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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7-16, 18-25, 27-30 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. The amended claims now recite a single control message is received and a single signal transmit which is based on the first power scaling parameter and MCS dedicated to the first frequency subband. The specification, and now cancelled claims, appears to only support the idea that a first and second control signal were sent/received wherein the second control signal includes the MCS information. Therefore, the specification lacks support to have a single signal based on both pieces of information. Figures 4, 15 and 18 of Applicants specification expressly shows a first and second control message (1510/1520) and a first and second signal (1515/1525).
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 18, 19, 22-25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. “Li” EP 3592045 (Submitted in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Yerramalli et al. “Yerramalli” US 2022/0030593 further in view of Frederiksen et al. “Frederiksen” US 2007/0147487.
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Li teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Paragraphs 44 and 56), comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a capability message indicating the UE supports a plurality of frequency subbands of a band (a terminal device sends bandwidth capability to the network; Paragraph 84. The bandwidth parts correspond to various frequencies and transmit powers vary based on the differing bandwidth/frequencies; Paragraph 96);
receive, based at least in part on transmitting the capability message, a control message indicating a power scaling parameter dedicated to a frequency subband of the band for wireless communications by the UE and transmit, by the UE, a signal via the frequency subband at a transmit power that is based at least in part on the power scaling parameter dedicated to the frequency subband (the network configures power control parameters for the terminal and sends this information to the terminal. The terminal may then send information on various bandwidth parts using different transmit powers to ensure quality; Paragraph 99).
Li does not expressly disclose the capability is for a single antenna panel; however, Yerramalli teaches the UE capability indication indicates information with respect to one antenna panel (i.e. single antenna panel). The UE capability is for a plurality of frequencies or bandwidths as well; Paragraph 67.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Li to include the explicit use of a single antenna panel as taught by Yerramalli.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can indicate it’s capabilities with respect to antenna panels, frequencies/bandwidths and other information for optimized communications as taught by Yerramalli; Paragraph 67.
The prior art does not expressly disclose transmitting a signal via a sub-band based on a transmit power and MCS dedicated to the sub-band; however, Frederiksen teaches that a transceiver receives a plurality of signals in a plurality of sub-bands and each signal is transmitted in a particular sub-band. These signals are transmit based on a power and modulation scheme which is particular to the sub-band and different from values assigned to other sub-bands (i.e. dedicated); Paragraphs 22 or 23.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include dedicated MCS and power values for sub-band transmission as taught by Frederiksen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can circumvent interference issues as taught by Frederiksen; Paragraph 32.
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Li teaches switching from a second subband to the frequency subband based on the control message and switch from a second power scaling parameter associated with the second frequency subband to the power scaling parameter based on the switching to the frequency subband (the network device sends power control information to the terminal device which notifies the terminal device that different power control parameters are used for different carrier bandwidth parts. The terminal device then transmits information on the differing bandwidth parts using the different transmit powers; Paragraph 99. Thus one can see there is a power scaling parameter associated with different bandwidth parts (frequency subbands) and each BWP is associated with its own transmit power. The UE changes which BWP it uses to transmit as well as the associated transmit power to send information).
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Li teaches the control message indicates a plurality of power scaling parameters, each parameter dedicated to a respected frequency subband (the network device sends power control information to the terminal device which notifies the terminal device that different power control parameters are used for different carrier bandwidth parts; Paragraph 99. Thus one can see there is a power scaling parameter associated with different bandwidth parts (frequency subbands) and each BWP is associated with its own transmit power).
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Li teaches receiving a second control message indicating an offset associated with the power scaling parameter, wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the signal at a second transmit power based on the offset (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example. Thus, one can see there is an offset associated with the scaling power, thus the UE would use this offset power (configured by higher layers) to transmit the data; Paragraphs 99 and 110).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches a power offset value (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example; Paragraphs 99 and 110. Li does not expressly disclose the second transmit power is less than the transmit power; however, because Li teaches that use of a power offset parameter, there are only two outcomes for the second transmit power. The second transmit power can only be higher or lower than the transmit power. As there are only two potential outcomes, it would have been readily apparent to a person of skill in the art that the second transmit power being higher or lower is merely a matter of design choice. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Li to expressly state the second transmit power is less than the transmit power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the different BWPs can be associated with different power levels, wherein some power levels can have offsets applied by higher layer signaling as taught by Li; Paragraph 110.
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches the control message includes an UL control information message (S201 of Figure 2 shows a network node sending a control message (i.e. UL control information) to ta UE).
Regarding claims 12 and 28, Li teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor (Paragraphs 44 and 56); and instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive a capability message indicating an antenna panel at a user equipment (UE) supports a plurality of frequency subbands of a band (a terminal device sends bandwidth capability to the network; Paragraph 84. The bandwidth parts correspond to various frequencies and transmit powers vary based on the differing bandwidth/frequencies; Paragraph 96);
transmit, based at least in part on receiving the capability message, a control message indicating a power scaling parameter dedicated to a frequency subband of the band for wireless communications by the antenna panel at the UE and receive, from the antenna panel, a signal via the frequency subband at a transmit power that is based at least in part on the power scaling parameter dedicated to the frequency subband (the network configures power control parameters for the terminal and sends this information to the terminal. The terminal may then send information on various bandwidth parts using different transmit powers to ensure quality; Paragraph 99).
Li does not expressly disclose the capability is for a single antenna panel; however, Yerramalli teaches the UE capability indication indicates information with respect to one antenna panel (i.e. single antenna panel). The UE capability is for a plurality of frequencies or bandwidths as well; Paragraph 67.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Li to include the explicit use of a single antenna panel as taught by Yerramalli.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can indicate it’s capabilities with respect to antenna panels, frequencies/bandwidths and other information for optimized communications as taught by Yerramalli; Paragraph 67.
The prior art does not expressly disclose transmitting a signal via a sub-band based on a transmit power and MCS dedicated to the sub-band; however, Frederiksen teaches that a transceiver receives a plurality of signals in a plurality of sub-bands and each signal is transmitted in a particular sub-band. These signals are transmit based on a power and modulation scheme which is particular to the sub-band and different from values assigned to other sub-bands (i.e. dedicated); Paragraphs 22 or 23.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include dedicated MCS and power values for sub-band transmission as taught by Frederiksen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can circumvent interference issues as taught by Frederiksen; Paragraph 32.
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Li teaches switching from a second subband to the frequency subband based on the control message and switch from a second power scaling parameter associated with the second frequency subband to the power scaling parameter based on the switching to the frequency subband (the network device sends power control information to the terminal device which notifies the terminal device that different power control parameters are used for different carrier bandwidth parts. The terminal device then transmits information on the differing bandwidth parts using the different transmit powers; Paragraph 99. Thus one can see there is a power scaling parameter associated with different bandwidth parts (frequency subbands) and each BWP is associated with its own transmit power. The UE changes which BWP it uses to transmit as well as the associated transmit power to send information).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Li teaches the control message indicates a plurality of power scaling parameters, each parameter dedicated to a respected frequency subband (the network device sends power control information to the terminal device which notifies the terminal device that different power control parameters are used for different carrier bandwidth parts; Paragraph 99. Thus one can see there is a power scaling parameter associated with different bandwidth parts (frequency subbands) and each BWP is associated with its own transmit power).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches receiving a second control message indicating an offset associated with the power scaling parameter, wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the signal at a second transmit power based on the offset (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example. Thus, one can see there is an offset associated with the scaling power, thus the UE would use this offset power (configured by higher layers) to transmit the data; Paragraphs 99 and 110).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches a power offset value (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example; Paragraphs 99 and 110. Li does not expressly disclose the second transmit power is less than the transmit power; however, because Li teaches that use of a power offset parameter, there are only two outcomes for the second transmit power. The second transmit power can only be higher or lower than the transmit power. As there are only two potential outcomes, it would have been readily apparent to a person of skill in the art that the second transmit power being higher or lower is merely a matter of design choice. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Li to expressly state the second transmit power is less than the transmit power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the different BWPs can be associated with different power levels, wherein some power levels can have offsets applied by higher layer signaling as taught by Li; Paragraph 110.
Regarding claim 22, Li teaches the control message includes an UL control information message (S201 of Figure 2 shows a network node sending a control message (i.e. UL control information) to ta UE).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yerramalli in view of Frederickson and further in view of Satou US 2020/0264259.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the use of different transmit powers for various BWPs/frequencies; however, the prior art does not expressly state the frequency subband is a higher frequency than the second subband and the power scaling parameters indicates increasing the transmit power relative to the second power scaling parameter. Satou teaches that as frequencies become higher, power also increases, and as frequencies become lower, power consumption becomes lower as well; Paragraph 86. Thus one can see that higher frequencies are associated with a higher (increased) transmit power and lower frequencies with lower powers as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art that higher frequencies have increased power and lower frequencies have decreased power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can reduce power consumption as needed as taught by Satou; Paragraph 86.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the use of different transmit powers for various BWPs/frequencies; however, the prior art does not expressly state the frequency subband is a higher frequency than the second subband and the power scaling parameters indicates increasing the transmit power relative to the second power scaling parameter. Satou teaches that as frequencies become higher, power also increases, and as frequencies become lower, power consumption becomes lower as well; Paragraph 86. Thus one can see that higher frequencies are associated with a higher (increased) transmit power and lower frequencies with lower powers as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art that higher frequencies have increased power and lower frequencies have decreased power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can reduce power consumption as needed as taught by Satou; Paragraph 86.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the use of different transmit powers for various BWPs/frequencies; however, the prior art does not expressly state the frequency subband is a higher frequency than the second subband and the power scaling parameters indicates increasing the transmit power relative to the second power scaling parameter. Satou teaches that as frequencies become higher, power also increases, and as frequencies become lower, power consumption becomes lower as well; Paragraph 86. Thus one can see that higher frequencies are associated with a higher (increased) transmit power and lower frequencies with lower powers as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art that higher frequencies have increased power and lower frequencies have decreased power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can reduce power consumption as needed as taught by Satou; Paragraph 86.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches the use of different transmit powers for various BWPs/frequencies; however, the prior art does not expressly state the frequency subband is a higher frequency than the second subband and the power scaling parameters indicates increasing the transmit power relative to the second power scaling parameter. Satou teaches that as frequencies become higher, power also increases, and as frequencies become lower, power consumption becomes lower as well; Paragraph 86. Thus one can see that higher frequencies are associated with a higher (increased) transmit power and lower frequencies with lower powers as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art that higher frequencies have increased power and lower frequencies have decreased power.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can reduce power consumption as needed as taught by Satou; Paragraph 86.
Claim(s) 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yerramalli in view of Frederickson and further in view of Zhou et al. “Zhou” US 2019/0053313.
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches receiving a second control message indicating an offset associated with the power scaling parameter, wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the signal at a second transmit power based on the offset (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example. Thus, one can see there is an offset associated with the scaling power, thus the UE would use this offset power (configured by higher layers) to transmit the data; Paragraphs 99 and 110). The prior art does not expressly disclose the offset is based on received interference measurements; however, Zhou teaches the power offset can be based on the uplink interference level; Paragraph 149. Thus, when combined with the teachings of Li and Yerramalli, one can see the control information used for determining power offset information can be associated with interference measurements as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include determining the power offset based on interference measurements as taught by Zhou.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine different transmission powers based on the type of signaling as taught by Zhou; Paragraph 162, see also Figure 21.
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches receiving a second control message indicating an offset associated with the power scaling parameter, wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the signal at a second transmit power based on the offset (the system can include a power offset parameter associated with BWP1 for example. Thus, one can see there is an offset associated with the scaling power, thus the UE would use this offset power (configured by higher layers) to transmit the data; Paragraphs 99 and 110). The prior art does not expressly disclose the offset is based on received interference measurements; however, Zhou teaches the power offset can be based on the uplink interference level; Paragraph 149. Thus, when combined with the teachings of Li and Yerramalli, one can see the control information used for determining power offset information can be associated with interference measurements as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include determining the power offset based on interference measurements as taught by Zhou.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine different transmission powers based on the type of signaling as taught by Zhou; Paragraph 162, see also Figure 21.
Claim(s) 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yerramalli in view of Frederickson and further in view of Zhou and further yet in view of Raghavan et al. “Raghavan” US 2022/0007207.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not disclose receiving an indication of one or more grating lobes based on transmitting the signal at the transmit power; however, Raghavan teaches a UE determines a grating lobe is causing interference based on a received indication; Paragraph 122. The grating lobes are associated with transmit powers; Paragraph 120.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include receiving an indication of a grating lobe as taught by Raghavan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine interreference metrics with respect to signal strength loss in the system as taught by Raghavan; Paragraph 122.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not disclose receiving an indication of one or more grating lobes based on transmitting the signal at the transmit power; however, Raghavan teaches a UE determines a grating lobe is causing interference based on a received indication; Paragraph 122. The grating lobes are associated with transmit powers; Paragraph 120.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include receiving an indication of a grating lobe as taught by Raghavan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine interreference metrics with respect to signal strength loss in the system as taught by Raghavan; Paragraph 122.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-25, 27-30 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights