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 Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following claims recite elements that are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they recite a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function: Claim 26, The claimed limitation “means for applying a per chain transmit power split to a cumulative maximum transmit power level (MTPL)”, “means for calculating a value associated with … power split is applied to the cumulative MTPL”, and “means for transmitting, using multiple transmit chains, an uplink signal using…and the calculated value associated with the conditional power backoff”. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the above claim has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 8-12, 18-22, 25-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haim et al. (US 2017/0223641) in view of YANG et al. (US 2020/0112349).
Regarding claim 1, Haim teaches that a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1). Haim teaches that applying a per chain transmit power split to a cumulative maximum transmit power level (MTPL) (Fig. 1, pages 16, paragraphs 275 – pages 17, paragraphs 294, and pages 18, paragraphs 300 - 307, where teaches measuring maximum sum of the individual CC powers, (Σp.sub.U,c).sub.MAX, and applying to P.sub.CMAX.sub._.sub.L and P.sub.CMAX.sub._.sub.H separately, and a value computing from the individual signaled power limits for each CC), calculating a value associated with a conditional power backoff (page 1, paragraphs 4 – 7, Fig. 1, 14, pages 6, paragraphs 77 - 82, and pages 13, paragraphs 213 – pages 14, paragraphs 246, where teaches calculating power backoff value), wherein the value associated with the conditional power backoff is calculated after the per chain transmit power split is applied to the cumulative MTPL (pages 12, paragraphs 186 – pages 13, paragraphs 220, Fig. 1, 14, and page 1, paragraphs 4 – 7, where teaches calculating power backoff value that is determining the backoff value after applied transmitting maximum power level for each CC), and transmitting, using multiple transmit chains (pages 4, paragraphs 62 – pages 5, paragraphs 67 and Fig. 1, where teaches using multiple transmit carriers), an uplink signal using a final transmit power level (output power level), wherein the final transmit power level is based on a value of the cumulative MTPL after the per chain transmit power split is applied to the cumulative MTPL and the calculated value associated with the conditional power backoff (pages 7, paragraphs 94 – 99, page 1, paragraphs 4 – 7, Fig. 1, 14, pages 4, paragraphs 62 – pages 5, paragraphs 67, and pages 16, paragraphs 283 – pages 17, paragraphs 285, where teaches maximum output power value based on Maximum Power Reductions (MPR) and additional MPR (A-MPR) and an allowed tolerance ΔTc, MPR, A-MPR, and ΔTc values, and ΔTc may be a fixed power offset that is a function of the transmission bandwidth (BW) (for the CC)). Haim does not specifically teach the limitation “applying a per chain transmit power split to a cumulative maximum transmit power level (MTPL)”. However, YANG teaches the limitation “applying a per chain transmit power split to a cumulative maximum transmit power level (MTPL)” (pages 5, paragraphs 55 – pages 6, paragraphs 59 and Fig. 2, 3, where teaches the maximum transmit power associated with the UE may include a maximum transmit power per transmit chain (e.g., a separate maximum transmit power reported for each transmit chain), and the maximum transmit power associated with the UE may include a maximum transmit power aggregated across all of the transmit chains, such as a maximum transmit power obtained by summing (e.g., linearly) the maximum transmit powers for each transmit chain (e.g., four transmit chains with a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm each would sum to an aggregate maximum transmit power of 29 dBm), and the maximum transmit power aggregated across all of the transmit chains may represent a power class of the UE, the UE may report a single maximum transmit power). 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 Haim’s power control performance as taught by YANG, provide the motivation to enhancing communication performance between mobile device and network in order to efficient controlling maximum transmit power in wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Haim teaches that the conditional power backoff has a zero or null value based on the cumulative MTPL satisfying a threshold associated with the conditional power backoff after the per chain transmit power split is applied to the cumulative MTPL (pages 10, paragraphs 161 – 163, Fig. 1, and pages 16, paragraphs 283 – pages 17, paragraphs 294).
Regarding claim 8, Haim teaches that the conditional power backoff is a delta power class backoff that is applicable to the uplink signal (pages 7, paragraphs 94 – 99, Fig. 1, 14, and pages 4, paragraphs 62 – pages 5, paragraphs 67, where teaches ΔTc may be a fixed power offset that is a function of the transmission bandwidth (BW) (for the CC).
Regarding claim 9, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Haim teaches that a value of the per chain transmit power split is based on a number of the multiple transmit chains used to transmit the uplink signal (pages 15, paragraphs 254 – 268 and Fig. 1, 14).
Regarding claim 10, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Haim teaches that an initial value of the cumulative MTPL is based on a power class associated with a band used to transmit the uplink signal (pages 4, paragraphs 62 – pages 6, paragraphs 87 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Haim teaches that a memory, and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 12, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 18, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 19, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 20, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 21, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 22, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 25, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 26, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 27, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 30, Haim and YANG teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3-7, 13-17, 23-24, and 28-29 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 limitation “the conditional power backoff has a non-zero value that is applied to the cumulative MTPL based on the cumulative MTPL failing to satisfy a threshold associated with the conditional power backoff after the per chain transmit power split is applied to the cumulative MTPL” as specified the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sagi et al. (US 2019/0068429) discloses Method and Apparatus with Common Digital Pre-Distortion Component for Multiple Transmit Chains.
Basu Mallick et al. (US 2019/0098597) discloses Method and Apparatus for Managing Dual Registration with Multiple Networks in One or More Radio Communication 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
December 23, 2025
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649