DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant First Office Action on the merits is in response to claims filed on 4/17/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are the base independent claims. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Claim Interpretation
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit configured to”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant may reference the USPTO training material for the public at web address https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/112f_cbt_slides.pdf for more detail.
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.
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 1-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2023/0362826) in view of Saber et al (US 2022/0116971).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a signal transmission apparatus, configured in a terminal equipment, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a first receiving unit configured to receive first indication information (fig. 10 & par 147; in one of the examples, receive DCI_i-i0), the first indication information indicating the terminal equipment to transmit a first uplink signal (par 85; e.g. TPC command may be carried by the DCI used for scheduling PUSCH), wherein the first uplink signal corresponds to a first uplink signal transmission occasion (fig. 10 & par 147; e.g. PUSCH_i-i0); a second receiving unit configured to receive second indication information (fig. 10 & par 147; in one of the examples, receive DCI_i), the second indication information indicating the terminal equipment to transmit a second uplink signal (par 85; e.g. TPC command may be carried by the DCI used for scheduling PUSCH), wherein the second uplink signal corresponds to a second uplink signal transmission occasion (fig. 10 & par 147; e.g. PUSCH_i); and a determining unit configured to determine an uplink power control parameter of the second uplink signal (fig. 8 & par 120-136; e.g. a transmit power of an uplink signal is determined) according to a transmit power control (TPC) command received between a first time point and a second time point (par 126-136; e.g. based on the effective TPC command window); wherein, the first time point is prior to the first uplink signal transmission occasion (fig. 4, par 106, also fig. 10; e.g. before the transmission opportunity i-i0); the second time point is prior to the second uplink signal transmission occasion (fig. 4, par 106, also fig. 10; e.g. before the transmission opportunity i); a time interval between the first time point and/or the second time point and the corresponding uplink signal transmission occasion satisfies the following condition:
if the first indication information and/or the second indication information is/are control information and the control information corresponds to two repeatedly transmitted DCIs, the time interval is determined according to one of the two DCIs (par 148; e.g. the window between the first OFDM symbol after DCI_i-i0 and the last OFDM symbol of the first sent DCI_i in the repeatedly transmitted DCI_i is determined as the effective TPC command window).
The reference does not explicitly disclose PDCCH candidates, however it is common in the art since Saber discloses:
In fig. 10, par 44, par 163-165; e.g. after a last symbol of a reference PDCCH reception among the repeated or multi-chance PDCCHs and before a first symbol of the PUSCH transmission.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Saber with the electronic system of Chen. One is motivated as such to schedule reception of a same PDSCH (Saber, par 87).
Regarding claim 2, Saber discloses:
wherein that the time interval is determined according to one of the two PDCCH candidates refers to that, the time interval is determined according to an ending symbol of one of the two PDCCH candidates and a first symbol of the corresponding uplink signal transmission occasion (par 163; after a last symbol of a reference PDCCH reception among the repeated or multi-chance PDCCHs and before a first symbol of the PUSCH transmission).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses:
wherein one of the two PDCCH candidates refers to:
a PDCCH candidate with a later ending symbol in the two PDCCH candidates (fig. 11 & par 150; e.g. last OFDM symbol of the last sent DCI_i).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses:
wherein one of the two PDCCH candidates refers to:
a PDCCH candidate with a later ending symbol in the two PDCCH candidates (fig. 11 & par 150; e.g. last OFDM symbol of the last sent DCI_i).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses:
wherein that the time interval is related to whether the terminal equipment monitors control information corresponding to two PDCCH candidates refers to that, when the terminal equipment monitors the control information corresponding to the two PDCCH candidates, the time interval is related to at least one of the following parameters:
a minimum value (k2) of a slot interval between control information and a corresponding uplink PUSCH in a cell-level PUSCH configuration parameter; the number of symbols per slot (Nsymb-slot); and a time interval (k0) that is predefined or configured by RRC signaling (par 191-192; e.g. the window before the preset number of symbols before the uplink signal can be determined as the effective TPC command window, where the preset number is the number of OFDM symbols in one slot multiplied by a first value and the first value is configured by radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses:
the time interval (k0) that is predefined or configured by RRC signaling is applicable to a situation where the terminal equipment monitors the control information corresponding to the two PDCCH candidates (par 162; e.g. K_pusch(i) is a number of symbols for active UL BWP b of carrier f of serving cell c after a last symbol of a corresponding PDCCH reception and before a first symbol of the PUSCH transmission. If repetition is configured to the corresponding PDCCH, the first PDCCH or the last PDCCH among PDCCH repetitions is applied).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses:
wherein, the first time point is prior to the second time point (fig. 10 & par 147; e.g. DCI_i-i0 is prior to DCI_i).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses:
wherein, the first uplink signal transmission occasion is a latest uplink signal transmission occasion prior to the second uplink signal transmission occasion that ensures that the first time point is earlier than to the second time point (par 162; e.g. K_pusch(i-i0) symbols before PUSCH transmission occasion i-i0) is earlier than K_pusch(i) symbols before PUSCH transmission occasion i).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses:
wherein, the first uplink signal and the second uplink signal are respectively at least one of the following: a PUSCH, a PUCCH, and an SRS (par 82; e.g. a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS)).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Saber also discloses a terminal equipment which is similar to the apparatus of claim 1 based on a rejection mapping above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights