DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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 isinterpreted 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for determining a transmit power”, “means for determining an energy usage”, “means for determining a total energy usage”, and “means for transmitting a signal in the transmission occasion” as cited in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s specification discloses the corresponding structure executed by these means functions where:
“means for transmitting a signal in the transmission occasion” is disclosed in ¶0100 which discloses that means for transmitting may include the transceivers 232 and/or antenna(s) 234 of the BS 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 and/or transceiver 1008 and
antenna 1210 of the communication device 1200 in FIG. 12.
“means for determining a transmit power/an energy usage/a total energy usage” are disclosed in ¶0102 which discloses that means for determining may include various processing system components, such as: the one or more processors 1204 in FIG. 12 , or aspects of the BS 102 depicted in FIG. 2 , including receive processor 238, transmit processor 220, TX MIMO processor 230, and/or controller/processor 240.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 15, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tiirola et al (US20240244539).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Tiirola discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device (¶0009 discloses a method by the UE), comprising: determining a transmit power associated with a transmission occasion (¶0009 discloses determining a first transmission power that is allowed for a transmission by the UE within the first time window); determining an energy usage associated with the transmission occasion based on the transmit power (¶0009 discloses that the first transmission power is determined based, at least in part, on the first total amount of energy); determining a total energy usage for a time window or a time interval associated with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit based on the energy usage associated with the transmission occasion (¶0135 discloses that a maximum Tx power, for a UE is calculated based on the total amount of energy that has already been transmitted by the UE in a predefined time window); and transmitting a signal in the transmissionoccasion at the transmit power if the total energy usage satisfies an energy budget(¶0139 discloses that a determination is made as to a first transmission power, PmaxTx(i), that is allowed for a transmission, TX(i), by the UE within the first time window, TW1 where ¶0162 discloses that the first transmission power, PmaxTx(i), is further determined based, at least in part, on an allowed transmission energy, EallowedTx(TW1), wherein the allowed transmission energy, EallowedTx(TW1), is indicative of a maximum second total amount of energy permitted to be transmitted by the UE over course of the first time window).
Regarding claim 15, the cited reference Tiirola discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories collectively storing executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the executable instructions (¶0287 discloses a controller 11 can be implemented using instructions that enable hardware functionality, for example, by using executable instructions of a computer program 14 in a general-purpose or special-purpose processor 12 that can be stored on a computer readable storage medium 13, for example memory, to be executed by such a processor 12) to cause the apparatus to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is drawn to an apparatus for wireless communication performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the cited reference Tiirola discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, which when executed by an apparatus (¶0084 discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with instructions that performed by at least one processor), cause the apparatus to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jadhav et al (US20210184714)
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Jadhav discloses a method of wireless communication by a wireless device (Fig. 1 and ¶0020 disclose an example power utilization chart for each of the three radio transceivers in the smartphone 110), comprising: determining a transmit power associated with a transmission occasion ; determining an energy usage associated with the transmission occasion based on the transmit power; determining a total energy usage for a time window or a time interval associated with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit based on the energy usage associated with the transmission occasion (¶0021 discloses that the power utilization for each of the radio transceivers in the mobile device 110 may be periodically or continuously monitored, and the power utilization readings may be used to calculate a running average of RF emissions from the mobile device 110 during a time window. ¶0055 discloses that the power utilization control engine 220 may compare the time-averaged power utilization data for the current rolling time window, to one or more thresholds based on the applicable RF exposure limits); and transmitting a signal in the transmission occasion at the transmit power if the total energy usage satisfies an energy budget (¶0021 discloses that when the time-average power emissions of the radio transceivers in the mobile device 110 approaches an upper limit for the time window, one or more of the radio transceivers may be reconfigured to scale back the duty cycle and/or transmission power. If the time-average power emissions exceed additional higher thresholds, one or more of the radio transceivers may be temporarily stopped or turned-off to avoid exceeding the permissible RF emissions limit during the time window when time-average power emissions are below certain thresholds for the current time window, the transmission power and/or duty cycles for one or more of the radio transceivers may be increased to improve transmission power and quality temporarily deactivating one radio transceiver in order to maintain (or even increase) the transmission power of a higher-priority radio transceiver (or higher-priority transmission). ¶0040 further disclose that this may allow for temporary increases in transmission power and/
or duty cycle in order to optimize transmission quality without exceeding the RF emission limit for the current rolling time window.).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of claims 2 and 16 respectively. Jadhav further discloses wherein determining the total energy usage comprises determining a sum of the energy usage associated with the transmission occasion and
past energy usage within the time window or the time interval (¶0021, ¶0025, and ¶0032).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively. Jadhav further discloses refraining from transmitting in the time window or the time interval if the total energy usage is greater than or equal to the energy budget (¶0021).
Regarding claim 15, the cited reference Jadhav discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories collectively storing executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the executable instructions (¶0080 discloses a memory 810 and one or more processing units (or processor(s)) 822. The processor(s) 822 may be implemented as appropriate in hardware, computer-executable instructions) to cause the apparatus to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is drawn to an apparatus for wireless communication performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the cited reference Jadhav discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon, which when executed by an apparatus (¶0081 discloses non-transitory computer-readable media may provide non-volatile storage of computer-readable instructions), cause the apparatus to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6-11 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav et al (US20210184714), in view of Rudolf et al (US20230328656).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 20-21, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of
claims 1 and 15 respectively. However, Jadhav does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the signal comprises transmitting the signal in the transmission occasion at the transmit power via a channel if the total energy usage satisfies the energy budget, wherein the energy budget is associated with the channel and wherein the channel includes a random access channel, a physical uplink control channel, a physical uplink shared channel, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous art Rudolf teaches wherein transmitting the signal comprises transmitting
the signal in the transmission occasion at the transmit power via a channel if the total energy usage satisfies the energy budget, wherein the energy budget is associated with the channel and wherein the channel includes a random access channel, a physical uplink control channel, a physical uplink shared channel, or any combination thereof (¶0167 discloses determining the maximum output power for a PUSCH transmission in a slot using p-Max).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Rudolf to provide much flexibility to the gNB scheduler to select or adjust the actual selected transmission power allocation.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, the combination of Jadhav and Rudolf discloses all limitations of claims 6 and 20 respectively. Jadhav further discloses determining, for each of a plurality of channels, a channel-specific energy budget, wherein the energy budget includes at least one of the channel-specific energy budgets and wherein determining the transmit power comprises determining the transmit power for at least one of the channels associated with the energy budget (¶0090-¶0091).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, the combination of Jadhav and Rudolf discloses all limitations of claims 8 and 22 respectively. Jadhav further discloses determining the channel-specific energy budget comprises allocating a portion of a total energy budget as the respective channel-specific energy budget for each of the channels (¶0145 and ¶0156).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively. However, Jadhav does not explicitly teach determining the transmit power comprises determining the transmit power based on a power control procedure.
In an analogous art Rudolf teaches determining the transmit power comprises determining the transmit power based on a power control procedure (¶0091 discloses that the UL power control procedure determines a power for PUSCH, PUCCH, SRS, and PRACH transmissions in NR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Rudolf to provide much flexibility to
the gNB scheduler to select or adjust the actual selected transmission power allocation.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, the combination of Jadhav and Rudolf discloses all limitations of claims 10 and 24 respectively. Jadhav further discloses the power control procedure is for uplink communication or sidelink communication (¶0033 discloses that a PUSCH power
control).
Claims 12-14 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav et al (US20210184714), in view of Shibaike et al (US20250374200).
Regarding claims 12, 14, 26, and 28, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively. However, Jadhav does not explicitly teach determining the transmit power comprises selecting the transmit power as a smallest value among a transmit power limit and a computed transmit power based at least in part on a pathloss between the wireless device and a receiving entity and determining the transmit power comprises determining the transmit power based on a pathloss between the wireless device and a receiving entity.
In an analogous art Shibaike teaches determining the transmit power comprises selecting the transmit power as a smallest value among a transmit power limit and a computed transmit power based at least in part on a pathloss between the wireless device and a receiving entity and determining the transmit power comprises determining the transmit power based on a pathloss between the wireless device and a receiving entity (¶0023 discloses that a transmit power (PPUSCH,b,f,c (i, j, qd, l)) [dBm] for the PUSCH in PUSCH transmission occasion (also referred to as transmission period or the like) i may be based on at least one of PCMAX,f,c(i), PO_PUSCH,b,f,c (j), MPUSCH RB,b,f,c (i), αb,f,c (j), PLb,f,c (qd), ΔTF,b,f,c (i), and fb,f,c (i, l) where PLb,f,c (qd) is a pathloss (See ¶0023)).
PNG
media_image1.png
131
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Shibaike where the transmit power may be based on a pathloss according the communication conditions and where the pathloss is crucial for determining coverage and power budget.
Regarding claims 13 and 27, the cited reference Jadhav discloses all limitations of claims 12 and 26 respectively. Jadhav further discloses determining the transmit power comprisesdetermining the computed transmit power further based at least in part on an estimated received power at the receiving entity, a subcarrier spacing numerology associated with the signal, a bandwidth associated with the signal, and the pathloss (See formula below (¶0023)).
PNG
media_image1.png
131
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PUSCH power formula includes:
an estimated received power
PNG
media_image2.png
36
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
bandwidth
PNG
media_image3.png
74
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
pathloss
PNG
media_image4.png
67
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the formula also discloses the parameter
2
µ
where µ is the subcarrier spacing (See ¶0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462