DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on May 19, 2026. Claims 6, 7, and 27 have been amended. Claim 28 has been canceled. New claims 29-33 have been added. Claims 1-8, 21-27, and 29-33 are pending in the application.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Previously, claim 7 recited a listing of three elements listed in alternative form as follows: “wherein the message is transmitted to the network periodically, when a predetermined event occurs or when a trigger condition occurs.” Claim 7 was amended to remove “or when a trigger condition occurs” but does not currently include a conjunction that links the terms “when a predetermined event occurs” and “when a trigger condition occurs”. Without the appropriate conjunction, it is unclear whether both of these elements are required by the claim or if they are recited in alternative form. In order to overcome this rejection the Examiner recommends amending claim 7 to recite “wherein the message is transmitted to the network periodically[[,]] or when a predetermined event occurs.”
Claim 27 is rejected based on similar reasoning.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 21-25, 27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 2018/0070293) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2019/0373565).
Regarding Claim 1, Venkataraman teaches a method, comprising: at a user equipment (UE):
receiving a measurement configuration request from a network (“the network may request that the UE 105 advertise the CA combinations that the UE 105 is capable of utilizing” – See [0025]; The UE receives a request from the network to measure/advertise CA combinations for UL carrier aggregation);
in response to the measurement configuration request, measuring a quality of one or more uplink (UL) carrier aggregation (CA) combinations, wherein each UL CA combination comprises a plurality of component carriers (“One priority factor that the CA advertising application may consider is whether an LTE band supports uplink carrier aggregation” – See [0053]; “the UE may perform measurements of the LTE bands to determine a quality of the CA combinations … Thus, the UE may perform the measurements for all available CA combinations and advertise the corresponding qualities” – See [0015]; “FIG. 2 shows an example of carrier aggregation. As shown in FIG. 2, the PCell may provide a first component carrier of 10 MHz representing a primary component carrier (PCC) operating on a first LTE band while the SCell may provide a second component carrier of 10 MHz representing the secondary component carrier (SCC) operating on a second LTE band” – See [0021]; The UE measures a quality of the UL CA combinations, wherein a CA combination includes a plurality of component carriers);
generating a message that includes the quality of the one or more UL CA combinations and transmitting the message to the network (“the UE may perform the measurements for all available CA combinations and advertise the corresponding qualities” – See [0015]; “In 515, the UE 105 advertises the generated prioritized list of CA combinations” – See [0061]; See also Fig. 5; The UE generates a message including the qualities of the UL CA combinations and advertises/transmits it to the network).
Venkataraman does not explicitly teach that the message includes an indication of a UE limitation due to a thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations.
However, Zeng teaches that the message includes an indication of a UE limitation due to a thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations (“FIG. 1 is a schematic structural diagram of a MAC CE of an ePHR. The ePHR is carried in a MAC CE of the ePHR” – See [0066]; “P indicates whether UE uses power back-off due to power management” – See [0071]; “The terminal monitors usage of an uplink carrier, where the carrier usage includes at least one of a quantity of carriers, duration of continuous use of one or more carriers, and a temperature of the terminal” – See [0076]; “In a possible implementation, the terminal monitors the temperature of the terminal; and the terminal adds the power back-off value during the calculation of the power headroom when the temperature of the terminal reaches a first temperature threshold, to reduce the value of the power headroom of the one or more carriers. According to this implementation, the terminal monitors the temperature of the terminal, and the terminal reduces the reported value of the power headroom when the temperature of the terminal reaches the first temperature threshold, so that the network device can adjust uplink resource scheduling for the terminal based on the reported value of the power headroom, thereby reducing the power consumption of the terminal” – See [0013]; See also Fig. 1; The message includes, for each uplink carrier of a combination of uplink carriers, an indication “P” of a limitation due to a thermal impact of the UL CA combination. In particular, the parameter “P” indicates that the UE uses a power back-off due to the temperature of the terminal reaching a temperature threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataraman such that the message includes an indication of a UE limitation due to a thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the network device to adjust uplink scheduling for the terminal so that power consumption of the terminal can be reduced. Furthermore, the adjustment is performed without detaching from the network so that existing transmission is not interrupted and a good user experience is provided. (See Zeng, [0010] and [0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 1. Venkataraman further teaches determining a UE preference regarding the one or more UL CA combinations based on a predetermined factor, wherein the message further includes the UE preference (“FIG. 4 which shows a table 400 listing prioritized carrier aggregation combinations for advertisement according to the exemplary embodiments” – See [0034]; “In 510, the UE 105 generates a prioritized list of CA combinations. The prioritized list may be ordered such that the first entry may be the CA combination that the UE 105 has determined has the highest priority based on the priority factors that the UE 105 uses to rank the CA combinations. Thus, the prioritized list is used by the UE 105 to indicate that the UE 105 would prefer the network to configure the first CA combination on the prioritized list” – See [0060]; The UE determines a priority/preference for the UL CA combinations and includes the priority in the advertisement message).
Regarding Claim 3, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 2. Venkataraman further teaches that the predetermined factor comprises one of (a) a quality measurement of a downlink (DL) component carrier (CC) is greater than a predetermined value, or (b) the quality measurement of the DL CC is greater than the predetermined value for a predetermined period of time (“the highest priority may be given to the CA combinations that support both uplink carrier aggregation and downlink carrier aggregation” – See [0053]; The priority/quality of a CA combination that supports both DL and UL carrier aggregation is highest. The combinations with the quality/priority greater than a predetermined value are selected for inclusion in the advertisement message).
Regarding Claim 4, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 2. Venkataraman further teaches that the predetermined factor comprises one of a throughput priority, a power efficiency priority or a beamforming priority (“This type of prioritization will prioritize higher throughputs for the UE based on the fact that using four carriers will generally result in a higher throughput than three carriers or two carriers” – See [0025]; The predetermined factor for the prioritization/preference includes a throughput priority).
Regarding Claim 5, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 2. Venkataraman further teaches that a number N of UL CA combinations are included in the message, wherein when a number of UL CA combinations measured are greater than the number N, the number N of UL CA combinations selected for the message is based on the UE preference (“In this manner, the exemplary list may continue until 128 different CA combinations are advertised to the network. Using this methodology, the UE 105 may be configured to advertise the most relevant CA combinations for use by the network. That is, less relevant CA combinations that have a low or near zero probability of being used may be eliminated from being advertised. Therefore, the probability that the more relevant CA combinations being advertised increases significantly” – See [0029]; N=128 CA combinations may be included in the advertisement message, wherein a number of measured CA combinations is greater than N. The UE selects the N highest priority/most relevant CA combinations to include in the advertisement and eliminates the lower priority/less relevant CA combinations from being included in the advertisement).
Regarding Claim 7, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 1. Zeng further teaches that the message is transmitted to the network periodically, when a predetermined event occurs (“a manner of triggering an uplink transmit power adjustment request by using an event is used, so that power consumption of the terminal is reduced” – See [0104]; “a manner of adjusting a reported value of PH through periodic triggering is used, so that power consumption of the terminal is reduced” – See [0095]; The report/message may be transmitted either periodically or based on a trigger event).
Claim 21 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claim 22 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 23 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claim 24 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claim 25 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claim 27 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 29, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 1. Zeng further teaches identifying a trigger condition and transmitting the message in response to the trigger condition (“a manner of triggering an uplink transmit power adjustment request by using an event is used, so that power consumption of the terminal is reduced” – See [0104]; The report/message may be transmitted based on a trigger event/condition).
Regarding Claim 30, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 29. Zeng further teaches that the trigger condition is a change in a thermal limitation of the UE (“the terminal monitors the temperature of the terminal, and the terminal sets the at least one information bit of the ePHR when the temperature of the terminal reaches a first temperature threshold” – See [0026]; The trigger condition is a change in thermal limitation of the UE that includes the UE temperature reaching a temperature threshold).
Regarding Claim 31, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 29. Venkataraman further teaches that the trigger condition is a change in a motion state of the UE (“The feature may be a requested frequency band (RFB) feature in which the network indicates a set of LTE bands that are to be prioritized in the CA combination advertisement by the UE 105” – See [0023]; “When the UE 105 is disposed at a first location, the UE 105 may utilize a first list of UE RFBs. However, when the UE 105 is disposed at a second location (e.g., a significant distance from the first location), the UE 105 may utilize a second list of UE RFBs that is different from the first list of UE RFBs. In fact, the location may change while the UE 105 is connected to the network. As the list of UE RFBs may change from this movement (e.g., a new neighbor being added, an old neighbor being deleted, etc.), the UE 105 may set a flag such as in a tracking area update” – See [0030]; The trigger condition is a change in motion state/location of the UE).
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 2018/0070293) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2019/0373565) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0243753).
Regarding Claim 6, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 1. Venkataraman and Zeng do not explicitly teach that the message comprises a further UE limitation corresponding to the one or more UL CA combinations, wherein the UE limitation comprises one of an intermodulation impact characteristic, a power impact characteristic, a transmission antenna conflict characteristic, or a beamforming conflict characteristic.
However, Kim teaches that the message comprises a further UE limitation corresponding to the one or more UL CA combinations, wherein the UE limitation comprises one of an intermodulation impact characteristic, a power impact characteristic, a transmission antenna conflict characteristic, or a beamforming conflict characteristic (“Referring to FIG. 1C, the IDC interference refers to interference caused by multiple communication modules in a device, thereby affecting the multiple communication modules” – See [0080]; “When a UE experiences an IDC problem (e.g., an IDC interference problem), or a previously-reported IDC problem is changed, methods below are provided to indicate frequency information in an affectedCarrierFreqCombList field. The affectedCarrierFreqCombList field may be reported when UL Carrier Aggregation is configured for the UE. When an IDC problem due to inter-modulation distortion/harmonics from NR (or LTE) system occurs in a particular frequency or frequency band, information of the frequency or frequency band related to the IDC problem is included in affectCarrierFreqwCombList” – See [0097]; See also Fig. 1C; The UE reports, to the network, IDC for UL CA combinations, wherein the IDC information relates to intermodulation impacts and conflicts between communication modules/antennas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataraman such that the message comprises a further UE limitation corresponding to the one or more UL CA combinations, wherein the UE limitation comprises one of an intermodulation impact characteristic, a power impact characteristic, a transmission antenna conflict characteristic, or a beamforming conflict characteristic. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the network with assistance information that enables the network to perform reconfiguration to remove the problem (See Kim, [0109]).
Claim 26 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 2018/0070293) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2019/0373565) and further in view of Muhammad et al. (US 2022/0272711).
Regarding Claim 8, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 1. Venkataraman and Zeng do not explicitly teach that the quality comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) of a selected active beam of each component carrier.
However, Muhammad teaches that the quality comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) of a selected active beam of each component carrier (“The radio measurements of the transmission beams may relate to reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) as reported by the user equipment for an identified couple (CC, beam) of a carrier component of the plurality of carrier components and a transmission beam of the plurality of transmission beams” – See [0068]; The quality includes an RSRP of a selected beam on each component carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataraman such that the quality comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) of a selected active beam of each component carrier. Motivation for doing so would be to further assist the network in selecting one or more component carriers for the UE (See Muhammad, [0067]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 2018/0070293) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2019/0373565) and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2019/0268861)
Regarding Claim 33, Venkataraman in view of Zeng teaches the method of Claim 29. Venkataraman and Zeng do not explicitly teach receiving a downlink control information (DCI), wherein the DCI is configured to trigger the message that includes the quality of the one or more UL CA combinations and the indication of the UE limitation due to the thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations.
However, Takeda teaches receiving a downlink control information (DCI), wherein the DCI is configured to trigger the message that includes the quality of the one or more UL CA combinations and the indication of the UE limitation due to the thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations (“PHR calculation according to the third embodiment. With reference to FIG. 4, the UE is configured with UL-CA using CC 1 and CC 2” – See [0089]; “PHR reporting is requested (triggered) by a physical layer signal (for example, DCI) or a MAC layer signal (for example, MAC CE) from the base station” – See [0083]; The UL CA combination reporting is triggered based on DCI received from the base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataraman to include receiving a downlink control information (DCI), wherein the DCI is configured to trigger the message that includes the quality of the one or more UL CA combinations and the indication of the UE limitation due to the thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations. Motivation for doing so would be to provide physical layer signaling that enables the base station to request reporting regarding the UL CA quality and thermal impact from the UE (See Takeda, [0083]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant argues “In contrast, claim 1 recites a message indicating a UE limitation due to the thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations. Zeng fails to disclose this because Zeng does not suggest anything remotely similar to a message indicating a thermal impact specific to UL CA combinations. Instead, Zeng discloses a correlation between thermal impact and power headroom which is not analogous to the above recited portion of claim 1 reciting a message to indicate a thermal impact specific to UL CA combinations. In fact, Zeng makes no mention of UL CA combinations, let alone a thermal impact associated with UL CA combinations. Therefore, Zeng fails to disclose or suggest, at least, ‘generating a message that includes … an indication of a UE limitation due to a thermal impact of the one or more UL CA combinations,’ as recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zeng’s Abstract discloses “method for adjusting power of a terminal includes monitoring, by the terminal, usage of an uplink carrier, where the carrier usage includes at least one of a quantity of carriers, duration of continuous use of one or more carriers, and a temperature of the terminal. The method further includes adding, by the terminal, a power back-off value during calculation of power headroom when the terminal detects that the carrier usage satisfies a preset condition, to reduce a value of power headroom of the one or more carriers. The method further includes reporting, by the terminal, the value of the power headroom to a network device.” In [0003], Zeng discloses “Carrier aggregation (Carrier Aggregation, CA) is an important feature in long term evolution advanced (Long Term Evolution-Advanced, LTE-A), Uplink and downlink data rates between a terminal and a base station can be improved by using a carrier aggregation technology. The terminal may be user equipment (User Equipment, UE), the base station may be an evolved NodeB (evolved NodeB, eNB), and each UE may communicate with the eNB by using one or more carriers.” In [0007], Zeng further discloses “Embodiments of the present invention provide a method for adjusting power of a terminal, and a terminal, to resolve heating caused by a plurality of operating uplink carriers, and ensure data transmission continuity, resulting in good user experience.”
Thus, Zeng teaches that excessive heating (i.e., a thermal limitation) is caused by the use of a plurality of uplink carriers for uplink carrier aggregation. The UE generates a power headroom report (message indicating the thermal impact) that includes a parameter “P” indicating that the UE uses a power back-off due to the thermal limitation (“FIG. 1 is a schematic structural diagram of a MAC CE of an ePHR. The ePHR is carried in a MAC CE of the ePHR” – See [0066]; “P indicates whether UE uses power back-off due to power management” – See [0071]; “The terminal monitors usage of an uplink carrier, where the carrier usage includes at least one of a quantity of carriers, duration of continuous use of one or more carriers, and a temperature of the terminal” – See [0076]; “In a possible implementation, the terminal monitors the temperature of the terminal; and the terminal adds the power back-off value during the calculation of the power headroom when the temperature of the terminal reaches a first temperature threshold, to reduce the value of the power headroom of the one or more carriers. According to this implementation, the terminal monitors the temperature of the terminal, and the terminal reduces the reported value of the power headroom when the temperature of the terminal reaches the first temperature threshold, so that the network device can adjust uplink resource scheduling for the terminal based on the reported value of the power headroom, thereby reducing the power consumption of the terminal” – See [0013]).
As shown above, it is explicitly disclosed in Zeng that the UE heating/thermal impact is due to the use of a plurality of uplink carriers for carrier aggregation (i.e., one or more UL CA combinations). The indication of the UE limitation due to the thermal impact is transmitted in a power headroom report message, wherein the indication comprises a parameter indicating that the UE uses a power back-off after reaching a temperature threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights