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 § 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.
(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) 1, 2, 9, 11-13, 20, 21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Sakhnini et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0409093 A1; hereinafter “SAKHNINI”)
Regarding claim 1, SAKHNINI teaches a method for controlling uplink transmission, performed by a network device (see SAKHNINI, fig. 4, BS 110), and the method comprising:
transmitting first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
Regarding claim 2, SAKHNINI teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting the first indication information comprises:
transmitting the first indication information in response to satisfying a first condition (see SAKHNINI, para. [0070,72], overloaded beam).
Regarding claim 9, SAKHNINI teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the uplink switch information includes at least one of following:
a direction of an uplink transmission beam or a beam index (see SAKHNINI, para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 24, SAKHNINI teaches a computer-readable storage medium, configured for storing an instruction, wherein the method according to claim 1 is enabled to be implemented when the instruction is executed (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 11, SAKHNINI teaches a method for controlling uplink transmission, performed by a terminal device (see SAKHNINI, fig. 4, UE 120, beam 415, para. [0065-66]), and the method comprising:
receiving first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
Regarding claim 12, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, SAKHNINI teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising: switching the uplink transmission beam according to the first indication information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 520, alternate beam, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 21, SAKHNINI teaches a communication apparatus (see SAKHNINI, fig. 9), comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory to enable the communication apparatus to perform the method according to claim 11 (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 25, SAKHNINI teaches a computer-readable storage medium, configured for storing an instruction, wherein the method according to claim 11 is enabled to be implemented when the instruction is executed (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 20, SAKHNINI teaches a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory to enable the communication apparatus to perform a method for controlling uplink transmission (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125], fig. 4, BS 110), and the method comprises:
transmitting first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI as applied to claims 1, 2, and 11 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0235800 A1; hereinafter “TANG”)
Regarding claim 3, SAKHNINI teaches the method according to claim 2.
SAKHNINI is silent to teaching that comprising at least one of:
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than a distance between the terminal device and the network device;
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to the distance between the terminal device and the receiving node being less than a first threshold; or
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to the distance between the terminal device and the receiving node being minimum and less than the first threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, TANG teaches a method comprising at least one of:
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than a distance between the terminal device and the network device;
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to the distance between the terminal device and the receiving node being less than a first threshold (see TANG, fig. 7, para. [0070]); or
determining that the first condition is satisfied in response to the distance between the terminal device and the receiving node being minimum and less than the first threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI with the teaching of TANG in order to manage a large number of mobile devices and various conditions (see TANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of SAKHNINI and TANG teaches the method according to claim 3, further comprising at least one of:
determining the uplink switch information according to a position relationship between the terminal device and the receiving node (see TANG, fig. 6, 640, para. [0066]); or
receiving second indication information, wherein the second indication information is used for indicating position information of the terminal device.
Regarding claim 10, SAKHNINI teaches the method according to claim 1.
SAKHNINI is silent to teaching that further comprising:
determining a direction of a receiving beam in a receiving node according to the position information of the terminal device; and
transmitting fifth indication information to the receiving node, wherein the fifth indication information is used for indicating the direction of the receiving beam to the receiving node.
In the same field of endeavor, TANG teaches a method comprising:
determining a direction of a receiving beam in a receiving node according to the position information of the terminal device (see TANG, fig. 6, 640, para. [0066,70]); and
transmitting fifth indication information to the receiving node, wherein the fifth indication information is used for indicating the direction of the receiving beam to the receiving node (see TANG, para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI with the teaching of TANG in order to manage a large number of mobile devices and various conditions (see TANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 14, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI and TANG as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Priyanto et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0329417 A1; hereinafter “PRIYANTO”)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of SAKHNINI and TANG teaches the method according to claim 5.
The combination of SAKHNINI and TANG is silent to teaching that further comprising:
transmitting third indication information in response to satisfying a second condition, wherein the third indication information is used for indicating the terminal device to report the position information.
In the same field of endeavor, PRIYANTO teaches a method comprising:
transmitting third indication information in response to satisfying a second condition, wherein the third indication information is used for indicating the terminal device to report the position information (see PRIYANTO, fig. 2, positioning request 230, fig. 5, 6, para. [0040-41], trigger event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI and TANG with the teaching of PRIYANTO in order to provide efficient and high quality communication (see PRIYANTO, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16 and 17 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI, TANG and PRIYANTO as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0037269 A1; hereinafter “RYU”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of SAKHNINI, TANG and PRIYANTO teaches the method according to claim 6.
The combination of SAKHNINI, TANG and PRIYANTO is silent to teaching that further comprising at least one of:
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a power headroom (PH) reported by the terminal device being less than a second threshold; or
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a maximum allowed user equipment output power reduction (P MRP) reported by the terminal device being greater than a third threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, RYU teaches a method comprising at least one of:
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a power headroom (PH) reported by the terminal device being less than a second threshold (see RYU, para. [0086]); or
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a maximum allowed user equipment output power reduction (P MRP) reported by the terminal device being greater than a third threshold (see RYU, para. [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI, TANG and PRIYANTO with the teaching of RYU in order to provide power management with beam variation (see RYU, para. [0009-10]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of SAKHNINI, TANG, PRIYANTO and RYU teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
receiving fourth indication information, wherein the fourth indication information is used for indicating a PHR and/or the P MRP of the terminal device (see RYU, fig. 1, 4, beam measurement instruction, para. [0065]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukui et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0112347 A1) and GUO (2017/0026102) teach beamforming communication systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights