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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it encompasses signals per se. While paragraphs 126 and 128 of the specification recite that computer-readable medium “may be non-transitory,” this leaves open that they also may not, and thus that computer-readable mediums are non-transitory is not read into the instant claims.
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, 3-4, 11, 13, 15-16, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 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, individually or in any combination, 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 or more open loop power values in one or more open loop power control parameter sets, each open loop power value of the two or more open loop power values associated with a different 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.”)
“receive an indication of an open loop power value of the two or more open loop power values in the one or more open loop power control parameter sets; 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 an uplink transmission with a transmission power based on the open loop power value in the one or more open loop power control parameter sets.” ([¶ 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 “wherein the indication is included in downlink control information and comprises one of a first indication of a first open loop power control parameter set of the one or more open loop power control parameter sets indicating the open loop power value to use for the uplink transmission or a second indication of a duplex mode associated with the first open loop power control parameter set of the one or more open loop power control parameter sets indicating the open loop power value to use for the uplink transmission.” ([¶ 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 4, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the two or more open loop power values comprise two open loop power values, the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise one open loop power control parameter set including a first open loop power value associated with a half-duplex mode and a second open loop power value associated with a full-duplex mode, and the indication of the open loop power value comprises one of a first indication of the half-duplex mode or a second indication of the full-duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission, wherein to transmit the uplink transmission, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on the first open loop power value for the uplink transmission as indicated by the first indication; or transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on the second open loop power value for the uplink transmission as indicated by the second indication.” ([¶ 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 11, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise two open loop power control parameter sets including a first open loop power control parameter set associated with a first duplex mode and including a first open loop power value of the two or more open loop power values and an additional parameter value used for open loop power control and a second open loop power control parameter set associated with a second duplex mode and including at least one additional open loop power value of the two or more open loop power values, and the indication of the open loop power value comprises one of a first indication of the first duplex mode or a second indication of the second duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission, wherein to transmit the uplink transmission, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on the first open loop power value of the first open loop power control parameter set for the uplink transmission as indicated by the first indication, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to determine to use the first open loop power value by ignoring one or more bits associated with the indication that are configured to indicate an open loop power value in the second open loop power control parameter set; or transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the at least one additional open loop power value for the uplink transmission as indicated by the second indication.” ([¶ 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.”)
Claims 13, 15-16, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are substantially similar to claims 1, 3-4, and 11 with the differences amounting to that claims 13, 15-16, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware while claims 13, 15-16, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are directed towards a method, an apparatus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and a computer-readable medium. Thus, claims 13, 15-16, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1, 3-4, and 11.
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, 5-6, 14, 17-18, 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 and wherein the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise two open loop power control parameter sets, wherein the set of bits includes at least one bit included in the indication that indicates one open loop power control parameter set of the two open loop power control parameter sets to use to determine the open loop power value…” ([¶ 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 “and at least one set of one or more bits indicating the open loop power value within the one open loop power control parameter set indicated by the at least one bit.”
However, Liu discloses the missing feature “and at least one set of one or more bits indicating the open loop power value within the one open loop power control parameter set indicated by the at least one bit.” ([¶ 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.
Regarding claim 5, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the two or more open loop power values comprise … open loop power values, the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise one open loop power control parameter set including a first … of open loop power values associated with a half-duplex mode and a second … of open loop power values associated with a full-duplex mode, and the indication of the open loop power value comprises one of a first indication of the half-duplex mode or a second indication of the full-duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission, wherein to transmit the uplink transmission, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the first pair of open loop power values as indicated by the first indication; or transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the second pair of open loop power values as indicated by the second indication.” ([¶ 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.”)
Löhr does not explicitly disclose there are “four” values composed of two “pairs”
However, Liu discloses the missing feature there are “four” values composed of two “pairs” ([¶ 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 Liu discloses 2 bits and thus four values per set instead of a pair in each set, but this is only done as an example, and in context it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a pair could also be used.)
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 values as disclosed by Löhr, to have the structure as disclosed by Liu. The motivation for doing so is that it is an efficient means of indicating and reusing the indicated values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Löhr with Liu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Löhr discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Löhr further discloses “wherein the two or more open loop power values comprise … open loop power values, the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise one open loop power control parameter set including a first list of open loop power values associated with a half-duplex mode and a second list of open loop power values associated with a full-duplex mode, and the indication of the open loop power value comprises one of a first indication of the half-duplex mode or a second indication of the full-duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission, wherein to transmit the uplink transmission, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the first list of open loop power values for the uplink transmission as indicated by the first indication; or transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the second list of open loop power values for the uplink transmission as indicated by the second indication.” ([¶ 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.”)
Löhr does not explicitly disclose there are “four” values.
However, Liu discloses the missing feature there are “four” values ([¶ 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 Liu discloses 2 bits and thus four values per set instead of a pair in each set, but this is only done as an example, and in context it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a pair could also be used.)
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 values as disclosed by Löhr, to have the structure as disclosed by Liu. The motivation for doing so is that it is an efficient means of indicating and reusing the indicated values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Löhr with Liu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 14, 17-18, 26 and 29 are substantially similar to claims 2 and 5-6 with the differences amounting to that claims 2 and 5-6 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware while claims 14, 17-18, 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, 17-18, 26 and 29 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 2 and 5-6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 12, 19-22, 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 7, of the closest prior art Löhr (US 20240188074 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. Löhr further discloses “wherein the two or more open loop power values comprise … open loop power values, the one or more open loop power control parameter sets comprise two open loop power control parameter sets… the first open loop power control parameter set associated with a half-duplex mode of the first TRP… and the indication of the open loop power value comprises one of a first indication of the half-duplex mode or a second indication of the full-duplex mode associated with a slot including the uplink transmission, wherein to transmit the uplink transmission, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the first open loop power control parameter set for the uplink transmission as indicated by the first indication; or transmit the uplink transmission with the transmission power based on one open loop power value of the second open loop power control parameter set for the uplink transmission as indicated by the second indication” in paragraphs 111 and 181.
However, Löhr does not disclose “including a first open loop power control parameter set configured for a first transmission reception point (TRP) of a network device associated with the uplink transmission and a second open loop power control parameter set configured for a second TRP of the network device” nor “the second open loop power control parameter set associated with a full-duplex mode of the first TRP” within the context of “a second open loop power control parameter set configured for a second TRP of the network device.”
Lim (US 20220312337 A1) discloses the missing feature “including a first open loop power control parameter set configured for a first transmission reception point (TRP) of a network device associated with the uplink transmission and a second open loop power control parameter set configured for a second TRP of the network device” in paragraph 700 and would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine with Löhr because doing so would increase flexibility in allowing the technique to used with multiple TRP. However, Lim also does not disclose “the second open loop power control parameter set associated with a full-duplex mode of the first TRP.”
The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 7 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 7 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Claims 8-10 and 20-22 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, individually or in any combination, is further configured to receive the first indication via downlink control information (DCI) associated at the wireless device with the first 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 first 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
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 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412