DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Guo does not determine maximum transmit power based on SRS resource set. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guo discloses “The UE may……on a determination that the maximal transmit power associated with the first SRS resource set” (par.030).
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion that Guo selection is based on SRS ports. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guo discloses “different resource sets may correspond with different antenna ports for different antenna panels. For example, a first SRS resource set may correspond with a first set of antenna ports” (par.011) and “Furthermore, while the above describes selecting SRS resource set based on maximal transmit power (par.030).
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos (US Pub. 2019/0356445) in view of Guo (WO 2022238868 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos discloses a method, comprising:
by a wireless device:
receiving information configuring a sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission with time division multiplexing (TDM) SRS ports (par.008 “TDM”, par.011 “a configuration message, by a base station to a user equipment….SRS resource sets for antenna switching”, par.060 “different SRS resources are transmitted in different symbols, either in the same slot or in different slots”, par.062 “the SRS resources correspond to a collection of antenna ports. An SRS resource corresponds to one or multiple SRS ports”).
Manolakos discloses multiple SRS resource sets, then each set may have different TX power control (par.070). However; Manolakos fails to disclose determining a maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission based at least in part on the TDM SRS ports; selecting an SRS transmit power for the SRS transmission based at least in part on the maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission; and performing the SRS transmission using the selected SRS transmit power.
Gou discloses determining a maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission based at least in part on the TDM SRS ports (par.011 “a first SRS resource set may correspond with a first set of antenna ports”); selecting an SRS transmit power for the SRS transmission based at least in part on the maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission; and performing the SRS transmission using the selected SRS transmit power (par.030 “The UE may then select a first SRS resource set instead of a second SRS resource set based on a determination the maximum transmit power”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Manolakos with the above teaching of Gou in order to provide NR technology incorporates the use of multi-beam technology as suggested by Gou (par.003).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Manolakos discloses the maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission is further determined based at least in part on a number of SRS symbols for TDM SRS ports configured for the SRS transmission (Manolakos, par. 058).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Manolakos discloses everything as claim 1 above. More specifically, the modified Manolakos discloses a processor (Manolakos, par.015).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the modified Manolakos discloses the information configuring the SRS transmission indicates: a number of SRS symbols for TDM SRS ports configured for the SRS transmission: ‘s’; a number of repeated sets of s SRS symbols for frequency hopping configured for the SRS transmission: ‘R’; and a number of SRS symbols in a slot configured for the SRS transmission: m, wherein m is an integer multiple of sR (Manolakos, par.058-059).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Manolakos discloses everything as claim 1 above. More specifically, the modified Manolakos discloses a cellular base station, comprising: an antenna; a radio operably coupled to the antenna; and a processor operably coupled to the radio (Manolakos, par.013, fig.2)
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos (US Pub. 2019/0356445) in view of Guo (WO 2022238868 A1) and further in view of Haghighat (WO 2022164925 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 17, the modified Manolakos discloses providing wireless device capability information to a cellular base station (Manolakos, par.075-076). However, the modified Manokas fails to teach the maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission is determined based at least in part on the wireless device capability information provided to the cellular base station.
Haghighat discloses the maximum transmit power for the wireless device for the SRS transmission is determined based at least in part on the wireless device capability information provided to the cellular base station (par.0188). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Manolakos with the above teaching of Haghighat in order to provide capability information its capability for power scaling of SRS resources that may be impacted by the imbalance in the antenna switching as suggested by Haghighat.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Manolakos discloses one or more maximum transmit power delta values for TDM SRS ports, wherein the one or more maximum transmit power delta values for TDM SRS ports are used in calculating maximum transmit power for the wireless device for SRS transmissions from a baseline maximum transmit power for the wireless device (consideration is optional); or wireless device power class information for the wireless device (Hagihighat, par.0189).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Manolakos discloses the wireless device capability information indicates a value used for determining maximum transmit power for the wireless device for SRS transmissions for each of multiple different SRS resource set usages (Hagihighat, par.089 “usage such as….codebook, nonCodebook”).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 18, the modified Manolakos discloses the wireless device capability information indicates a value used for determining maximum transmit power for the wireless device for SRS transmissions that applies for multiple different SRS resource set usages (Hagihighat, par.095, 0117, 0189).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Manolakos fails to discloses the SRS transmission is a codebook-based SRS transmission with partial coherent operation, wherein, in each SRS symbol of the SRS transmission, the SRS transmission is performed using SRS ports in a same coherent SRS port group.
Hagihighat discloses the SRS transmission is a codebook-based SRS transmission with partial coherent operation, wherein, in each SRS symbol of the SRS transmission, the SRS transmission is performed using SRS ports in a same coherent SRS port group (par.089, 0136). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Manolakos with the above teaching of Haghighat in order to provide capability information its capability for power scaling of SRS resources that may be impacted by the imbalance in the antenna switching as suggested by Haghighat.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos (US Pub. 2019/0356445) in view of Guo (WO 2022238868 A1) and further in view of Liu (WO 2022126148 A2).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the modified Manolakos fails to disclose determine an SRS collision handling approach for the SRS transmission in case one or more SRS symbols of the SRS transmission experience transmission collision or pre-emption.
Liu discloses determine an SRS collision handling approach for the SRS transmission in case one or more SRS symbols of the SRS transmission experience transmission collision or pre-emption (par.0178). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Manolakos with the above teaching of Haghighat in order to provide delay SRS to next available slot for avoiding collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Tu Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7883. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM Eastern Time.
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 Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Delany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
/TU X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642