Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on December 15, 2025.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are amended.
Claims 2, and 7-8 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-20 are currently pending in this 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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn for the reasons stated in applicant’s response (see remarks Pg. 6).
The applicant’s arguments directed towards the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claims 3-5 have been considered, but are not persuasive (see remarks Pg. 6-7).
Applicant is arguing all the steps are for “ensuring the same transmission power during an uplink transmission”. However, Applicant’s claimed invention is determining the transmission power is the same, not ensuring it’s the same. It is just the determining that is happening and not the ensuring of the same transmission power during an uplink transmission. As result, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claims 3-5 are maintained.
The applicant’s amendments and arguments directed towards the 35 U.S.C §101 rejection of claims 1, 6, 10-11 and 16 have been considered, but are not persuasive (see remarks Pg. 7).
The scope of the claim isn’t limited towards UE processing. It is claiming broadly making a determination on a set of data and linking it to the generic computer functionality. Applicant’s claim scope covers aspects that can be mentally performed. As result, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1, 6, 10-11 and 16 are maintained
The applicant’s arguments directed towards the 35 U.S.C §101 rejection of claims 19 and 20 have been considered, but are not persuasive (see remarks Pg. 7).
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 is a separate rejection from the 101 abstract idea rejection and there were no specific arguments rebutting it. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 19 and 20 are both directed towards a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. Claims directed towards signals per se are not included in any of the four statutory classes of invention (see MPEP §2106.03). As result, claims 19 and 20 both contain at least embodiment directed to non-statutory subject matter. As result, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 19 and 20 are maintained.
The 35 U.S.C §102 and 35 U.S.C §103 rejection is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks Pg. 8-10). However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
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.
Claim 3, 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “determining by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises: ignoring, by the terminal device in the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set, a power control command applied to any one or more of the plurality of repeated transmissions in the first transmission occasion set, or refraining, by the terminal device, from receiving a power control command”. The scope of claim 3 is unclear as the metes and bounds of how either ignoring or refraining from receiving power control commands can be part of the determination step as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “determining, by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises”. The scope of claim 4 is unclear as the metes and bounds of how the transmission power is determined, seems to be separate steps performed from the method.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “determining, by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises”. The scope of claim 5 is unclear as the metes and bounds of how the transmission power is determined, seems to be separate steps performed from the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 6, 10, 11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
determining, by a terminal device, that transmission power of a plurality of repeated transmissions
This limitation would be practical to perform in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation is directed towards the determination of transmission power of plurality of repeated transmissions and without more context this can be a determination of recorded transmission power. The claimed invention only recites that the process is performed by a terminal device. The terminal device is a generic computer tool being used to perform the determination, so it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and can reasonably be performed in the human mind. As a result, the limitations listed recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites “of an uplink channel in a first transmission occasion set is same”. The uplink channel is a data gathering step which provides the data to perform the mental process. The claimed of an uplink channel is same step is insignificant extra solution activity and does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). The additional elements have been considered alone, and in combination with the claimed invention as a whole, but does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an uplink channel. Mere use of an uplink channel to receive a reference transmission data cannot provide an inventive concept. The uplink channel is an insignificant extra solution activity, which is additional well understood routine, and conventional. MPEP §2106.05(g) details similar data gather steps that have been found by the courts to be well understood routine, and conventional. Additionally, applicant’s specification (see ¶3 and ¶64-65) provides only broad disclosure of the repeated transmission of an uplink channel and makes it clear that it considers the reception of the claimed reference repeated transmission of an uplink channel as well known aspects of the disclosure. As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is directed towards a system rather than the method of claim 1, however the same rationale applies to claim 16 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is directed towards a computer-readable storage medium rather than the method of claim 1, however the same rationale applies to claim 19 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein a number of transmission occasions included in the first transmission occasion set is pre-configured or agreed in a protocol, or is configured by a network device.” The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 6, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel are part or all repeated transmissions of the uplink channel.” The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 10, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 11 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the uplink channel comprises at least one of: a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH).” The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 11, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to any of the four statutory categories.
MPEP § 2106.03(I) states in relevant part:
35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these "four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful." In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
…
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Claim 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 19 and 20 are both directed towards a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. The specification provides only exemplary definitions of the scope of the claimed computer readable-storage mediums (¶176 and ¶196). The BRI of a computer-readable storage medium includes transitory forms of signal transmission. Claims directed towards signals per se are not included in any of the four statutory classes of invention (see MPEP §2106.03). As result, claims 19 and 20 both contain at least embodiment directed to non-statutory subject matter
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 9-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180124709 A1, SEO et al., (hereinafter SEO).
Regarding claim 1, 16 and 19, SEO teaches a wireless communication method, comprising:
determining, by a terminal device, that transmission power of a plurality of repeated transmissions of an uplink channel in a first transmission occasion set is same (see ¶ [0160] - [0161], e.g., an operation of maintaining transmit power in a specific time unit is also necessary for performing the multi-subframe channel estimation. In this case, the specific time unit corresponds to a repeated transmission section or an RSCW in which the repetition is performed.).
Regarding claim 3, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein said determining, by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises:
ignoring, by the terminal device in the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set, a power control command applied to any one or more of the plurality of repeated transmissions in the first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0162] - [0163], e.g., the x may correspond to KPUSCH or KPUCCH in the explanation on the transmit power… if the subframe n+x is not a start subframe of a specific repeated transmission section or an RSCW, the UE may not apply the TPC in the subframe n+x. Moreover, it means that the UE may delay applying the TPC until a subframe starting after the subframe n+x.),
or refraining, by the terminal device, from receiving a power control command applied to any one or more of the plurality of repeated transmissions in the first transmission occasion set.
Regarding claim 4, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein said determining, by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises:
performing, by the terminal device in the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set, same power adjustment for the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel according to a power control command effective in the first transmission occasion set (see Fig. 13, e.g., element adjust power according to TCP command, maintain transmit power during RSC #0 or repetition section #0; see ¶ [0165], e.g., If a TPC command is received in a subframe n, a subframe n+7 corresponds to a first subframe of an RSCW #0. Hence, the TPC received in the subframe n is applied to the subframe n+7 in the RSCW #0 and repeated transmission is performed in subframes belonging to the RSCW #0 using corresponding transmit power.).
Regarding claim 5, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein said determining, by the terminal device, that the transmission power of the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same comprises:
receiving, by the terminal device in the first transmission occasion set, a power control command applied to any one or more of the plurality of repeated transmissions in the first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0163], e.g., If a TPC command is received in a subframe n, a UE applies a value received from a repeated transmission section or an RSCW firstly starting in a subframe n+x or after the subframe n+x); and
performing, by the terminal device, power adjustment for the uplink channel according to the power control command at a transmission occasion or a transmission occasion set after the first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0164], e.g., In particular, the UE applies the TPC in a subframe n+y (y>=x) and the subframe n+y becomes a start subframe of a specific repeated transmission section or an RSCW. In other word, the UE applies the same TPC value to subframes belonging to a repeated transmission section to maintain transmit power.).
Regarding claim 6, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein a number of transmission occasions included in the first transmission occasion set is pre-configured or agreed in a protocol, or is configured by a network device (see ¶ [0150], e.g., A size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW can be determined by a prescribed value in advance. Or, an eNB can designate the size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW in consideration of a channel state change of a UE, and the like.).
Regarding claim 9, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, further comprising: performing, by the terminal device, joint channel estimation on the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel (see ¶ [0160] - [0162], e.g., Hence, an operation of maintaining transmit power in a specific time unit is also necessary for performing the multi-subframe channel estimation. In this case, the specific time unit corresponds to a repeated transmission section or an RSCW in which the repetition is performed.).
Regarding claim 10, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel are part or all repeated transmissions of the uplink channel (see ¶ [0160] - [0162], In FIG. 13, a case that a repeated transmission section or an RSCW in which data is repeatedly transmitted is configured by 4 subframes.).
Regarding claim 11, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
SEO further teaches, wherein the uplink channel comprises at least one of: a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (see ¶ [0163], e.g., In this case, n+x may correspond to a first UL subframe after the processing time in consideration of a subframe configuration in TDD. In particular, the x may correspond to KPUSCH or KPUCCH in the explanation on the transmit power.).
Regarding claim 12, 17 and 20, SEO teaches, a wireless communication method,
comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, first information indicating a first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0156], e.g., indication of an eNB is applied in a unit of a specific time unit, e.g., an RSCW or repetition; see ¶ [0150], e.g., A size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW can be determined by a prescribed value in advance. Or, an eNB can designate the size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW in consideration of a channel state change of a UE, and the like.),
wherein at least one of transmission power, antenna port configuration, precoding configuration, Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) configuration, or scrambling code configuration of a plurality of repeated transmissions of an uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same (see ¶ [0123], e.g., When a UE performs repeated transmission using the same frequency resource during prescribed time, an eNB can increase channel estimation capability by using DM RSs (Demodulation Reference Signals) located at a plurality of subframes at the same time, thereby increasing final decoding capability as well. In case of performing multi-subframe channel estimation, a main assumption is that almost the same channel is maintained in time domain corresponding to a target of the multi-subframe channel estimation because a channel change between a UE and an eNB is very limitative in the time domain.).
Regarding claim 13, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
SEO further teaches, further comprising: performing, by the terminal device, joint channel estimation on the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0160] - [0162], e.g., Hence, an operation of maintaining transmit power in a specific time unit is also necessary for performing the multi-subframe channel estimation. In this case, the specific time unit corresponds to a repeated transmission section or an RSCW in which the repetition is performed.).
Regarding claim 14, and 18, SEO teaches, a wireless communication method,
comprising: transmitting, by a network device, first information indicating a first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0156], e.g., indication of an eNB is applied in a unit of a specific time unit, e.g., an RSCW or repetition; see ¶ [0150], e.g., A size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW can be determined by a prescribed value in advance. Or, an eNB can designate the size of the repeated transmission section or the RSCW in consideration of a channel state change of a UE, and the like.),
wherein at least one of transmission power, antenna port configuration, precoding configuration, Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) configuration, or scrambling code configuration of a plurality of repeated transmissions of an uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set is same (see ¶ [0123], e.g., When a UE performs repeated transmission using the same frequency resource during prescribed time, an eNB can increase channel estimation capability by using DM RSs (Demodulation Reference Signals) located at a plurality of subframes at the same time, thereby increasing final decoding capability as well. In case of performing multi-subframe channel estimation, a main assumption is that almost the same channel is maintained in time domain corresponding to a target of the multi-subframe channel estimation because a channel change between a UE and an eNB is very limitative in the time domain.).
Regarding claim 15, SEO teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
SEO further teaches, further comprising: performing, by the network device, joint channel estimation on the plurality of repeated transmissions of the uplink channel in the first transmission occasion set (see ¶ [0123], e.g., When a UE performs repeated transmission using the same frequency resource during prescribed time, an eNB can increase channel estimation capability by using DM RSs (Demodulation Reference Signals) located at a plurality of subframes at the same time, thereby increasing final decoding capability as well. In case of performing multi-subframe channel estimation, a main assumption is that almost the same channel is maintained in time domain corresponding to a target of the multi-subframe channel estimation because a channel change between a UE and an eNB is very limitative in the time domain.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10397880 B2 issued to Kim et al.
US 20230093264 A1 issued to GAO et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights