DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
1. This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/27/2026. Claims 1-18 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Drawings
The replacement drawing sheets received on May 27, 2026 have been accepted by the Office
Specification
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as explained here and below, because the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention as now recited. See MPEP §§ 2163, 2163.02; see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
For example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
“obtaining a transmission power for a downlink signal based on a difference between a transmission power offset for the plurality of CSI-RS resources and an additional power offset configured additionally.”
The originally filed specification does not provide adequate written description support for obtaining a transmission power for a downlink signal based on a difference between:
“a transmission power offset for the plurality of CSI-RS resources,” and
“an additional power offset configured additionally.”
The specification discloses that “a UE receives configuration information for a plurality of channel state information-reference signals (CSI-RS) from a base station and obtains transmission power change for a downlink signal, based on the received configuration information for the plurality of CSI-RSs received from the base station” See, e.g., paragraphs [0006]. The specification also discloses that a transmission power offset may be configured for each of the plurality of CSI-RSs and that each CSI-RS may be linked to an identity associated with a corresponding CSI-RS resource. See, e.g., paragraphs [0011]. However, the specification does not disclose the specific claimed relationship of calculating, deriving, or otherwise obtaining the downlink transmission power based on a difference between a CSI-RS-resource transmission power offset and an additional power offset configured additionally. The originally filed disclosure therefore supports, at most, receiving CSI-RS configuration information including CSI-RS resource IDs and transmission power offset information, and obtaining transmission power change information for a downlink signal based on such configuration information. The disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the more specific amended limitation requiring the UE to obtain a downlink transmission power based on the difference between the transmission power offset for the plurality of CSI-RS resources and an additionally configured power offset. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks adequate written description support in the originally filed specification and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claims 7 and 13 have a similar issue and are rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-18 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.
In the present application, claims 1, 7, and 13 fail to comply with the written description requirement because the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession, as of the filing date, of the claimed limitation “obtaining a transmission power for a downlink signal based on a difference between a transmission power offset for the plurality of CSI-RS resources and an additional power offset configured additionally.” ” See MPEP §§ 2163 and 2163.06(I). Although the specification discloses that “a UE receives configuration information for a plurality of channel state information-reference signals (CSI-RS) from a base station and obtains transmission power change for a downlink signal, based on the received configuration information for the plurality of CSI-RSs received from the base station” See, e.g., paragraph [0006], and a transmission power offset may be configured for each of the plurality of CSI-RSs and that each CSI-RS may be linked to an identity associated with a corresponding CSI-RS resource. See, e.g., paragraph [0011], the specification does not expressly or inherently describe the transmission power for a downlink signal based on a difference between: “a transmission power offset for the plurality of CSI-RS resources,” and “an additional power offset configured additionally.”
Accordingly, the amended limitation in claims 1, 7, and 13 lack adequate written descriptive support in the originally filed disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.05(i).
Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification the Examiner can find support for these limitations if Applicant believes otherwise.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively.
Suggestion to overcome the rejection
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claims 1, 7, and 13 to more closely track the originally filed disclosure, for example, by reciting that the UE obtains transmission power change information for the downlink signal based on configuration information for the plurality of CSI-RS resources, wherein the configuration information includes CSI-RS resource identity information and a transmission power offset configured for each CSI-RS resource. Alternatively, if Applicant intends to rely on the TCI/DCI additional-field embodiment, Applicant should identify where the original disclosure supports the claimed difference between the CSI-RS-resource transmission power offset and the additionally configured power offset.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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.
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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
