DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 6/8/2026.
Claims 1,6,11,16,21,22,24,25,27,28,30 and 31 are pending.
Claims 1,6,11,16,21,22,24,25,27,28,30 and 31 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 6/8/2026. Claims 1,6,11,16,21,24,27 and 30 were amended, claims 23,26,29 and 32 were canceled, and claims 1,6,11,16,21,22,24,25,27,28,30 and 31 remain pending.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,6,11,16,21,22,24,25,27,28,30 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2024/0365241)(Z1 hereafter) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pug. 2023/0199659)(Z2 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Z1 teaches a user equipment (UE)(i.e. wireless device)[refer Fig. 15; 1502], comprising:
at least one transceiver [refer Fig. 15; 1506];
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver [refer Fig. 15; 1518]; and
at least one memory [refer Fig. 15; 1524], communicatively coupled to the at least one processor [refer Fig. 15; 1524 to 1518], storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination [paragraph 0228] to cause the UE to:
receive, from a base station [refer Fig. 15; 1504], a second configuration information on a second synchronization signal block (SSB) [paragraph 0193] associated with energy saving [paragraph 0358],
receive, from the base station, the second SSB as a pathloss-reference signal (PL- RS) [paragraph 0357] based on the second configuration information [paragraph 0193],
identify a downlink pathloss based on a transmit power of the second SSB [paragraph 0357], and
identify an uplink transmission power based on the downlink pathloss [paragraph 0327].
However, Z1 fails to disclose receiving from a base station, both a first configuration information on a first SSB and the second configuration information on the second SSB associated with energy saving, identifying the downlink path loss is based on a configuration for a transmit power of the second SSB included in the second configuration information.
Z2 discloses that a base station may transmit to a wireless device one or more RRC messages, the one or more RRC messages can indicate a first SSB configuration and a second SSB configuration [paragraph 0377], a DCI can indicate which of the SSB configurations will be configured for energy saving [paragraph 0386], a selection of an initial transmit power can be based upon a pathloss measurement and a target received preamble power configured by the network [paragraph 0186].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Z1 for group configuration of a first and second SSB groups [refer Z1; paragraph 0324] to incorporate a plurality of configurations for SSBs, some of which can be configured for energy saving, for use in determining a transmission power as taught by Z2. One would be motivated to do so to reduce resource overhead and provide more efficient wireless communications [refer Z2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Z1 teaches a base station [refer Fig. 15; 1504], comprising:
at least one transceiver [refer Fig. 15; 1506];
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver [refer Fig. 15; 1508]; and
at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor [refer Fig. 15; 1514], storing instructions executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination [paragraph 0228] to cause the base station to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE)[refer Fig. 15; 1502], second configuration information on a second synchronization signal block (SSB) [paragraph 0193] associated with energy saving [paragraph 0358], and
transmit, to the UE, the second SSB as a pathloss-reference signal (PL-RS) [paragraph 0357] based on the configuration information [paragraph 0193], a downlink pathloss for an uplink reception is based on a transmit power of the second SSB [paragraph 0357], and an uplink transmission power is based on the downlink pathloss [paragraph 0327].
However, Z1 fails to disclose transmitting from a base station, both a first configuration information on a first SSB and the second configuration information on the second SSB associated with energy saving, identifying the downlink path loss is based on a configuration for a transmit power of the second SSB included in the second configuration information.
Z2 discloses that a base station may transmit to a wireless device one or more RRC messages, the one or more RRC messages can indicate a first SSB configuration and a second SSB configuration [paragraph 0377], a DCI can indicate which of the SSB configurations will be configured for energy saving [paragraph 0386], a selection of an initial transmit power can be based upon a pathloss measurement and a target received preamble power configured by the network [paragraph 0186].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Z1 for group configuration of a first and second SSB groups [refer Z1; paragraph 0324] to incorporate a plurality of configurations for SSBs, some of which can be configured for energy saving, for use in determining a transmission power as taught by Z2. One would be motivated to do so to reduce resource overhead and provide more efficient wireless communications [refer Z2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claims 21,24,27, and 30, Z1 teaches identifying a transmit power of a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) is based on the second configuration information [paragraph 0337].
Regarding claims 22,25,28 and 31, Z1 teaches the uplink transmission includes a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) [paragraph 0138].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 6/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1,6,11,16,21,22,24,25,27,28,30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Zhou et al. (US Pug. 2023/0199659)(Z2 hereafter), as noted in the above rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dedicated parameter-based replacement configuration scheme” and “signifying that an independent power reference value optimized for a new physical layer entity”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2024/0357526) discloses that a device measures SSBs for determining channel qualities, including determining a pathloss value, and a transmission power can be determined based upon the pathloss measured on the SSB [paragraph 0345].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights