the at least one value comprises at least one of: a correction value; an accumulated value; or a value associated with accumulation of a transmit power control (TPC) command with Nayeb Nazar’s and Papasakellariou’s invention in order to enabling correct and effective uplink power control performance.
Claims 9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayeb Nazar et al. (US Patent #10,904,895) in view of Papasakellariou (US 2018/0227156), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0037671).
Regarding claims 9 and 30, the combination of Nayeb Nazar and Papasakellariou fail to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the at least one value by performing at least one of: changing at least one previous value to the at least one value; setting the at least one value; initializing the at least one previous value to the at least one value; resetting the at least one previous value to the at least one value; scaling down the at least one previous value to the at least one value; or scaling up the at least one previous value to the at least one value.
However, in related art, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the at least one value by performing at least one of: changing at least one previous value to the at least one value; setting the at least one value (Paragraph 0046); initializing the at least one previous value to the at least one value; resetting the at least one previous value to the at least one value; scaling down the at least one previous value to the at least one value; or scaling up the at least one previous value to the at least one value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Lee’s teaching about determining the at least one value by performing at least one of: setting the at least one value with Nayeb Nazar’s and Papasakellariou’s invention so that more efficient and highly reliable communication can be realized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 11, and 23-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: based on at least one uplink power control parameter and the at least one value comprising a second value, changing a first value to the second value for a second uplink power control parameter associated with the adjusted transmission power for transmitting the at least one CSI report.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: after the transmitting the at least one CSI report, changing the at least one value to a different value; and determining a second transmission power for an uplink data transmission, wherein the second transmission power is based on: at least one second uplink power control parameter for the uplink data transmission; and the different value.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: after the transmitting the at least one CSI report, changing the at least one value to a different value; and determining, based on at least one uplink power control parameter and the different value, a transmission power for a second transmission of at least one second CSI report.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: after the transmitting the at least one CSI report, changing the at least one value to a second value; receiving a second control message indicating a deactivation of CSI reporting; and changing, based on receiving the second control message, the second value to a third value.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: scheduling, after receiving a second control message indicating a deactivation of CSI reporting, a second transmission of uplink information; determining, based on the at least one value being changed to a different value, a second transmission power for the second transmission; and transmitting, based on the second transmission power, the uplink information.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on at least one uplink power control parameter and the at least one value associated with the activation of CSI reporting, the adjusted transmission power for transmitting the at least one CSI report.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record fails to teach the wireless device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: based on at least one uplink power control parameter and the at least one value comprising a second value, change a first value to the second value for a second uplink power control parameter associated with the adjusted transmission power for transmitting the at least one CSI report.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record fails to teach the wireless device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: after transmitting the at least one CSI report, change the at least one value to a different value; and determine a second transmission power for an uplink data transmission, wherein the second transmission power is based on: at least one second uplink power control parameter for the uplink data transmission; and the different value.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record fails to teach the wireless device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: after transmitting the at least one CSI report, change the at least one value to a different value; and determine, based on at least one uplink power control parameter and the different value, a transmission power for a second transmission of at least one second CSI report.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record fails to teach the wireless device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: after transmitting the at least one CSI report, change the at least one value to a second value; receive a second control message indicating a deactivation of CSI reporting; and change, based on receiving the second control message, the second value to a third value.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record fails to teach the wireless device of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: schedule, after receiving a second control message indicating a deactivation of CSI reporting, a second transmission of uplink information; determine, based on the at least one value being changed to a different value, a second transmission power for the second transmission; and transmit, based on the second transmission power, the uplink information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A restriction that was made on 10/26/2023 was withdrawn because some of the claimed limitations were found in dependent claims. Then when the independent claims 12 and 33 were amended on 06/02/2026, they were totally different than independent claims 1 and 22. Therefore, claimed sets 1-11 and 22-32 were examined and 12-21 and 33-48 aren’t because of different inventive concepts. It will be more burden and extra work to examiner if those claims were examine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights