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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Examiner acknowledges the request to hold the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection in abeyance. However, the rejection must be maintained, and updated as needed, until the issue is overcome either by a persuasive argument or amendment that places the claims in condition for allowance, or the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer. Since there are no currently allowable claims nor has a Terminal Disclaimer been filed, the rejection must be maintained at this time. Examiner cannot hold this rejection in abeyance.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,331 (Blankenship et al, the Blankenship Patent hereafter) in view of Papasakellariou et al. (US 2010/0246463, Papasakellariou hereafter).
RE claims 1, 11 and 20, the Blankenship Patent claims a method for use in a user equipment (UE) (Claim 1), a UE (Claim 8), and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (Claim 14) comprising a communication component to communicate wirelessly with wireless access network nodes; and at least one processor configured to: detect that an aggregate of calculated uplink transmit power of a plurality of frequency-division multiplexing (FDM) uplink transmissions of the UE over corresponding wireless connections with respective wireless access network nodes exceeds a threshold (Claim 1, lines 1-3; claim 8, lines 1-6; claim 14, lines 1-5);
The Blankenship Patent does not explicitly claim wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions comprise at least one uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgment information and at least one uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgment information, and wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions includes at least a first type of uplink transmission and a second type of uplink transmission; and in response to the detecting, adjust, according to at least one prioritization rule, a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections with the respective wireless access network nodes and not adjust a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission with the respective wireless access network nodes that do not include control information with acknowledgement information.
However, Pan teaches wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions comprise at least one uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgment information and at least one uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgment information, and wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions includes at least a first type of uplink transmission and a second type of uplink transmission (Paragraphs 109 and 118-121 discloses a scenario in which the uplink transmissions comprise at least one PUCCH, one PUSCH and a preamble. Paragraph 109 discloses that it is typical that a UE only sends one PUCCH and it must contain a UCI. Paragraphs 118-121 then further discloses a scenario in which the UE further determines whether or not the PUSCH carries a UCI containing ACK/NACK information. Examiner equates PUSCCH and PUCCH with the claimed first and second claimed “types”)); and in response to the detecting, adjust, according to at least one prioritization rule, a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections with the respective wireless access network nodes and not adjust a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission with the respective wireless access network nodes that do not include control information with acknowledgement information (Paragraph 118 discloses “the UE determines the power adjustment priority from high to low as follows: …, or preamble -> PUCCH signal -> PUSCH signal carrying UCI containing ACK/NACK information”. Paragraph 121 further explains that “priority” in this case means the type of uplink transmission that most requires power reduction, disclosing: “That is, the UE not only needs to determine whether the transmitted at least one PUSCH signal carries a UCI, but also needs to further determine whether the UCI carried by the PUSCH signal contains ACK/NACK information. If so, the power adjustment priority of at least one preamble is determined to be the highest, and the target transmit power of the at least one preamble signal is reduced, while the target transmit power of at least one PUSCH signal and PUCCH signal remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowed transmit power;” See further paragraphs 122-140 which discloses additional priority scenarios which may meet this limitation. Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
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 method, UE and non-transitory medium of the Blankenship Patent with the teachings of Pan in order to ensure delivery of priority uplink transmissions by a UE to a network when a UE is power limited.
RE claims 2 and 12, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further teaches wherein the adjusting includes reducing the power of one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information (Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
RE claims 4 and 14, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further teaches wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions are concurrent uplink transmissions that overlap fully or partially in time (Paragraphs 10-14).
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 method, UE and non-transitory medium of the Blankenship Patent with the teachings of Pan in order to ensure delivery of priority uplink transmissions by a UE to a network when a UE is power limited.
RE claims 5 and 15, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further teaches wherein the concurrent uplink transmissions include a plurality of uplink transmissions over wireless connections on component carriers of a first wireless access node and a plurality of uplink transmissions over a wireless connection with a second wireless access node (Paragraphs 10-14).
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 method, UE and non-transitory medium of the Blankenship Patent with the teachings of Pan in order to ensure delivery of priority uplink transmissions by a UE to a network when a UE is power limited.
RE claims 6 and 16, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further teaches wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgement information (Paragraph 118 discloses “the UE determines the power adjustment priority from high to low as follows: …, or preamble -> PUCCH signal -> PUSCH signal carrying UCI containing ACK/NACK information”. Paragraph 121 further explains that “priority” in this case means the type of uplink transmission that most requires power reduction, disclosing: “That is, the UE not only needs to determine whether the transmitted at least one PUSCH signal carries a UCI, but also needs to further determine whether the UCI carried by the PUSCH signal contains ACK/NACK information. If so, the power adjustment priority of at least one preamble is determined to be the highest, and the target transmit power of the at least one preamble signal is reduced, while the target transmit power of at least one PUSCH signal and PUCCH signal remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowed transmit power;” See further paragraphs 122-140 which discloses additional priority scenarios which may meet this limitation. Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
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 method, UE and non-transitory medium of the Blankenship Patent with the teachings of Pan in order to ensure delivery of priority uplink transmissions by a UE to a network when a UE is power limited.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2011/0092219).
RE claims 3 and 13, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission includes dropping the uplink transmission.
However, Dinan teaches wherein adjusting the power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission includes dropping the uplink transmission (Paragraph 71 teaches “If all carriers are of the same priority, the power allocated for data transmission may be scaled uniformly across carriers. If there is control information multiplexed together with data on PUSCH, transmitting control information together with data on PUSCH may be prioritized over transmitting pure data on PUSCH. Further, PUSCH may be dropped and PUCCH may be transmitted only if required due to a transmit power constraint.).
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 method and UE of the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan with the teachings of Damnjanovic since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan in view of Dinan.
RE claims 7 and 17, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission.
However, Dinan teaches wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraph 140).
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 method and UE of the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan with the teachings of Dinan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 8 and 18, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises dropping the sounding reference signal transmission
However, Dinan teaches wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises dropping the sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraph 140).
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 method and UE of the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan with the teachings of Dinan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan, in view of Dinan and further in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claim 9, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Dinan discloses the method of claim 7 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Dinan does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises reducing a power of the sounding reference signal transmission.
However, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraphs 142-143).
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 method of the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Dinan with the teachings of Papasakellariou since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claims 10 and 19, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjusting is performed over at least a part of a full transmission time interval.
However, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the adjusting is performed over at least a part of a full transmission time interval (Paragraph 9 and Figure 1).
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 method of the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan with the teachings of Papasakellariou since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (CN 102238716 A, Pan hereafter, citing the attached machine generated English translation).
RE claims 1, 11 and 20, Pan discloses a method for use in a user equipment (UE), a UE, and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising a communication component to communicate wirelessly with wireless access network nodes; and at least one processor configured to: detect that an aggregate of calculated uplink transmit power of a plurality of frequency-division multiplexing (FDM) uplink transmissions of the UE over corresponding wireless connections with respective wireless access network nodes exceeds a threshold (Paragraphs 19-22: “When the total target transmit power is determined to be greater than the maximum allowable transmit power based on the comparison results, the power adjustment priorities of the at least one preamble and at least one other uplink signal are determined respectively, and the target transmit power of the at least one preamble and/or at least one other uplink signal is reduced according to the power adjustment priorities until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.” Paragraph 27 further disclosing this is performed by a UE), wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions comprise at least one uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgment information and at least one uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgment information, and wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions includes at least a first type of uplink transmission and a second type of uplink transmission (Paragraphs 109 and 118-121 discloses a scenario in which the uplink transmissions comprise at least one PUCCH, one PUSCH and a preamble. Paragraph 109 discloses that it is typical that a UE only sends one PUCCH and it must contain a UCI. Paragraphs 118-121 then further discloses a scenario in which the UE further determines whether or not the PUSCH carries a UCI containing ACK/NACK information. Examiner equates PUSCCH and PUCCH with the claimed first and second claimed “types”)); and in response to the detecting, adjust, according to at least one prioritization rule, a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections with the respective wireless access network nodes and not adjust a power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over the corresponding wireless connections of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission with the respective wireless access network nodes that do not include control information with acknowledgement information (Paragraph 118 discloses “the UE determines the power adjustment priority from high to low as follows: …, or preamble -> PUCCH signal -> PUSCH signal carrying UCI containing ACK/NACK information”. Paragraph 121 further explains that “priority” in this case means the type of uplink transmission that most requires power reduction, disclosing: “That is, the UE not only needs to determine whether the transmitted at least one PUSCH signal carries a UCI, but also needs to further determine whether the UCI carried by the PUSCH signal contains ACK/NACK information. If so, the power adjustment priority of at least one preamble is determined to be the highest, and the target transmit power of the at least one preamble signal is reduced, while the target transmit power of at least one PUSCH signal and PUCCH signal remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowed transmit power;” See further paragraphs 122-140 which discloses additional priority scenarios which may meet this limitation. Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
RE claims 2 and 12, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further discloses wherein the adjusting includes reducing the power of one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information (Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
RE claims 4 and 14, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Pan further discloses wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions are concurrent uplink transmissions that overlap fully or partially in time (Paragraphs 10-14)
RE claims 5 and 15, Pan discloses the method of claim 4 and UE of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Pan further discloses wherein the concurrent uplink transmissions include a plurality of uplink transmissions over wireless connections on component carriers of a first wireless access node and a plurality of uplink transmissions over a wireless connection with a second wireless access node (Paragraphs 10-14).
RE claims 6 and 16, Pan discloses the method of claim 4 and UE of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Pan further discloses wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that does not include uplink control information with acknowledgement information (Paragraph 118 discloses “the UE determines the power adjustment priority from high to low as follows: …, or preamble -> PUCCH signal -> PUSCH signal carrying UCI containing ACK/NACK information”. Paragraph 121 further explains that “priority” in this case means the type of uplink transmission that most requires power reduction, disclosing: “That is, the UE not only needs to determine whether the transmitted at least one PUSCH signal carries a UCI, but also needs to further determine whether the UCI carried by the PUSCH signal contains ACK/NACK information. If so, the power adjustment priority of at least one preamble is determined to be the highest, and the target transmit power of the at least one preamble signal is reduced, while the target transmit power of at least one PUSCH signal and PUCCH signal remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowed transmit power;” See further paragraphs 122-140 which discloses additional priority scenarios which may meet this limitation. Paragraph 140 further disclosing: “In summary, under these circumstances, the UE first needs to reduce the target transmit power of the PUSCH signal that does not carry UCI to ensure that the target transmit power of other uplink signals remains unchanged, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power. If the total target transmit power is still greater than the maximum allowable transmit power after adjustment, the UE needs to continue adjusting the target transmit power of other uplink signals in descending order of the determined power adjustment priority, as described in a4, b4, and c4, until the total target transmit power is not greater than the maximum allowable transmit power.”)
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2011/0092219).
RE claims 3 and 13, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission includes dropping the uplink transmission.
However, Dinan teaches wherein adjusting the power of at least one of the first type or the second type of uplink transmission includes dropping the uplink transmission (Paragraph 71 teaches “If all carriers are of the same priority, the power allocated for data transmission may be scaled uniformly across carriers. If there is control information multiplexed together with data on PUSCH, transmitting control information together with data on PUSCH may be prioritized over transmitting pure data on PUSCH. Further, PUSCH may be dropped and PUCCH may be transmitted only if required due to a transmit power constraint.).
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 method and UE of the Pan with the teachings of Damnjanovic since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Dinan.
RE claims 7 and 17, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission.
However, Dinan teaches wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraph 140).
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 method and UE of Pan with the teachings of Dinan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 8 and 18, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises dropping the sounding reference signal transmission
However, Dinan teaches wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises dropping the sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraph 140).
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 method and UE of Pan with the teachings of Dinan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Dinan and further in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claim 9, Pan in view of Dinan discloses the method of claim 7 as set forth above. Pan in view of Dinan does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of FDM uplink transmissions include a sounding reference signal transmission, and wherein the adjusting further comprises reducing a power of the sounding reference signal transmission.
However, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the at least one prioritization rule includes prioritizing an uplink transmission that includes uplink control information with acknowledgement information over an uplink transmission that includes a sounding reference signal transmission (Paragraphs 142-143).
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 method of Pan in view of Dinan with the teachings of Papasakellariou since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claims 10 and 19, Pan discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the adjusting is performed over at least a part of a full transmission time interval.
However, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the adjusting is performed over at least a part of a full transmission time interval (Paragraph 9 and Figure 1).
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 method of Pan with the teachings of Papasakellariou since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
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 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 James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461