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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Maltsev et al. (US 2014/003270). Examiner maintains that Pan discloses at least part of the newly added limitation for the additional reasons set forth in the updated rejections below.
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 Pan et al. (CN 102238716 A, Pan hereafter, citing the attached machine generated English translation) and further in view of Maltsev et al. (US 2014/003270, Maltsev 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, adjusting resource elements (REs) allocated for non-acknowledgement information 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes, and not adjusting REs allocated for acknowledgement information of the 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes.
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 (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.”) adjusting resources allocated for non-acknowledgement information 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes, and not adjusting resources allocated for acknowledgement information of the 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes (At least paragraph 59 of Pan discloses a resource allocation for a PUSCH expressed in terms of the number of resource blocks. Thus, the cited sections above are in effect disclosing power adjustment of the resource blocks that comprise each type of uplink transmission. Applicants cited paragraphs 76, 78 and 104 of the originally filed specific ion to support this newly added limitation. However, this support only seem to indicate the same thing as Pan. The uplink signals are allocated resources in units of resource elements (REs) and then power control is performed according to Pans priority rules. For this reason, Pan remains in anticipation of at least a substantial portion of this feature.)
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.
The Blankenship in view of Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the allocated resources which are adjusted are resource elements.
However, Maltsev teaches wherein the allocated resources which are adjusted are resource elements (Paragraphs 50-53, “The sub-frame 400 is divided, with respect to time, into 14 different symbol columns (0-13, symbol column 0 is numbered 404 for purposes of illustration) and, with respect to frequency, into 12 different sub-carriers rows (sub-carrier 0-11, sub-carrier row 0 is numbered 406 for purposes of illustration) to create a grid of REs, of which a particular RE 408 is depicted with a bi-directional diagonal crosshatch for purposes of illustration. Each RE is capable of carrying one modulated symbol. Each modulated symbol can carry one or more bits of data depending on the modulation scheme employed or reference signal. A sub-frame can be associated with more or fewer sub-carriers, but 12 sub-carriers are depicted in FIG. 4 as much as this number of sub-carriers are associated with a Resource Block (RB) within 3GPP LTE Release 10”.” Further taught is power reduction/muting of an uplink signal by identifying REs in selected subframes).
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 Maltsev 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 2 and 12, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 Maltsev and further in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2011/0092219).
RE claims 3 and 13, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev 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, Damnjanovic 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 Maltsev in view of Dinan (US 2013/0188580).
RE claims 7 and 17, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. The Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 Maltsev, in view of Dinan and further in view of Papasakellariou et al. (US 2010/0246463, Papasakellariou hereafter
RE claim 9, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan, in view of Maltsev 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, in view of Maltsev 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, in view of Maltsev and further in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claims 10 and 19, the Blankenship Patent in view of Pan and further in view of Maltsev 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 and further in view of Maltsev 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 § 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 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Maltsev.
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, (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.”) adjusting resources allocated for non-acknowledgement information 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes, and not adjusting resources allocated for acknowledgement information of the 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 with the respective wireless access network nodes (At least paragraph 59 of Pan discloses a resource allocation for a PUSCH expressed in terms of the number of resource blocks. Thus, the cited sections above are in effect disclosing power adjustment of the resource blocks that comprise each type of uplink transmission. Applicants cited paragraphs 76, 78 and 104 of the originally filed specific ion to support this newly added limitation. However, this support only seem to indicate the same thing as Pan. The uplink signals are allocated resources in units of resource elements (REs) and then power control is performed according to Pans priority rules. For this reason, Pan remains in anticipation of at least a substantial portion of this feature.)
Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the allocated resources which are adjusted are resource elements.
However, Maltsev teaches wherein the allocated resources which are adjusted are resource elements (Paragraphs 50-53, “The sub-frame 400 is divided, with respect to time, into 14 different symbol columns (0-13, symbol column 0 is numbered 404 for purposes of illustration) and, with respect to frequency, into 12 different sub-carriers rows (sub-carrier 0-11, sub-carrier row 0 is numbered 406 for purposes of illustration) to create a grid of REs, of which a particular RE 408 is depicted with a bi-directional diagonal crosshatch for purposes of illustration. Each RE is capable of carrying one modulated symbol. Each modulated symbol can carry one or more bits of data depending on the modulation scheme employed or reference signal. A sub-frame can be associated with more or fewer sub-carriers, but 12 sub-carriers are depicted in FIG. 4 as much as this number of sub-carriers are associated with a Resource Block (RB) within 3GPP LTE Release 10”.” Further taught is power reduction/muting of an uplink signal by identifying REs in selected subframes).
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 Maltsev 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 2 and 12, Pan in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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.”)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Maltsev and further in view of Damnjanovic.
RE claims 3 and 13, Pan in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan in view of Maltsev 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, Damnjanovic 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 in view of Maltsev 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 Maltsev and further in view of Dinan.
RE claims 7 and 17, Pan in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev discloses the method of claim 1 and UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Pan in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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 Maltzev, in view of Dinan and further in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claim 9, Pan in view of Maltsev and further in view of Dinan discloses the method of claim 7 as set forth above. Pan in view of Maltsev 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 Pan in view of Maltsev 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 Pan in view of Maltsev in view of Papasakellariou.
RE claims 10 and 19, Pan in view of Maltsev 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 in view of Maltsev 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
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
Prosecution Insights