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 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the ODP rejection, since the details of the amendment were found to be known the differences in the claims are still considered obvious. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Regarding applicants thoughts on compact prosecution, applicant is advised that examination process requires an updated search at every phase of the process and note that as the claims change the focus of the search does as well. Thus although the entire application is considered when conducting the search, it is preposterous to think or imply that the entirety of the specification, each and every nuance, was subject to the search.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31, 54-55, and 60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of copending Application No. 18264557 (2024/0049148) in view of Nielsen et al. (2023/0403654), hereinafter “Nielsen”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the addition of a trigger condition given the configuration would be obvious. In addition, Nielsen provides for the details of the report as applied below.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 31, 33-36, 40-44, 47-48, 50-56, and 59-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (2024/0040520) hereinafter “Matsumura” in view of Nielsen.
As to claim 31, (Currently Amended) A user equipment (20) for wireless communication, (see Fig 26) comprising:
one or more memories (1002); and
one or more processors (1001) coupled to the one or more memories, (see Figs 7-8) the one or more processors configured to:
receive a panel-specific maximum permitted exposure (MPE) reporting configuration indicating one or more sets of parameters to be reported, wherein the one or more sets of parameters correspond to one or more panels (see [0050], [0068]-[0069]: “The UE receives higher layer parameter(s) (RRC parameter(s)) corresponding to a report related to maximum permitted exposure (MPE) (MPE) specific to a beam (beam specific), and controls transmission of the report… based on the higher layer parameters”… “a beam and a panel may be interchangeably interpreted as each other”); and
transmit a panel-specific MPE report (see [0070]-[0074],[0093]-[0097]: “When new-mpe-Reporting is configured, the UE performs beam specific P-MPR measurement for satisfying the MPE requirements, and triggers the beam specific MPE report”).
Matsumura discloses a new MPE MAC CE for the report. See [0066],[0071], etc. fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Nielsen discloses a reporting configuration comprising [[a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)]] including: a first indication of a power backoff for a panel of the one or more panels, and a second indication of the panel or a beam associated with the first indication. See [0040]-[0042], [0064]-[0069], (Tables 1-3). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the MAC CE of Matsumura such that it includes a first indication of a power backoff for a panel of the one or more panels, and a second indication of the panel or a beam associated with the first indication as suggested by Nielsen for the purpose of accounting for each beam separately as discussed with respect to Fig 4. [0086], etc.
As to claim 33, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more sets of parameters comprises:
a first set of parameters corresponding to a first panel of the one or more panels, and a second set of parameters corresponding to a second panel of the one or more panels. See [0068] “(s)”, etc.
As to claim 34, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that at least one panel associated with a serving cell in a (MAC) entity, of a plurality of panels including the one or more panels and associated with a plurality of serving cells, has a corresponding power management maximum power reduction (P- MPR) that satisfies a P-MPR threshold, (see [0033],[0092])
wherein the one or more processors to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the at least one panel has the corresponding P-MPR that satisfies the P-MPR threshold ([0092]-[0099]).
As to claim 35, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 34, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises panel-specific MPE information associated with the at least one panel. See Figs 1-3.
As to claim 36, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 34, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises panel-specific MPE information associated with at least one additional panel of the plurality of panels. See Figs 1-3.
As to claim 40, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a relative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a power change threshold, (see [0033])
wherein the one or more memories and the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the
relative P-MPR satisfies the power change threshold (see [0038]-[0039],[0053].
As to claim 41, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 31 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a relative power management maximum power reduction
(P-MPR) associated with at least one panel of a plurality of panels, including the one or more panels, satisfies a power change threshold, (see [0033])
wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the relative P-MPR associated with the at least one panel satisfies the power change threshold (see [0038]-[0039],[0053].
As to claim 42, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 41, wherein the power change threshold is panel-specific. See [0072]-[0073].
As to claim 43, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a prohibition timer associated with the panel-specific MPE report is not running,
wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the prohibition timer is not running. See [0050],[0071].
As to claim 44, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 43, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to start the prohibition timer based at least in part on transmitting the panel-specific MPE report. See [0054].
As to claim 47, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 46, wherein the MAC CE comprises a panel-specific MAC CE. See [0095].
As to claim 48, (Currently Amended) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 46, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine that at least one panel of a plurality of panels, including the one or more panels, associated with a serving cell satisfies a reporting condition (see [0038]); and
set a power backoff indication field of the MAC CE based at least in part on determining that the at least one panel satisfies the reporting condition. See [0055],[0097].
As to claim 50, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 48, The UE of wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises a bitmap that indicates the at least one panel. See [0040]-[0043] & Fig.3.
As to claim 51, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 50, wherein the bitmap comprises an extended cell activation status field of the MAC CE (see [0040]-[0043]).
As to claim 52, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 48, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises MPE information associated with each of the plurality of panels associated with the serving cell. See Fig 3.
As to claim 53, (Previously Presented) the combination of Matsumura and Nielsen disclose The UE of claim 46, wherein a power headroom field of the MAC CE comprises panel-specific power headroom information. See [0045],[0058].
As to claim 54, (Currently Amended) Matsumura discloses A network node (10) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (1002); and
one or more processors (1001) coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to: transmit a panel-specific maximum permitted exposure (MPE) reporting configuration (high layer parameter(s) corresponding to MPE report) indicating one or more sets of parameters to be reported, wherein the one or more parameters correspond to one or more panels (see [0050], [0068]-[0069]: “The UE receives higher layer parameter(s) (RRC parameter(s)) corresponding to a report related to maximum permitted exposure (MPE) (MPE) specific to a beam (beam specific), and controls transmission of the report… based on the higher layer parameters”… “a beam and a panel may be interchangeably interpreted as each other”); and
receive a panel-specific MPE report having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration (receive the report using mac ce, the report based on the higher layer parameter). See [0146]. Also See above wrt citations for claim 31.
As to claims 55, 56, 59, & 60, it is considered that the apparatus of Matsumura and Nielsen as applied above to claims 31, 32, 40, & 54 produces the method as claimed.
As to claim 61, (Previously Presented) Matsumura and Nielsen discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration is received from a network node (10 / serving cell). See [0119], [0136], [0146]-[0147].
As to claim 62, (New) Matsumura and Nielsen discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the first indication comprises a power backoff indication field that indicates a measured value of a power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR). See [0174]-[0075], etc.
Claim(s) 31, 33-36, 40-42, 47-50, 52-56, and 59-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GO et al. (2023/0379843) hereinafter “GO” and Nielsen.
As to claim 31, (Currently Amended) GO discloses A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, (see Fig 26) comprising:
one or more memories (104/204); and
one or more processors (102/202) coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to (see Figs 21/22/23):
receive (step S2110/S2210/S2310) a panel-specific maximum permitted exposure (MPE) reporting configuration indicating one or more sets of parameters to be reported, wherein the one or more parameters correspond to one or more panels (see [0671]-[0680], etc.); and
transmit (step S2130/S2220/S2320) a panel-specific MPE report having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration. (see [00676], [0684], etc.).
Go discloses a MPE MAC CE for the report. See [0257],[0260], Figs 12-14. etc. fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Nielsen discloses a reporting configuration comprising [[a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)]] including: a first indication of a power backoff for a panel of the one or more panels, and a second indication of the panel or a beam associated with the first indication. See [0040]-[0042], [0064]-[0069], (Tables 1-3). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the MAC CE of Go such that it includes a first indication of a power backoff for a panel of the one or more panels, and a second indication of the panel or a beam associated with the first indication as suggested by Nielsen for the purpose of accounting for each beam separately as discussed with respect to Fig 4. [0086], etc.
As to claim 33, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more sets of parameters comprises:
a first set of parameters corresponding to a first panel of the one or more panels, and a second set of parameters corresponding to a second panel of the one or more panels. See [0676].
As to claim 34, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that at least one panel associated with a serving cell in a medium access control (MAC) entity, of a plurality of panels including the one or more panels and associated with a plurality of serving cells, has a corresponding power management maximum power reduction (P- MPR) that satisfies a P-MPR threshold,
wherein the one or more memories to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the at least one panel has the corresponding P-MPR that satisfies (preferred) the P-MPR threshold. See [0683], [0688],[0717], etc.
As to claim 35, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 34, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises panel-specific MPE information associated with the at least one panel. See [0683], etc.
As to claim 36, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 34, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises panel-specific MPE
information associated with at least one additional panel of the plurality of panels. See [0683], etc.
As to claim 40, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a relative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a power change threshold,
wherein the one or more memories and the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the relative P-MPR satisfies the power change threshold. See [0715]-[0717],[0735].
As to claim 41, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 31 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a relative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) associated with at least one panel of a plurality of panels, including the one or more panels, satisfies a power change threshold,
wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the relative P-MPR associated with the
at least one panel satisfies the power change threshold. See [0715]-[0717],[0735].
As to claim 42, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 41, wherein the power change threshold is panel-specific. See [0715]-[0718].
As to claim 46, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 31, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE). See [0716], [0644], etc.
As to claim 47, (Previously Presented) The UE of claim 46, wherein the MAC CE comprises a panel-specific MAC CE. See [0549], [0566], etc.
As to claim 48, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 46, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine that at least one panel of a plurality of panels, including the one or more panels, associated with a serving cell satisfies a reporting condition; and
set a power backoff indication field of the MAC CE based at least in part on determining that the at least one panel satisfies the reporting condition. See [0288], etc.
As to claim 49. (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 48, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine
that at least one additional panel of the plurality of panels associated with the serving cell fails to satisfy the reporting condition,
wherein the panel-specific MPE report does not include MPE information associated with the at least one additional panel based at least in part on determining that the at least one additional panel fails to satisfy the reporting condition. See [0676].
As to claim 50, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 48, The UE of wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises a bitmap that indicates the at least one panel. See [0277]-[0280].
As to claim 52, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose The UE of claim 48, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises MPE information associated with each of the plurality of panels associated with the serving cell. See [0676].
As to claim 53, (Previously Presented) The combination of GO and Nilsen discloses The UE of claim 46, wherein a power headroom field of the MAC CE comprises panel-specific power headroom information. See [0676].
As to claim 54, (Currently Amended) The combination of GO and Nilsen disclose A network node (BS) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (104/204); and
one or more processors (102/202) coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
transmit a panel-specific maximum permitted exposure (MPE) reporting configuration indicating one or more sets of parameters to be reported, wherein the one or more parameters correspond to one or more panels; and
receive a panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration. See claim 31.
As to claims 55, 56, 59, & 60, it is considered that the apparatus of GO and Nielsen as applied above to claims 31, 32, 40, & 54 produces the method as claimed.
As to claim 61, (New) GO and Nielesen discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration is received from a network node (BS). See [0676], etc.
As to claim 62, (New) Go and Nielsen discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the first indication comprises a power backoff indication field that indicates a measured value of a power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR). See [0042]-[0043],[0469] etc.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura and Nielsen.
As to claim 45, Matsumura and Nielsen discloses everything claimed as applied above to claim 43, and further provides for a panel-specific embodiment but fails to explicitly recite wherein the prohibition timer comprises “panel-specific” prohibition timer. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the prohibition timer as panel-specific for the purpose of enabling the timer for each specific panel.
Claim(s) 37-39 and 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura and Nielsen in view of Jeon et al. (US 2018/0324853) hereinafter “Jeon”.
As to claim 37. (New) Matsumura and Nielsen discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a cumulative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a P-MPR threshold [0033], wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the
panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the [[cumulative]] P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold [0092]-[0099].
Matsumura fails to explicitly recite but in an analogous art Jeon discloses the use of the cumulative or total of a plurality of values in testing against a threshold in order to limit the power to requirements. See [0147]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura to determine that the cumulative P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold in order to limit the power to requirements.
As to claim 38, The combination of Matsumura, Nielsen and Jeon discloses everything as applied above to claim 37, and it is considered that it would result in wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises cumulative MPE information associated with a plurality of panels including the one or more panels.
As to claim 39, Matsumura and Nielsen discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a cumulative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a P-MPR threshold [0033], wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the [[cumulative]] P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold [0092]-[0099].
Matsumura fails to explicitly recite but in an analogous art Jeon discloses the use of the cumulative or total of a plurality of values in testing against a threshold in order to limit the power to requirements. See [0147]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura to determine that the cumulative P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold in order to limit the power to requirements.
As to claims 57-58, it is considered that the combination of Matsumura, Nielsen and Jeon as applied above to claims 37 & 39 provide a corresponding apparatus producing the method as claimed.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura and Nielsen as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of NTT Docomo (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103-e).
As to claim 49. (New) Matsumura fails to explicitly recite however in an analogous art NTT Docomo discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that at least one additional panel of the plurality of panels fails to satisfy the reporting condition,
wherein the panel-specific MPE report does not include MPE information associated with the at least one additional panel based at least in part on determining that the at least one additional panel fails to satisfy the reporting condition. (See Proposal 5-2: which recites “Option 1: UE reports MPE safe UL beam/panel” in order to help the network reconfigure the UL). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura to not include MPE information associated with the at least one additional panel based at least in part on determining that the at least one additional panel fails to satisfy the reporting condition as taught by NTT Docomo for the purpose of limiting the information to that which the network can use to reconfigure the UE.
Claim(s) 37-39 and 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GO and Nielsen in view of Jeon et al. (US 2018/0324853) hereinafter “Jeon”.
As to claim 37, GO discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a cumulative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a P-MPR threshold, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the [[cumulative]] P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold [0713]-[0718].
GO fails to explicitly recite but in an analogous art Jeon discloses the use of the cumulative or total of a plurality of values in testing against a threshold in order to limit the power to requirements. See [0147]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura to determine that the cumulative P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold in order to limit the power to requirements.
As to claim 38, The combination of GO, Nielsen and Jeon discloses everything as applied above to claim 37, and it is considered that it would result in wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises cumulative MPE information associated with a plurality of panels including the one or more panels.
As to claim 39, GO discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a cumulative power management maximum power reduction (P-MPR) satisfies a P-MPR threshold [0717],
wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the [[cumulative]] P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold, see [0713]-[0718]
GO fails to explicitly recite but in an analogous art Jeon discloses the use of the cumulative or total of a plurality of values in testing against a threshold in order to limit the power to requirements. See [0147]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura to determine that the cumulative P-MPR satisfies the P-MPR threshold in order to limit the power to requirements.
As to claims 57-58, it is considered that the combination of GO, Nielsen and Jeon as applied above to claims 37 & 39 provide a corresponding apparatus producing the method as claimed.
Claim(s) 43-45 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GO and Nielsen as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Matsumura.
GO discloses The UE of claim 31, is silent to yet in an analogous art Matsumura discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a prohibition timer associated with the panel-specific MPE report is not running,
(claim 43) wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the panel-specific MPE report, are configured to transmit the panel-specific MPE report based at least in part on determining that the prohibition timer is not running. See [0050],[0071]. (claim 44) wherein the one or more processors are further configured to start the prohibition timer based at least in part on transmitting the panel-specific MPE report. See [0054]. (claim 45) wherein the prohibition timer is panel-specific (each provide for panel-specific embodiments as applied above. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a prohibition timer as taught by Matsumura for the purpose of saving resources.
As to claim 51, (Previously Presented) GO and Nielsen discloses The UE of claim 50, is silent to yet Matsumura discloses wherein the bitmap comprises an extended cell activation status field of the MAC CE (see [0040]-[0043]). Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an extended cell activation status field of the MAC CE as taught by Matsumura for the purpose of enabling the exchange of more information.
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 LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights