DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 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.
2. Claims 1-9, 11, 17, 29-38, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al, (US 2017/0070323) in view of ALPERT et al, (US 2019/0090200).
Regarding claim 1, Madan teaches that a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, abstract, and page 1, paragraphs 10 – 15). Madan teaches that determining whether a UE context is interference limited or noise limited based on comparing a measurement value to a threshold value (pages 5, paragraphs 35 – 50 and Fig. 3, 4, where teaches determines the power level P.sub.3 of the subset of common resource blocks shared among small cells based on the received UE interference feedback information, and power level P.sub.3 is determined SINR threshold of macro cell interfered UEs that provides for an optimized performance of macro cell interference limited UEs as well as other UEs within communication system, and equation to determine SINR of a macro cell interfered UEs, and after the values are computed for each of the SINR thresholds within the range of SINR thresholds, a selection of a best SINR threshold and corresponding power level P.sub.3 is chosen based upon a predetermined criterion), setting a maximum transmit power based on the UE context (pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53 and Fig. 4, 5, where teaches each small cell can potentially have a different boosted power level per RB (e.g., P.sub.3), as well as a different number of RBs for which power boosting is performed, and performing locally at each of the small cells, and each of small cells may send the results to server, and server may then signal a maximum power level per RB, P.sub.3.sup.max, that a small cell is allowed to have, and a particular small cell may be configured to inform neighboring small cells about which RBs have power boosting allocated through Relative Narrowband Transmit Power (RNTP) messages to allow the neighboring small cell to perform appropriate link adaptation, and server sends power boosting information including an indication of the determined power level P.sub.3 and the determined subset of resources to be used by macro cell interference dominated UEs to each of small cells), and transmitting during a time period associated with a downlink (DL) grant, an uplink (UL) transmission at the maximum transmit power (pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53 and Fig. 4, 5, where teaches RB is an allocated portion of time and frequency spectrum used for downlink transmission from the cell to one or more UEs, each small cell can potentially have a different boosted power level per RB (e.g., P.sub.3), as well as a different number of RBs for which power boosting is performed, and server may then signal a maximum power level per RB, P.sub.3.sup.max, that a small cell is allowed to have, and determine the subset of resources for dominant macro interference UEs to be allocated the determined power level, and send an indication of the power level and subset of resources to one or more of small cells). Madan does not specifically disclose the limitation “transmitting during a time period associated with a downlink (DL) grant, an uplink (UL) transmission at the maximum transmit power”. However, ALPERT supportly teaches the claimed limitation “transmitting during a time period associated with a downlink (DL) grant, an uplink (UL) transmission at the maximum transmit power” (see pages 8, paragraphs 80 – pages 9, paragraphs 89, Fig. 11, 17, and pages 5, paragraphs 58 – pages 6, paragraphs 64, where teaches the power control procedure generally begins with calibration for each STA, based on an UL power control target setting, after connecting to the AP, and during the calibration phase, each STA is asked to transmit one or more UL PPDUs and to report based on the actual transmission additional information, such as PC headroom, from which the maximum power per modulation code scheme and the constant error in estimating the path loss and absolute transmit power offset are estimated by the AP, and the AP selects a specific MCS and instructs the STA to transmit using that MCS with a specific target received power, and
based on this information and common MU UL transmission parameters, the AP can assign for each STA an RU, an UL transmit power, an MCS, and a target RSSI, and also the transmissions are performed according to a subset rule, which requires that only one subset transmit at a given time and this procedure permits better estimation of the receive signal power of each user). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Madan’s power control performance as taught by ALPERT, provide the motivation to achieve efficient downlink transmission power control for enhancing communication quality performance mobile network system.
Regarding claim 2, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining that the UE context is noise limited based upon the measurement value being less than the threshold value (pages 4, paragraphs 33 – pages 5, paragraphs 50 and Fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 3, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining the maximum transmit power based at least in part on UL and DL duplexer isolation of the UE (pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53 and Fig. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 4, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining the maximum transmit power based at least in part on UL configuration information associated with the UE (pages 4, paragraphs 33 – pages 6, paragraphs 53 and Fig. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining the maximum transmit power based at least in part on an UL channel bandwidth of the UE (pages 3, paragraphs 26 – pages 4, paragraphs 29, Fig. 1, 4, 5, and pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 6, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining the maximum transmit power based at least in part on a DL modulation scheme of the UE (pages 3, paragraphs 26 – pages 4, paragraphs 29, Fig. 1, 4, 5, and pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 7, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, ALPERT further teaches that the maximum transmit power is equal to or greater than 23 dBm (pages 8, paragraphs 80 – pages 9, paragraphs 89, Fig. 11, 17, and pages 5, paragraphs 58 – pages 6, paragraphs 64).
Regarding claim 8, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that determining that the UE context is interference limited based upon the measurement value being equal to or greater than the threshold value (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 2, paragraphs 16 and Fig. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, ALPERT further teaches that at least one of: setting the maximum transmit power to a maximum value for power class two (PC2) or greater, or setting the maximum transmit power to at least 26 dBm (pages 8, paragraphs 80 – pages 9, paragraphs 89, Fig. 11, 17, and pages 5, paragraphs 58 – pages 6, paragraphs 64).
Regarding claim 11, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, ALPERT further teaches that performing a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement to determine the measurement value, or performing received signal strength indicator (RSSI) and reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements and combining the RSSI and RSRP measurements to determine the measurement value (pages 6, paragraphs 65 – pages 8, paragraphs 73 and Fig. 11, 15, 17).
Regarding claim 17, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that receiving, from a base station, signaling enabling setting of the maximum transmit power based on the UE context, or transmitting reporting information indicating setting of the maximum transmit power based on the UE context (pages 5, paragraphs 35 – pages 6, paragraphs 53 and Fig. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 29, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Madan further teaches that A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions, and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, individually or in combination (Fig. 1 and page 1, paragraphs 27 – pages 2, paragraphs 30).
Regarding claim 30, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 2 and 29.
Regarding claim 31, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 3 and 29.
Regarding claim 32, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 4 and 29.
Regarding claim 33, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 5 and 29.
Regarding claim 34, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 6 and 29.
Regarding claim 35, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 7 and 29.
Regarding claim 36, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 8 and 29.
Regarding claim 37, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 29.
Regarding claim 38, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 11 and 29.
Regarding claim 43, Madan and ALPERT teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 17 and 29.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 13-16 and 39-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed limitation “the threshold value is a first threshold value, the measurement value is a first measurement value, and determining the UE context is interference limited or noise limited based on comparing the measurement value to the threshold value, comprises performing a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement to determine the first measurement value, performing a channel quality information (CQI) measurement to determine a second measurement value, comparing the first measurement value to the first threshold value, and comparing the second measurement value to a second threshold value” as specified the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KILIAN et al. (US 2021/0036727) discloses Interference Detection and Suppression in Non-Coordinated Systems.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
February 5, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649