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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on 03/20/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 15-23, 27, 29, 31-34 and 38-46 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues in part stating that “Kowalski clearly states that the report of transmission power is for the entire IAB node, which includes both the MT and the DU parts of the node” and “Kowalski does not describe sending just the dynamic range report for the IAB-MT, but instead sends the power report for the whole IAB node. By contrast, as described in claim 1, the report is specifically just for the IAB-MT. Therefore, Kowalski fails to disclose determining at least one dynamic range between two transmission power values of the IAB-MT; and transmitting a dynamic range report of the IAB-MT to the second network node.”
First it is noted that the claim specifying sending one part of a report when the reference sends multiple parts of the report is still anticipated. Kowalski does send thee dynamic range report for the IAB-MT, he also sends other information is the report but the newly added limitation does not differentiate that for anticipation.
Second when Applicant argues “Kowalski does not describe sending just the dynamic range report for the IAB-MT” it is not limited to sending only a range report for IAB-MT but the claim only requires sending at least a report including the dynamic range of the IAB-MT.
Third, as shown below support has not been found for sending only the IAB-MT dynamic range and nothing else as Applicant argues.
Lastly, Kowalski shows the report includes the dynamic range of IAB-MT when stating “the IAB node transmission power report generator 120 generates the IAB node transmission power report to specify each of the following:
[0100] (1) power utilization by the mobile-termination circuitry for transmission on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), as determined by PUSCH power controller 81;
[0101] (2) power utilization by the mobile-termination circuitry for transmission on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), as determined by PUCCH power controller 82;
[0102] (3) power utilization by the distributed unit circuitry for transmission on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH); as determined by PDSCH power controller 83; and
[0103] (4) power utilization by the distributed unit circuitry for transmission on a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), as determined by PDCCH power controller 84 (see fig. 6 and par. 0099 and 0104, where 124 is included in report generator sent to parent node).
Therefore the claim now requires the report includes the IAB-MT and Kowalski shows “the IAB node transmission power report generator 120 is illustrated in FIG. 6 as comprising both MT transmission power report generator 124 and DU transmission power report generator 126” (see par. 0107) which meets the amendment. Therefore, the rejections are maintained at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 15-23, 27, 29, 31-34 and 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has not found support that the node report is only for the IAB-MT. For example, instant par. 0100 states “A first aspect of the invention is a method for signaling a power transmission dynamic range of an IAB node to another network node” and “The maximum transmission power may be determined in relation to the configured transmit power of the IAB-DU or IAB-MT. Hence, the IAB node may report a preferred dynamic range and/or an absolute dynamic range, corresponding to whether or not the IAB-DU will or can transmit at the same time as the IAB-MT.” (emphasis added).
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, 18-21, 23, 27, 38 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kowalski et al. (US 2022/0330176 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Kowalski teaches the limitations "A method performed in an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, network node for signaling a transmission power dynamic range of its IAB Mobile Termination, IAB-MT, to a second network node, the method comprising: (see abstract “configured to manage transmission power utilized by the IAB node by taking into consideration both transmission by the mobile-termination circuitry and transmission by the distributed unit circuitry. Other example aspects of the technology disclosed herein concern transmission power reporting by such IAB node, transmission power prioritization by such IAB node; transmission power governance for the distributed unit circuitry for such IAB node; and method of operating such IAB node(s).”);
determining at least one dynamic range between two transmission power values of the IAB-MT; and transmitting a dynamic range report of the IAB-MT to the second network node, (see fig. 6 and par. 0098 “The IAB node transmission power report generator 120 is configured to generate a report of transmission power of the IAB node for transmission to a parent node, e.g., to parent IAB node 70 shown in FIG. 6. The report generated by IAB node transmission power report generator 120 may include transmission power utilization and/or transmission power headroom (PHR).” Further, see par. 0098-0107 “the IAB node transmission power report generator 120 is illustrated in FIG. 6 as comprising both MT transmission power report generator 124 and DU transmission power report generator 126”);
wherein the dynamic range report comprises the at least one dynamic range, wherein the two transmission power values comprise a maximum transmission power value and an offset" (see par. 0108 “transmission power headroom (PHR) may be a difference between a maximum transmission power allocated to the child IAB node 72, or to its Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 or to its IAB node processor(s) 54, and actual transmission power utilization by the child IAB node 72, or by its Mobile-Termination (MT) 50, or by its IAB node processor(s) 54. Such maximum transmission power allocation may be stored in one or more of PUSCH configuration register 91, PUCCH configuration register 92, PDSCH configuration register 93, and/or PDCCH configuration register 94, or may be derived therefrom. As indicated above, the maximum permitted transmission power for the mobile-termination circuitry and the maximum permitted transmission power for the distributed unit circuitry may be configurable, e.g., by parent IAB node 70.” Here, it is shown the pmax and an offset (actual to max headroom) are included the distributed node is configurable by the parent IAB node (i.e. configuration message adjusting power as shown in claims 15, 27 and 46).
