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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 8 and 14 recites limitation, “transmitting first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier; determining a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier, wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class; and transmitting second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites transmitting first information indicating a first power class; determining a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier, and transmitting second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report. The transmitting information, determining delta power class associated with the first power class… and then transmitting second information recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of collecting data, analyzing and then transmitting certain information i.e., "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 4-8, 11-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. Pub. No. US 20190268862 A1 in view of Marupaduga Pub. No. US 20220046554 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Dai teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 21 and Para 364, UE) comprising: a transceiver (Fig. 21 Unit 130 and Para 364, transmitter 130) configured to transmit first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier (Para 225 and Fig. 8 Step 803, UE reports the determined initial maximum uplink transmit power to each base station i.e., transmit first information indicating a first power class associated with a first maximum output power on a first carrier); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver (Fig. 21 and Para 364, The memory 120, transmitter 130, and receiver 140 are connected to the processor 110 by using a bus i.e., a processor operably coupled to the transceiver), the processor configured to determine a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class, (Fig. 18 Unit 72 and Para 325-327, status reporting module 72 includes power offset determining unit 721 and transmit power determining unit 722. The power offset determining unit 721 is configured to determine an offset of an uplink transmit power according to the status of the uplink resource that is scheduled by the second base station for the UE, where a value of the offset is preconfigured, or is delivered by the second base station by using network signaling. The transmit power determining unit 722 is configured to add the offset to an initial maximum uplink transmit power that is allocated by the UE to the first base station, and determine that a sum of the offset and the initial maximum uplink transmit power is the maximum uplink transmit power allocated by the UE to the first base station i.e., determine a delta power class associated with the first power class on the first carrier wherein the delta power class is a power offset for the first power class).
Dai teaches that a transmit power of a carrier corresponding to the base station may be adjusted according to an actual situation, so that resources of each carrier can all be used maximally, which improves transmission efficiency of uplink data and a throughput of the UE. It is understandable that the power headroom may also be calculated by the UE and reported to the first base station which can be read as transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report (Para 158) but Dai does not specifically teach
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marupaduga teaches from Fig. 2 Step 34 and Para 93 that determining, based at least on a power headroom of the UE on the first connection and a power headroom of the UE on the second connection, an uplink data apportionment defining what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the first connection versus what portion of the uplink data flow the UE should provide on the second connection i.e., transceiver is further configured to transmit second information indicating the delta power class in a power headroom report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga so that the UE within coverage of the system could engage in air interface communication with an access node and could thereby communicate via the access node with various application servers and other entities (See Marupaduga Para 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) providing a DCI format that includes a request to report the second information (Para 137).
Regarding Claim 5, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information for a set of duty cycles associated with a set of power classes for a corresponding set of carriers (Para 265).
Regarding Claim 6, Dai teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to determine: a time period associated with a validity of the second information, a second maximum output power based on the first maximum output power and the delta power class, and a first power based on the first maximum output power and a second power based on the second maximum output power; and the transceiver is further configured to transmit: third information associated with the time period, and an uplink physical channel using the second power during the time period (Para 188).
Regarding Claim 7, Dai teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the uplink physical channel using the first power after the time period (Para 190).
Regarding Claim 8, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Dai teaches a base station (BS) comprising (Fig. 19 and Para 337): a transceiver configured to receive (Fig. 19 and Para 337, irst base station 800 may further include a transmitter 83 and a receiver 84).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. Pub. No. US 20190268862 A1 in view of Marupaduga Pub. No. US 20220046554 A1 and further in view of Iwai et al. Pub. No. US 20210168732 A1
Regarding Claim 2, Dai and Marupaduga does not specifically teach the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle; and the processor is further configured to determine a transmission occasion for transmitting the second information based on the duty cycle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwai teaches PHR_data report determination section 105 determines whether or not to report the PHR_pusch output from PHR_data calculation section 104, to a base station, based on cycle T [ms] determined by the base station in advance. That is, in the case where more than T [ms] has passed from the previous report of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch will be reported, and in the case where more than T [ms] has not passed from the previous report of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch will not be reported. Upon determining to report PHR_pusch, PHR_data report determination section 105 outputs PHR_pusch to data generation section 109 i.e., the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle; and the processor is further configured to determine a transmission occasion for transmitting the second information based on the duty cycle (Para 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga and further in view of Iwai so as to prevent deterioration of performance of a PUCCH which require high quality thus transmission power of a PUSCH to be transmitted by a mobile station does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the mobile station (See Iwai Para 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Dai and Marupaduga does not specifically teach the transceiver is further configured to transmit third information indicating a duty cycle, the duty cycle is associated with more than one power classes on corresponding more than one carriers, and the delta power class is further associated with the more than one power classes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwai teaches that the mobile station 100 is in the FDM transmission mode, when base station 200 obtains trigger information reported from mobile station 100 by satisfying equation 6, transmission mode control section 210 appropriately switches the transmission mode of mobile station 100 from the FDM transmission mode to the TDM transmission mode i.e., transmit third information indicating a duty cycle, the duty cycle is associated with more than one power classes on corresponding more than one carriers. In the condition where mobile station 100 reports trigger information in the FDM transmission mode, by switching the transmission mode to the TDM transmission mode, it is possible to prevent transmission power of mobile station 100 from exceeding the maximum transmission power (P_max). The cycle i.e., the duty cycle in which mobile station 100 reports PHR_pusch, first, because the uses of PHR_pusch and PHR_pucch are different, by reporting PHR_pusch or PHR_pucch according to the frequency and accuracy corresponding to the use, it is possible to suppress increase of signaling overhead and appropriately switch the transmission mode at the same time. As the use of PHR_pusch, PHR_pusch is used to control the transmission bandwidth and MCS of a PUSCH so that transmission power does not exceed the maximum transmission power of mobile station 100 (Para 96-98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dai with the method of Marupaduga and further in view of Iwai so as to prevent deterioration of performance of a PUCCH which require high quality thus transmission power of a PUSCH to be transmitted by a mobile station does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the mobile station (See Iwai Para 5 and 6).
Regarding Claim 9, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. Pub. No. US 20230171703 A1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING TRANSMISSION POWER OF TERMINAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Lunttila et al. Pub. No. US 20230055366 A1 - PUCCH DESIGN FOR UNLICENSED BAND OPERATION AT MMWAVES
Lin et al. Pub. No. US 20210235390 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRIGGERING POWER HEADROOM REPORT FOR MULTIPLE PATHLOSS REFERENCE IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Akkarakaran et al. Pub. No. US 20190098586 A1 - SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR FAST POWER HEADROOM REPORTING
Kwon et al. Pub. No. US 20180227863 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING POWER HEADROOM REPORT BY TERMINAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Pietraski et al. Patent No. US 9706505 B2 - Method And Apparatus For Enhancing Cell-edge User Performance And Signaling Radio Link Failure Conditions Via Downlink Cooperative Component Carriers
Zhang et al. Pub. No. US 20160309426 A1 - UPLINK POWER HEADROOM REPORTING FOR CARRIER AGGREGATION
Fabien et al. Pub. No. US 20100272091 A1 - Uplink Scheduling Supoort In Multi-Carrier Wireless Communication Systems
Contrasting Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Power Control Performance in UTRAN LTE Uplink by UE Trace Analysis – 2009.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights