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 filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “However, a base station determining whether to activate or deactivate carrier aggregation based on a power threshold, as in Tripathi, does not teach or suggest any operations at a UE, much less teach or suggest: transmit the one or more uplink messages within the first set of resources of the first carrier, and refrain from transmitting within the second set of resources of the second carrier, based at least in part on a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources satisfying an uplink throughput threshold for the first transmission time interval as recited in independent claim 1. Indeed, Tripathi describes operations performed at a base station, and operations performed at a base station as in Tripathi do not teach or suggest operations performed at a UE. Moreover, even if such base station operations could be interpreted as those for a UE, which Applicant does not concede, Tripathi does not teach or suggest any transmitting or refraining from transmitting "based at least in part on a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources satisfying an uplink throughput threshold for the first transmission time interval," as claimed. Instead, Tripathi describes a power threshold that determines whether to activate or deactivate carrier aggregation, which does not teach or suggest "a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources" or "an uplink throughput threshold," as recited in independent claim 1, for at least the reason that a power threshold does not teach or suggest "an uplink throughput threshold" as claimed, nor is power the same as or comparable to "a first throughput contribution," as claimed.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Ramkumar discloses a UE that can reduce the power level of a secondary carrier to zero using a priority-based power scaling (paragraph 75). Tripathi discloses that the second component carrier may be deactivated or never activated from the beginning of uplink transmission if the BSR is less than a threshold, i.e. throughput of data is acceptable. This reads on the limitation “at least in part on a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources satisfying an uplink throughput threshold for the first transmission time interval” (paragraph 70, figure 2). Tripathi discloses that the second component carrier may also be deactivated when the transmit power is above the UE’s PHR. The deactivation of the second carrier based on reaching maximum power output of the UE is based on an acceptable BLER threshold. This also reads on the limitation “at least in part on a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources satisfying an uplink throughput threshold for the first transmission time interval” (paragraph 70, figure 2). In other words, Tripathi discloses only using a first component carrier when BSR is acceptable or the UE’s transmit power is maximized. Stated differently, Tripathi discloses implementing both carriers (carrier aggregation) when a BSR threshold is exceeded and when the UE has available transmit power which is based on the BLER threshold. Ramkumar in combination with Tripathi disclose all limitations in claim 1.
The Applicant’s argument that Tripathi discloses a base station that performs deactivation of CA and not a UE, disregards Ramkumar disclosure that a UE can perform carrier deactivation. Applicant’s argument is a piecemeal attack on a single reference where the reference is used in an obviousness rejection.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1-13, 23-29, 31-40 still stands.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 23-29, 32, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar et al. (US 2018/0139702) (“Ramkumar”) in view of Tripathi (US 2024/0306035).
For claims 1, 23, 37, and 40; Ramkumar discloses: receive, from a network entity, control signaling indicating a power reduction configuration (paragraph 65, 81, 82: One or more components of UE 145, 250 may be configured to perform adjusting transmit power for power-limited uplink carrier aggregation scenarios) associated with uplink communications performed by the UE within aggregated carriers (paragraph 65: One or more components of UE 145, 250 may be configured to perform adjusting transmit power for power-limited uplink carrier aggregation scenarios); receive, via the control signaling, additional control signaling, or both, a resource allocation for communicating one or more uplink messages across a plurality of transmission time intervals within a first carrier and a second carrier, wherein the resource allocation comprises a first set of resources within the first carrier and a second set of resources within the second carrier (paragraph 61, 79-81: UE 145, 250 may configure uplink carrier aggregation with regard to component carriers provided by an eNB 110, 210, 230. As shown by reference number 804, a PCC of the UE 145, 250 may be associated with a 20 MHz bandwidth, corresponding to 100 resource blocks. As further shown, an SCC of the UE 145, 250 may also be associated with 20 MHz bandwidth corresponding to 100 resource blocks); transmit, during a first transmission time interval of the plurality of transmission time intervals, the one or more uplink messages within the first set of resources of the first carrier, and refrain from transmitting within the second set of resources of the second carrier, based at least in part on a power reduction value of the first carrier determined in accordance with the power reduction configuration (paragraph 66: means for identifying the first maximum power reduction value for carrier aggregation; means for identifying the second maximum power reduction value for single carrier after decreasing the first value of the transmission power of the first component carrier; means for dropping the first component carrier due to priority being given to the second component carrier; means for decreasing the first value of the transmission power of the first component carrier to substantially zero).
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Tripathi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: transmit, during a first transmission time interval of the plurality of transmission time intervals, the one or more uplink messages within the first set of resources of the first carrier, and refrain from transmitting within the second set of resources of the second carrier, based at least in part on a first throughput contribution of the first set of resources satisfying an uplink throughput threshold for the first transmission time interval (paragraph 51, 61, 70-75: the base station repeatedly (e.g., periodically or event-driven) performs the threshold comparisons as set forth above in operation 202 and operation 203, respectively, the second threshold (i.e., the variable power threshold, and in particular, PHROffset) of the UE is updated throughout a session (e.g., the PHROffset is updated and stored in the base station throughout a session). That is, the PHROffset value does not revert to a default value during the session, but continues to update…If the base station determines that the overall BLER exceeds the overall BLER threshold (NO at operation 405), the base station incrementally increases the variable offset value (i.e., PHROffset) by a predetermined increment (e.g., 1 dB) at operation 407. As a result, the variable power threshold in FIG. 2 (e.g., PHRTh+PHROffset) is increased, thereby raising the threshold level of the second threshold comparison (i.e., the power threshold comparison) in operation 203 of FIG. 2. To this end, while determining whether to deactivate the uplink carrier aggregation, the higher threshold level in operation 203 of FIG. 2 will more likely deactivate the carrier aggregation thereby making more power available to the UE to reduce BLER). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the power/throughput algorithm as described by Tripathi in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
For claims 2, 24, and 38; Ramkumar discloses: transmit the one or more uplink messages within the first carrier in accordance with a second power reduction value that is different from the power reduction value based at least in part on refraining from transmitting within the second set of resources (paragraph 76-77: the UE may employ an MPR value for the PCC that is determined using a carrier aggregation approach, even though the PCC is effectively being used as a single carrier (e.g., since the SCC's transmission power is zero or substantially zero)… the UE may accordingly determine the transmission strength of the PCC using the MPR value for single carrier (e.g., rather than the carrier aggregation MPR value). In this way, transmission strength of the PCC may be increased in such a case, thereby improving uplink performance of the UE).
For claims 3, 25, and 39; Ramkumar discloses: wherein the second power reduction value is associated with a higher transmit power as compared to the power reduction value (paragraph 76-77: the UE may employ an MPR value for the PCC that is determined using a carrier aggregation approach, even though the PCC is effectively being used as a single carrier (e.g., since the SCC's transmission power is zero or substantially zero)… the UE may accordingly determine the transmission strength of the PCC using the MPR value for single carrier (e.g., rather than the carrier aggregation MPR value). In this way, transmission strength of the PCC may be increased in such a case, thereby improving uplink performance of the UE).
For claims 4 and 26; Ramkumar discloses: wherein transmitting the one or more uplink messages within the first set of resources, and refraining from transmitting within the second set of resources, is based at least in part on the power reduction value of the first carrier being greater than or equal to a power reduction threshold (paragraph 73: The maximum output power may identify a maximum transmission power at which the UE is permitted to transmit signals. … A scenario in which the transmission power approaches or reaches the maximum output power may be referred to as a power-limited uplink scenario).
For claims 5 and 27; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Tripathi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein transmitting the one or more uplink messages within the first set of resources, and refraining from transmitting within the second set of resources, is based at least in part on the first throughput contribution associated with the first carrier being greater than a second throughput contribution associated with the second carrier during the first transmission time interval of the plurality of transmission time intervals (paragraph 71-75: if the first BLER is greater than the first BLER threshold (NO in operation 402) or if the second BLER is greater than the second BLER threshold (NO in operation 403), the base station subsequently determines whether an overall BLER is less than or equal to an overall BLER threshold Z in operation 405… If the base station determines that the overall BLER exceeds the overall BLER threshold (NO at operation 405), the base station incrementally increases the variable offset value (i.e., PHROffset) by a predetermined increment (e.g., 1 dB) at operation 407. As a result, the variable power threshold in FIG. 2 (e.g., PHRTh+PHROffset) is increased, thereby raising the threshold level of the second threshold comparison (i.e., the power threshold comparison) in operation 203 of FIG. 2. To this end, while determining whether to deactivate the uplink carrier aggregation, the higher threshold level in operation 203 of FIG. 2 will more likely deactivate the carrier aggregation thereby making more power available to the UE to reduce BLER; e.g. fig. 4, block 403 to 405). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the power/throughput algorithm as described by Tripathi in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
For claims 6 and 28; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Tripathi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the first throughput contribution and the second throughput contribution are based at least in part on quantities of resource blocks included within the first set of resources and the second set of resources, respectively, a modulation and coding scheme associated with the first carrier or the second carrier, a block error rate associated with the first carrier or the second carrier, or any combination thereof (paragraph 71-75: if the first BLER is greater than the first BLER threshold (NO in operation 402) or if the second BLER is greater than the second BLER threshold (NO in operation 403), the base station subsequently determines whether an overall BLER is less than or equal to an overall BLER threshold Z in operation 405… If the base station determines that the overall BLER exceeds the overall BLER threshold (NO at operation 405), the base station incrementally increases the variable offset value (i.e., PHROffset) by a predetermined increment (e.g., 1 dB) at operation 407. As a result, the variable power threshold in FIG. 2 (e.g., PHRTh+PHROffset) is increased, thereby raising the threshold level of the second threshold comparison (i.e., the power threshold comparison) in operation 203 of FIG. 2. To this end, while determining whether to deactivate the uplink carrier aggregation, the higher threshold level in operation 203 of FIG. 2 will more likely deactivate the carrier aggregation thereby making more power available to the UE to reduce BLER; e.g. fig. 4, block 403 to 405). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the power/throughput algorithm as described by Tripathi in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
For claims 7 and 29; Ramkumar discloses: receive, via the control signaling, the additional control signaling, or both, an indication of the power reduction threshold (paragraph 82: determine one or more MPR values, for example, for carrier aggregation based at least in part on the resource block allocation, the modulation scheme, and the uplink bandwidth).
For claims 9 and 32; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Tripathi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: transmit, during a second transmission time interval of the plurality of transmission time intervals, one or more additional uplink messages within the first set of resources of the first carrier and the second set of resources of the second carrier based at least in part on one or both of: a second throughput contribution of the first set of resources failing to satisfy, for the second transmission time interval, one or both of the uplink throughput threshold, and an additional uplink throughput threshold, and the power reduction value of the first carrier failing to satisfy a power reduction threshold for the second transmission time interval (paragraph 51, 71-75: In case the received BSR value exceeds a BSR threshold, the base station can decide whether to increase uplink data throughput (i.e., it can decide whether to enable uplink carrier aggregation for the UE). In this case, the base station may verify that the power available at the UE is sufficient to activate carrier aggregation in the uplink direction (i.e., that the terminal has sufficient transmit power to send data over a first carrier component and a second carrier component)…If the base station determines that the overall BLER is less than or equal the overall BLER threshold (YES at operation 405), the PHR offset is maintained at operation 406…where BLER is sufficiently low, the carrier aggregation state may extend longer due to a reduced power threshold, thereby improving data throughput and energy efficiency. Conversely, where BLER is high, the carrier aggregation is deactivated to free up power at the UE, thereby reducing BLER and improving transmission quality; e.g. fig. 4, block 402 to 405 to 406; fig. ,2 202 to 203 to 204). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the power/throughput algorithm as described by Tripathi in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar in view of Tripathi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0201581) (“Li”).
For claims 8 and 31; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Li from similar fields of endeavor teaches: receive, via the control signaling, the additional control signaling, or both, an indication of the uplink throughput threshold (paragraph 137: the terminal device dynamically sets the preset total uplink and downlink throughput threshold based on one or a combination of power consumption information, air interface environment information (for example, interference of a current environment or signal quality of the serving cell), signal quality information (for example, RSRP, RSRQ, or an SINR of the neighboring cell) of the neighboring cell, configuration information (for example, a measurement report triggering threshold that is set in the serving cell) of the serving cell). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Li in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to enable UE based measurement.
For claims 10 and 33; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Li from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the uplink throughput threshold associated with the first transmission time interval is selectively adjusted to the additional uplink throughput threshold based at least in part on the UE refraining from transmitting within the second set of resources of the second carrier during the first transmission time interval (paragraph 176: the terminal device dynamically sets the preset BLER threshold based on one or a combination of power consumption information, air interface environment information (for example, interference of a current environment or signal quality of the serving cell), signal quality information (for example, RSRP, RSRQ, or an SINR of the neighboring cell) of the neighboring cell, configuration information (for example, a measurement report triggering threshold that is set in the serving cell) of the serving cell). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Li in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve link performance.
Claim(s) 11 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar in view of Tripathi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marupaduga et al. (US 11,314,055) (“Marupaduga”).
For claims 11 and 34; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Marupaduga from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the additional uplink throughput threshold evaluated during the second transmission time interval is different from the uplink throughput threshold evaluated during the first transmission time interval based at least in part on one or more parameters associated with the one or more uplink messages scheduled to be communicated within the first transmission time interval and the second transmission time interval (column 14, lines 1-28: a throughput threshold may be specific to a day of the week, a time of day associated with high traffic, and/or specific to a type of traffic (i.e., voice data, internet, video streaming, and/or GPS location use) associated with the time of day). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Marupaduga in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve link performance.
Claim(s) 12 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar in view of Tripathi in view of Marupaduga as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2006/0150051) (“Kwon”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0337072) (“Yang”).
For claims 12 and 35; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 11 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Kwon from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a redundancy version associated with the one or more uplink messages scheduled to be communicated within second transmission time interval (paragraph 12-14: in order to obtain a maximum throughput, an RV that can minimize a BLER (Block Error Rate) must be selected. In this respect, the RV that can minimize the BLER differs depending upon each MCS or upon the number of times of re-transmission). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the dynamic RV for maximum throughput as described by Kwon in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to maximize throughput.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Yang from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more parameters (paragraph 76: the throughput threshold is explicitly indicated to the UE 650 (e.g., by the network) or is locally generated at the UE 650, for example based on UE operational history, HARQ feedback history etc.). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the threshold calculation based on HARQ as described by Yang using dynamic RVs described by Kwon in the changes in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to maximize throughput at the optimal power reduction.
Claim(s) 13 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramkumar in view of Tripathi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2022/0264480) (“Thomas”).
For claims 13 and 36; Ramkumar discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Tripathi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: transmit a request for the network entity to adjust the resource allocation based at least in part on refraining from transmitting within the second set of resources (paragraph 3, 51: uplink carrier aggregation can be activated based on an uplink buffer status (i.e., an uplink buffer status report (BSR)) from the UE and based on power available at the UE…a base station (i.e., an eNB or a gNB) can decide whether to activate/deactivate uplink carrier aggregation based on the BSR report or based on a fixed PHR limit (i.e., a PHR constant) received from the UE…The assignment of component carriers to the UE can depend on an uplink buffer status (i.e., an uplink Buffer Status Report (BSR)) that can be sent from the UE to the base station). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Tripathi in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
Ramkumar does not expressly disclose, but Thomas from similar fields of endeavor teaches: receive a second resource allocation from the network entity based at least in part on the request, wherein the second resource allocation comprises resources within a single carrier, or comprises resources within the first carrier and a third carrier (paragraph 45: gNB 107 may allocate uplink resources on fewer secondary component carriers or no secondary component carrier 337. As further illustrated, gNB 107 may generate and transmit a message regarding the allocation 340, and end device 130 may receive the message and perform uplink transmission according to the allocation). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the resource signaling as described by Thomas in the ULCA as described by Ramkumar. The motivation is to improve data transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maleki et al. (US 2022/0116189); Maleki discloses a component carrier-release assistance indication, CC-RAI, recommendation from the WD, the CC-RAI recommendation recommending release of at least one CC.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights