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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered.
Examiner notes that claim 25-27 are still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed in action dated 2/24/26.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 14, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, starting on page 14, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Löhr does not disclose “two open loop power values associated with a single identifier (ID).” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms “associated with” and “identifier” are both broad such that many of the identifiers in Löhr could be interpreted so as to correspond to the instant feature. For example, the S-NSSAI in paragraph 68 of Löhr is an identifier that identifies a network slice that the open loop values will be used with, and thus both open loop power values are associated with the S-NSSAI. Thus, Löhr does teach all the features of the instant claim. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 13, 25, and 28 are based on their similarities to claim 1 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons. Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 1, 13, 25, and 28 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 11, 13, 15-16, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Löhr (US 20240188074 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Löhr discloses:
“An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, is configured to:” ([¶ 0135]: “The user equipment apparatus 500 may be one embodiment of the remote unit 105 and/or the UE 205, as described above. Furthermore, the user equipment apparatus 500 may include a processor 505, a memory 510, an input device 515, an output device 520, and a transceiver 525.”)
“receive a configuration of two open loop power values associated with a single identifier (ID), wherein a first open loop power value of the two open loop power values is associated with a different full-duplex mode, and wherein a second open loop power value of the two open loop power values is associated with a half-duplex mode;” ([¶ 0112]: “In one example different PC parameter (at least, different open-loop parameters and/or pathloss references) are configured for different duplex modes. When a gNB intends to operate different slots in different duplex modes, the UE may be configured with different open-loop power control parameters, e.g., different target power spectral density Po and fractional pathloss compensation factor alpha due to possibly different interference levels for the duplex modes, and possibly different closed-loop power control loops.”; [¶ 0086]: “FDD and TDD are examples of half-duplex operation. In contrast thereto, for Full Duplex (“FD”) mode UL and DL transmissions may be performed across the entire frequency band, i.e., using the same frequency resources, and also using the same time resources.”; [¶ 0068]: “A network slice instance may be identified by a single-network slice selection assistance information (“S-NSSAI”) while a set of network slices for which the remote unit 105 is authorized to use is identified by network slice selection assistance information (“NSSAI”).”)
“receive an indication of one of the first open loop power value or the second open loop power value of the two open loop power values; and” ([¶ 0192]: “In certain embodiments, determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of the duplex mode.” Wherein, in Löhr open loop power values corresponds to duplex mode, and thus an indication of duplex mode is equivalent to an indication of open loop power value.)
“transmit, based on the indication, an uplink transmission with a transmission power based on the one of the first open loop power value or the second open loop power value.” ([¶ 0181]: “The method 700 includes transmitting 720 the generated TB on the allocated uplink resources.”)
Regarding claim 3, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses the features of claim 3 ([¶ 0105]: “In another implementation the DCI indicates which set of LCH restrictions to use for a corresponding PUSCH transmission. In one example a one-bit flag is used within the DCI to indicate which of the two sets of LCH restriction parameter/configurations to use for the associated PUSCH transmission.”; [¶ 0192]: “In certain embodiments, determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of which set of LCH restriction configurations to use.”)
Regarding claim 7, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses the features of claim 7 ([¶ 0049]: “In some embodiments, the UL DCI allocating uplink resource for a PUSCH transmission indicates the duplex mode operated by the gNB for the corresponding PUSCH. In some embodiments, the UE applies a different set of power control parameters (i.e., open-loop, pathloss reference, and closed-loop configurations) for a scheduled UL transmission(s) depending on the duplexing mode the gNB operates for the corresponding set of symbols/slot/PUSCH duration.”)
Regarding claim 11, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses the features of claim 11 ([¶ 0111]: “In one example UE applies a first PC parameter set for an UL transmission in response to determining that the gNB operates the slot(s) where the corresponding PUSCH transmission occurs in FD mode, whereas the UE applies a second set PC parameter set in response to determining that the slot(s) of the PUSCH transmission is operated by the gNB in a non-FD mode.”; [¶ 0181]: “The method 700 includes transmitting 720 the generated TB on the allocated uplink resources.”)
Regarding claim 31, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the first open loop power value is included in a first open loop power control parameter set associated with the single identifier (ID), and wherein the second open loop power value is included in a second open loop power control parameter set associated with the single identifier (ID).” ([¶ 0086]: “FDD and TDD are examples of half-duplex operation. In contrast thereto, for Full Duplex (“FD”) mode UL and DL transmissions may be performed across the entire frequency band, i.e., using the same frequency resources, and also using the same time resources.”; [¶ 0068]: “A network slice instance may be identified by a single-network slice selection assistance information (“S-NSSAI”) while a set of network slices for which the remote unit 105 is authorized to use is identified by network slice selection assistance information (“NSSAI”).”)
Regarding claim 32, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein each of the first open loop power control parameter set and the second open loop power control parameter set further includes a fractional pathloss compensation factor.” ([¶ 0112]: “In one example different PC parameter (at least, different open-loop parameters and/or pathloss references) are configured for different duplex modes. When a gNB intends to operate different slots in different duplex modes, the UE may be configured with different open-loop power control parameters, e.g., different target power spectral density Po and fractional pathloss compensation factor alpha due to possibly different interference levels for the duplex modes, and possibly different closed-loop power control loops.”)
Regarding claim 33, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select the one of the first open loop power value or the second open loop power value based on a duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission.” ([¶ 0104]: “A UE may determine the duplex mode/state/mapping mode of a symbol/slot (e.g., Full-Duplex and Half-Duplex modes) based on, e.g., some explicit signaling/indication received from the gNB.”; [¶ 0112]: “In one example different PC parameter (at least, different open-loop parameters and/or pathloss references) are configured for different duplex modes.”)
Claims 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 34-36 are substantially similar to claims 1, 3, 11, and 31-33 with the differences amounting to that claims 1, 3, 11, and 31-33 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware while claims 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 34-36 are directed towards a method, an apparatus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and a computer-readable medium. Thus, claims 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 34-36 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1, 3, 11, and 31-33.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Löhr (US 20240188074 A1) in view of Liu (US 20210377872 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the indication comprises a set of bits in an open loop control parameter set indication field…” ([¶ 0105]: “In another implementation the DCI indicates which set of LCH restrictions to use for a corresponding PUSCH transmission. In one example a one-bit flag is used within the DCI to indicate which of the two sets of LCH restriction parameter/configurations to use for the associated PUSCH transmission.”; [¶ 0192]: “In certain embodiments, determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of which set of LCH restriction configurations to use.”)
Löhr does not explicitly disclose “wherein the set of bits includes at least one bit that indicates the one of the first open loop power value or the second open loop power value”
However, Liu discloses the missing feature “wherein the set of bits includes at least one bit that indicates the one of the first open loop power value or the second open loop power value” ([¶ 0077]: “Each TPC command block includes 3 bits, where 1 bit is used to indicate which set of power control parameters is selected (e.g., indicate which TPC table, value of PO and a are selected), and the other 2 bits of the TPC command block can be used to indicate the power adjustment value of the closed-loop power control. In such embodiments, the DCI 101 does not need to include the resource indication field 105.” Wherein the cited paragraph discusses closed-loop power control but only as an example, and the teachings of Liu are directed towards both open-loop and closed-loop. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Löhr and Liu, to modify the indication as disclosed by Löhr, to utilize a bit to indicate set and a bit to indicate the value in the set as disclosed by Liu. The motivation for doing so is that it is an efficient means of indicating a value in one of multiple sets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Löhr with Liu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 14, 26 and 29 are substantially similar to claim 2 with the differences amounting to that claim 2 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware while claims 14, 26 and 29 are directed towards a method, an apparatus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and a computer-readable medium. Thus, claims 14, 26 and 29 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12, 20-22, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, of the closest prior art Löhr (US 20240188074 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Löhr does not disclose the features of claim 8. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 8 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Claims 9-10 and 21-22 depend on claims 7 and 19 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence.
Regarding claim 12, of the closest prior art Löhr (US 20240188074 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Löhr does not disclose “wherein to receive the indication the at least one processor, is further configured to receive the indication via downlink control information (DCI) associated at the wireless device with the full-duplex mode and the DCI comprises one of the first indication omitting the one or more bits associated with the indication that are configured to indicate the open loop power value in the second open loop power control parameter set or the indication with a known value of the one or more bits associated with the indication that are configured to indicate the open loop power value in the second open loop power control parameter set.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 12 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 12 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights