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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment "a panel-specific MPE report having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration": “require that the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration dictates the structure or format of the MPE report itself, not merely whether a report is generated or what content is included”.
it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structure or format of the MPE report itself, not merely whether a report is generated or what content is included) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
The ODP rejection wrt 18/279,782 has been dropped since that application has been allowed for a separate limitation.
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. 18/264,557 (2024/0049148) (reference application).
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.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31 and 33-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no disclosure of a report “having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration” as argued by applicant that “the amended claims require that the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration dictates the structure or format of the MPE report itself, not merely whether a report is generated or what content is included”.
It is noted that [0081] of the instant PgPub (2024/0098656) provides for an example MAC CE structure associated with reporting panel-specific MPE indications, however merely states that the example “may be generated and transmitted by the UE 310 shown in Fig 3.” Additionally, [0066]-[0070] provide for transmissions but fails to recite “having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration” much less applicants interpretation of such “the amended claims require that the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration dictates the structure or format of the MPE report itself, not merely whether a report is generated or what content is included”. These examples clearly provide for options the UE may employ but fail to provide for the claimed language, at least as interpreted by applicant.
Further, it is questioned as to what exactly in the format is being controlled, how is this being done, and how or what changes in the information result in any change of the format? Further, to the UE, what structure and functionality of the UE controls a format by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration? Where is this disclosed?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31, 33-36, 40-44, 46-48, 50-56, and 59-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (2024/0040520) hereinafter “Matsumura”.
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 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 having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration (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”).
The format of the report is considered inherent to “the beam specific MPE report”, as there is no indication of determining a format for the report. Further Matsumura discloses a new MPE MAC CE for the report. See [0071], etc. Finally, despite applicant’s arguments, the BRI of “having a format controlled by the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration” would indeed include “what content is included”.
As to claim 33, (Currently Amended) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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, (see [0033],[0092])
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 the P-MPR threshold ([0092]-[0099]).
As to claim 35, (Previously Presented) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses The UE of claim 41, wherein the power change threshold is panel-specific. See [0072]-[0073].
As to claim 43, (Currently Amended) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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 46, (Previously Presented) Matsumura discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the panel-specific MPE report comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE). See [0071],[0066].
As to claim 47, (Previously Presented) Matsumura discloses The UE of claim 46, wherein the MAC CE comprises a panel-specific MAC CE. See [0095].
As to claim 48, (Currently Amended) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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) Matsumura discloses 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 as applied above to claims 31, 32, 40, & 54 produces the method as claimed.
As to claim 61, (New) Matsumura 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].
Claim(s) 31, 33-36, 40-42, 46-50, 52-56, and 59-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GO et al. (2023/0379843) hereinafter “GO”.
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.).
As to claim 33, (Currently Amended) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses The UE of claim 41, wherein the power change threshold is panel-specific. See [0715]-[0718].
As to claim 46, (Previously Presented) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO discloses 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) GO 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) GO discloses 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 as applied above to claims 31, 32, 40, & 54 produces the method as claimed.
As to claim 61, (New) GO discloses The UE of claim 31, wherein the panel-specific MPE reporting configuration is received from a network node (BS). See [0676], etc.
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.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura.
As to claim 45, Matsumura 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 in view of Jeon et al. (US 2018/0324853) hereinafter “Jeon”.
As to claim 37. (New) Matsumura 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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