DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL Office action based on the Response with claim amendments filed Dec. 23, 2025 (“Dec. Resp.”).
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 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection of at least independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 do not rely on Elshafie, which is the reference specifically argued in the Dec. Resp. The new grounds of rejection of at least claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 rely on Chou, which has been applied based on the claim amendments changing the limitation “one or more transmission and reception points (TRPs)” to “a plurality of transmission or reception points (TRPs).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chou1.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Chou teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, UEs 901, 1001, 1102), the UE comprising:
a receiver (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, UEs 901, 1001, 1102 must have receivers since they receive signals transmitted from the TRPs 910-1101) configured to receive a message indicating power adjustment information associated with a plurality of transmission and reception points (TRPs) (Chou, ¶¶17, 103, 104, Fig. 11, step S1110, the CSI Report Configuration includes power adjustment information associated with the TRPs 1101) and to receive a transmission of a reference signal via the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶103, 104, Fig. 11, steps S1110, S1120, where the reference signals are transmitted from a plurality of TRPs 1101 to the UE 1102), wherein the power adjustment information includes an indication that the power adjustment information is associated with at least a particular TRP among the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶17, 103, 104, Fig. 11, step S1110, the power adjustment information is associated with the corresponding TRPs, which would also include “a particular TRP”; see also Chou, ¶132, Fig. 16, the resource configuration can be for a particular TRP); and
a transmitter (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, UEs 901, 1001, 1102 must have transmitters since they transmit signals to the TRPs 910-1101) configured to transmit, in accordance with the power adjustment information and the transmission of the reference signal, a measurement report indicating precoder information associated with the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶105, 217, Fig. 11, step S1140, based on the CSI report configuration, which includes power indication information for each TRP, and the reference signals, a measurement report that includes precoder information associated with the TRPs is sent).
Independent Claim 12
Claim 12 is directed to a “method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE)” with steps that are virtually identical to the functions performed by the “apparatus” of claim 1. As a result, claim 12 is rejected under section 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chou for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of claim 1.
Independent Claim 23
Claim 23 recites and Chou teaches:
A network node for wireless communication (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, TRPs 910-1101 are each network nodes), the network node comprising:
a transmitter (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, TRPs 910-1101 must have transmitters since they send signals to the UEs 901, 1001, 1102; see also Chou, Figs. 1-8 that show the antennas, etc. of TRPs, which include transmitters) configured to transmit a message indicating power adjustment information associated with a plurality of transmission and reception points (TRPs) (Chou, ¶¶17, 103, 104, Fig. 11, step S1110, the CSI Report Configuration includes power adjustment information associated with the TRPs 1101) and to transmit a reference signal via the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶103, 104, Fig. 11, steps S1110, S1120, where the reference signals are transmitted from a plurality of TRPs 1101 to the UE 1102), wherein the power adjustment information includes an indication that the power adjustment information is associated with at least a particular TRP among the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶17, 103, 104, Fig. 11, step S1110, the power adjustment information is associated with the corresponding TRPs, which would also include “a particular TRP”; see also Chou, ¶132, Fig. 16, the resource configuration can be for a particular TRP); and
a receiver (Chou, ¶¶101-103, Figs. 9-11, TRPs 910-1101 must have receivers since they receive signals from the UEs 901, 1001, 1102; see also Chou, Figs. 1-8 that show the antennas, etc. of TRPs, which include receivers) configured to receive, in accordance with the power adjustment information and the transmission of the reference signal, a measurement report indicating precoder information associated with the plurality of TRPs (Chou, ¶¶105, 217, Fig. 11, step S1140, based on the CSI report configuration, which includes power indication information for each TRP, and the reference signals, a measurement report that includes precoder information associated with the TRPs is sent).
Independent Claim 27
Claim 27 is directed to a “method of wireless communication performed by a network node” with steps that are virtually identical to the functions performed by the “apparatus” of claim 23. As a result, claim 27 is rejected under section 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Chou for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of claim 23.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
The following applies to all rejections below, absent any discussion elaborating on any of the elements. Regarding element 1, the scope and contents of the prior art are evident based on the citations and explanations provided in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(A). Regarding element 2, the differences between the prior art and claims are noted in the rejections below. See MPEP § 2141(II)(B). Regarding element 3, the level of ordinary skill is expressly or implicitly found in the prior art of record as applied in the rejections below, where the teachings of the art show a presumed knowledge of the relevant art at the relevant time. See MPEP §§ 2141(II)(C), 2141.03(III). Regarding element 4, to the extent that there is evidence available as to secondary considerations, they will be addressed below, otherwise, it is assumed there are no secondary considerations to take into account.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Soltani2, both of which are in the same field of power control as the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 13, and 24
Claims 2, 13, and 24, which depend from claims 1, 12, and 23, respectively, each recite similarly, “the power adjustment information is associated with a plurality of amplitude backoff values respectively associated with the plurality of TRPs.” While Chou teaches using power adjustment values, Chou does not expressly teach they are “backoff values,” as recited in the claims. Even so, Soltani remedies this and teaches using backoff values in power adjustment of wireless devices. Soltani, ¶65, Fig. 4, step 410. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use backoff values, as in Soltani, in the system of Chou to help “ensure that the power amplifier stays in, or close to, the linear region even if there is a slight increase or fluctuation in the input power level.” See id. at ¶53.
Claims 3, 14, and 25
Claims 3, 14, and 25, which depend from claims 2, 13, and 24, respectively, each recite similarly, “the power adjustment information includes the plurality of amplitude backoff values.” While Chou teaches using power adjustment values, Chou does not expressly teach they are “backoff values,” as recited in the claims. Even so, Soltani remedies this and teaches using backoff values in power adjustment of wireless devices. Soltani, ¶65, Fig. 4, step 410. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use backoff values, as in Soltani, in the system of Chou to help “ensure that the power amplifier stays in, or close to, the linear region even if there is a slight increase or fluctuation in the input power level.” See id. at ¶53.
Claims 5 and 16
Claims 5 and 16, which depend from claims 2 and 13, respectively, recite similarly, and Chou teaches, “the receiver is further configured to receive a downlink transmission via the plurality of TRPs and in accordance with the plurality of [power adjustment information].” Chou, ¶¶106, 217, Fig. 11, step S1150, based on the report configuration, which includes a power indicator for the TRPs, the subsequent downlink transmission are transmitted and received. As noted above, Chou does not teach that the “power adjustment information” is “a plurality of amplitude backoff values,” as further recited. Even so, Soltani remedies this and teaches using backoff values in power adjustment of wireless devices. Soltani, ¶65, Fig. 4, step 410. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use backoff values, as in Soltani, in the system of Chou to help “ensure that the power amplifier stays in, or close to, the linear region even if there is a slight increase or fluctuation in the input power level.” See id. at ¶53.
Claims 6 and 17
Claims 6 and 17, which depend from claims 5 and 16, respectively, each recite similarly, and Chou teaches, “the one or more [power adjustment] values are in accordance with one or more of: a set of spatial beams associated with the downlink transmission; a component carrier associated with the downlink transmission; a bandwidth part (BWP) associated with the downlink transmission; or a transmission time interval (TTI) associated with the downlink transmission.” Chou, ¶¶78, 98, Figs. 6, 8, the downlink transmissions from the TRPs are defined with beams based on report information sent for precoder weighting.
As noted above in the rejection of claims 2 and 13, Chou does not expressly teach the power adjustments are “amplitude backoff values,” as recited in the claims. Even so, Soltani remedies this and teaches using backoff values in power adjustment of wireless devices. Soltani, ¶65, Fig. 4, step 410. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use backoff values, as in Soltani, in the system of Chou to help “ensure that the power amplifier stays in, or close to, the linear region even if there is a slight increase or fluctuation in the input power level.” See id. at ¶53.
Claims 4, 15, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Soltani, and in further view of Raghavan3, all of which are in the same field of power control as the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 15, and 26
Claims 4, 15, and 26, which depend from claims 2, 13, and 24, respectively, each recite similarly, “the power adjustment information includes one or more index values to a lookup table indicating the plurality of amplitude backoff values.” While the combination of Chou and Soltani teach sending power adjustment values, such as backoff values, neither Chou nor Soltani teach that this information includes “one or more index values to a lookup table indicating the one or more amplitude backoff values.” Even so, Raghavan remedies this and teaches that backoff values may be stored and looked up in a lookup table, which necessarily uses index values as a lookup input. See Raghavan, ¶¶35, 93, 99, 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lookup table to store and retrieve the backoff values, as in Raghavan, in the combination of Chou and Soltani because this is one of a finite number of ways in which this information may be obtained for gain adjustment. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try obtaining gain adjustment values from using any one of a formula (see Raghavan, ¶94), a lookup table (see Raghavan, ¶35), or explicitly signaling the adjustment, but using a lookup table would offer consistency in subsequent operations. See Raghavan, ¶104.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Raghavan, all of which are in the same field of power control as the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 19
Claims 8 and 19, which depend from claims 1 and 19, respectively, each recite “the indication includes one or more of a channel resource indicator (CRI) associated with the particular TRP, an index value associated with the particular TRP, or a bitmap associated with the plurality of TRPs.” While Chou teaches sending a power adjustment indicator (value), Chou does not teach that the indicator is an “index,” as recited in the claims. Even so, Raghavan remedies this and teaches that backoff values may be stored and looked up in a lookup table, which necessarily uses index values as a lookup input. See Raghavan, ¶¶35, 93, 99, 100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lookup table to store and retrieve the backoff values, as in Raghavan, in the system of Chou because this is one of a finite number of ways in which this information may be obtained for gain adjustment. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try obtaining gain adjustment values from using any one of a formula (see Raghavan, ¶94), a lookup table (see Raghavan, ¶35), or explicitly signaling the adjustment, but using a lookup table would offer consistency in subsequent operations. See Raghavan, ¶104.
Claims 9-11, 20-22, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Elshafie4, all of which are in the same field of power control as the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 20, and 28
Claims 9, 20, and 28, which depend from claims 1, 12, and 27, respectively, recite, “receiving a non-joint transmission of the reference signal; and transmitting, in accordance with the non-joint transmission of the reference signal, channel state information (CSI) feedback indicating initial precoder information, wherein the power adjustment information is in accordance with the initial precoder information” (claims 9 and 20), and “further comprising: performing a non-joint transmission of the reference signal; and receiving, in accordance with the non-joint transmission of the reference signal, channel state information (CSI) feedback indicating initial precoder information, wherein the power adjustment information is in accordance with the initial precoder information” (claim 28).
Chou does not teach the additionally recited limitations. Elshafie remedies this and teaches sending a reference signal in a non-joint transmission and in accordance with the CSI report information. Elshafie, ¶¶187, 200, Figs. 8 and 11, where the reference signal received is non-joint in that it is from a single device to another device, includes CSI indicating PMI, which takes into account the power ratio. Elshafie teaches that reception may be from single antennas (non-joint) or multiple (joint). In other words, there are a “finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions” to the problem of transmitting reference signals consistent with the teachings of Elshafie. Each solution, i.e., joint and non-joint, results in the same predictable result of transmitting a reference signal from a TRP to a UE. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chou to include either the non-joint or joint transmission, as taught in Elshafie, and still achieve the predictable result of transmitting a reference signal and achieve more dynamic power management as also discussed in Elshafie. See e.g., Elshafie, ¶108.
Claims 10, 21, and 29
Claims 10, 21, and 29, which depend from claims 9, 20, and 28, respectively, each recite and which Elshafie teaches, “the CSI feedback is associated with a first periodicity, and wherein the measurement report is associated with a second periodicity that is different than the first periodicity.” Elshafie, Figs. 10 and 11 show two different periods in which the CSI feedback is sent and the measurement report is sent. Thus, for the same reasons presented above in the rejections of claims 9, 20, and 28, from which claims 10, 21, and 29 depend, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chou to include either the non-joint or joint transmission, as taught in Elshafie, and still achieve the predictable result of transmitting a reference signal and achieve more dynamic power management as also discussed in Elshafie. See e.g., Elshafie, ¶108.
Claims 11, 22, and 30
Claims 11, 22, and 30, which depend from claims 9, 20, and 28, respectively, each recite and which Elshafie teaches, “the CSI feedback and the measurement report are associated with a same periodicity.” Elshafie, ¶139, “device 505-a may determine channel quality metrics such as CQI, RI, PMI, RSRP (e.g., L1-RSRP), SNR, SINR, and/or any other channel quality metric (e.g., to be included in a CSI report) for each power ratio” (emphasis added), thus, they are associated with the same period. Thus, for the same reasons presented above in the rejections of claims 9, 20, and 28, from which claims 11, 22, and 30 depend, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chou to include either the non-joint or joint transmission, as taught in Elshafie, and still achieve the predictable result of transmitting a reference signal and achieve more dynamic power management as also discussed in Elshafie. See e.g., Elshafie, ¶108.
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 JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0291453, to Chou et al. (“Chou”).
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0338126, to Soltani et al. (“Soltani”).
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0069877, to Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”).
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0385104, to Elshafie et al. (“Elshafie”).