Claims 15, 23, 27, 46 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 18 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic range report is part of a Radio Resource Control, RRC, message, an F1 Application Protocol, F1ap, message, or a Medium Access Control, MAC, control element, CE, message" (see par. 0059).
Regarding Claim 19 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 1, wherein the second network node comprises a Central Unit, CU" (see fig. 4 and par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 20 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic range report is part of an Operations, Administration and Maintenance, OAM, report" (see par. 0086, showing power parameters are set by higher layers at the discretion of the network administration & operation (i.e. OAM report).
Regarding Claim 21 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 15, wherein: the second network node comprises a parent IAB network node; the configuration message comprises an uplink, UL, power control message; and configuring the IAB network node according to the configuration message comprises configuring an IAB-MT transmit power configuration" (see fig. 2 and par. 0048, 0050 and 0052, “Additionally, the IAB-nodes (child nodes) may be in communication with other IAB-nodes and/or an IAB-donor (all of which may be considered IAB parent nodes) via wireless backhaul link. For example, a UE may be connected to an IAB-node which itself may be connected to a parent IAB-node in communication with an IAB-donor, thereby extending the backhaul resources to allow for the transmission of backhaul traffic within the network and between parent and child for integrated access.” “FIG. 2 particularly shows, for example, that donor TAB node 22 is connected by downlink donor backhaul link 32 and uplink donor backhaul link 33 to one or more IAB nodes 24. FIG. 2 further shows that an IAB node 24 may be connected by downlink backhaul link 34 and uplink backhaul link 35 to one or more child nodes, e.g., to a user equipment (UE) 30 or to another IAB node 24. It should be understood that some parts of operations and behaviors that are performed by the donor IAB node may be able to be performed by a parent IAB node.” “One example purpose of IAB network power management controller 36 may be to select one or more IAB nodes to serve as a “principal parent” or family power management IAB nodes.”).
Claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
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 3, 5-9, 16-17, 22, 29 and 31-34, 39, 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski as applied to their respective parent claims above, and further in view of Ghanbarinejad et al. (US 2023/0080162 A1).
Regarding Claim 3 Kowalski teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose “wherein the offset comprises a difference between the maximum transmission power and an IAB-MT desired minimum transmit power.”
In the same field of endeavor Ghanbarinejad discloses a power control method in an integrated access and backhaul system, where “a downlink power control (DL-PC) request may contain some or all the following information: 1) an identification number (ID); 2) a desired value of power change, for example, by a ratio R.sub.DL—the value may normally be described in decibels (dB)—in some embodiments, maximum and minimum values for a power change may be included.” (see abstract, fig. 4 and par. 0081 and 0119 and 0120 “in one embodiment, a value between a minimum requested value and a maximum requested value may be selected…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine and configure power offsets including max minus the minimum powers as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138).
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 5 Kowalski teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the two transmission power values comprise a maximum transmission power value and a minimum transmission power value.” Ghanbarinejad discloses a power control method in an integrated access and backhaul system, where “a downlink power control (DL-PC) request may contain some or all the following information: 1) an identification number (ID); 2) a desired value of power change, for example, by a ratio R.sub.DL—the value may normally be described in decibels (dB)—in some embodiments, maximum and minimum values for a power change may be included.” (see abstract, fig. 4 and par. 0081 and 0119 and 0120 “in one embodiment, a value between a minimum requested value and a maximum requested value may be selected…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine max and min power values as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 6 Kowalski teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose “wherein the two transmission power values comprise a present transmission power value and a minimum transmission power value.” Ghanbarinejad shows “In certain embodiments, an alternative uplink transmit power value is calculated as a minimum of the required uplink transmit power value, an adjusted maximum output power value, and the adjusted downlink transmit power value, and wherein the adjusted maximum output power value is calculated based at least partly on a subtraction of the downlink transmit power value from the maximum output power value. In some embodiments, the method 1600 further comprises transmitting a power headroom report, wherein a power headroom value in the power headroom report is computed based on a ratio of a minimum of the adjusted downlink transmit power value and the maximum output power value to the required uplink transmit power value.” (see par. 0285) and in (par. 0126) “ If a DL-PC request is received, the PN may attempt to set a new transmission power TXP_new for C2 by letting 1008 TXP_new:=Max {TXP/R, TXP_min}. However, other constraints such as other concurrent transmissions may constrain the power reduction by a minimum TXP_min.” (i.e. factors in current or present transmission powers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a current power and a min power value as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Regarding Claim 7 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 5, wherein the minimum transmission power value comprises either one of an absolute minimum transmission power value or a preferred minimum transmission power value" (see par. 0285 “an alternative uplink transmit power value is calculated as a minimum of the required uplink transmit power value.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine min power values required as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 8 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 7, wherein the preferred minimum transmission power value is related to a mode of operation in the IAB network node, (see par. 0285 and fig. 4) wherein the at least one dynamic range is based on a mode of operation in the IAB network node, wherein the mode of operation comprises one or more of frequency domain resource multiplexing, spatial domain resource multiplexing or time domain resource multiplexing" (see par. 0205 “a maximum power reduction needed for multiplexing downlink and/or downstream communications from an JAB node (e.g., and uplink and/or upstream communication transmitted to the PN) may be included in a P-MPR term or a new term may be defined (e.g., IAB-P-MPR for a multiplexing MPR used for computing P.sub.CMAX,f,c). An IAB node MT may indicate the P.sub.CMAX,f,c and/or the IAB-P-MPR in the PHR to the PN. The PHR (e.g., actual or virtual) may be associated with a power-controlled resource set (e.g., corresponding to PUSCH, PUCCH, and/or SRS transmission on a resource of a resource set T). In one example, an ID of the power-controlled resource set associated with the PH may be reported in the PHR.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine power values based on mode of operation as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 9 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 7, wherein the preferred minimum transmission power value is associated with simultaneous operation of IAB-MT and IAB Distributed Unit, IAB-DU" (see par. 0218-0220 “in a scenario S2, a single-panel IAB node (N) may receive downlink signals from a parent node (PN) and may transmit downlink signals to a child node (CN) or a UE simultaneously. This is an example of full-duplex (FD) wireless communications. FD wireless may be rare in practice and FD radio devices may be expected to require stringent power control conditions for operation. However, FD may be used in various embodiments.
[0219] Moreover, simultaneous transmission and reception in scenario S2 may depend on a node's capability, which may be reported to other nodes in a system proactively or upon request.” Here, the minimum node’s capabilities). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the minimum power values are associated with simultaneous operation as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 17 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 16, wherein the capability report comprises a multiplexing capability report" (see par. 0205 “In certain embodiments, a maximum power reduction needed for multiplexing downlink and/or downstream communications from an JAB node (e.g., and uplink and/or upstream communication transmitted to the PN) may be included in a P-MPR term or a new term may be defined (e.g., IAB-P-MPR for a multiplexing MPR used for computing P.sub.CMAX,f,c). An IAB node MT may indicate the P.sub.CMAX,f,c and/or the IAB-P-MPR in the PHR to the PN. The PHR (e.g., actual or virtual) may be associated with a power-controlled resource set (e.g., corresponding to PUSCH, PUCCH, and/or SRS transmission on a resource of a resource set T). In one example, an ID of the power-controlled resource set associated with the PH may be reported in the PHR.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configure power in multiplexing capability reports as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 22 Kowalski and Ghanbarine teach the method of claim 19, further comprising: determining, by the IAB network node, that a change in simultaneous operation mode is required; and signaling a dynamic change in simultaneous operation mode to the parent IAB network node" (se par. 0105-0106 “In certain embodiments, N may send control signaling to PN to inform PN about which PORS configurations are suitable for N. In a mobile IAB system, this information may change frequently and such updates may be sent regularly. [0106] In some embodiments, a decision by a subject node N may be about whether to schedule a downstream communication with a child node or UE simultaneously with an upstream communication with a parent node.”) and (see par. 0199 “ a handover decision moves a UE from one cell to another cell. In an IAB system, an effect may be larger because a handover of an IAB node MT may lead to topology changes. Therefore, an IAB node may need to consider other criteria such as load balancing in addition to mobility-related measurements to make a decision to perform a handover. In such a system, consistent transmission of reference signals for mobility may be important. Therefore, an IAB node may be provided control signaling to inform a parent node (PN) of limitations it has on downlink and/or downstream communications such as for mobility-related reference signals”).
Claims 40-42 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 39 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 27, further comprising comparing the dynamic range report to a threshold for simultaneous operation" (see par. 0110 of Ghanbarinejad “the N sets 910 a second target receive power RXP2 for another communication from a child node (CN) or a UE. There may be a constraint that the ratio between RXP1 and RXP2, or the difference between RXP1 and RXP2 when described in decibels, must not exceed a threshold Q. This threshold may be set by the standard, configured by the network (e.g., semi-statically or dynamically indicated), or dependent on a capability of N.”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the power to thresholds as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Regarding Claim 43 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 39, wherein the threshold for simultaneous operation is based on the receiver linearity of the parent IAB node" (see claim 39 above, linearity is equated to capability).
Regarding Claim 44 Kowalski and Ghanbarinejad teach the method of claim 27, wherein the configuration is valid for a subset of slots" (see Ghanbarinejad par. 0081 “ information (e.g., including one or more configuration messages, which is referred to herein as a power-offset resource set (PORS) configuration) conveyed through a configuration and/or other control signaling may include: 1) an ID for the configuration; 2) a resource set: a) resources in time: slots, symbols, periodicity of occurrence, and so forth.”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure power for subset of slots as taught by Ghanbarinejad in the system of Kowalski, in order to satisfy power ratio constraints of the parent and child nodes (see e.g. par. 0138) and balance received powers are subject node (see par. 0076).
Regarding Claim 45 Kowalski teaches the limitations "The method of claim 27, wherein the configuration comprises one or more of a mode of simultaneous operation, a mode of no simultaneous operation, power control, and timing" (see par. 0051 configuration mode is “simultaneous”, abstract power control mode).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights