DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 1 July 2026, no claims have been amended.
Claims 10-14 are now pending.
Claims 10-14 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2023/0039771 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0225247 A1).
Regarding claim 10, "A terminal comprising:" Liu teaches a terminal (UE) configured for wireless communication. See, e.g., Liu, Abstract; Fig. 1.
"a receiver that receives medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) including:" Liu teaches a receiver configured to receive a MAC CE for configuring a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) pathloss reference signal for one or more sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI)-PUSCH power controls. See Liu, Abstract; ¶¶ [0006], [0054]-[0062], [0072]-[0076].
"one or more fields indicating one or more sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI)-physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) power control IDs;" Liu teaches that the MAC CE includes one or more SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl IDs identifying one or more SRI-PUSCH power controls to which the MAC CE applies. See Liu, ¶¶ [0054]-[0058]; claims 2, 18, and 26.
"a field indicating a pathloss reference signal;" Liu teaches that the MAC CE further includes one or more PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS IDs identifying the pathloss reference signal corresponding to the indicated SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl ID(s). See Liu, ¶¶ [0057]-[0062]; claims 3, 19, and 27.
"and a processor that controls, based on the MAC CE, transmission of a PUSCH." Liu teaches a processor configured to control PUSCH transmission based on the received MAC CE. See Liu, Abstract; ¶¶ [0006], [0072]-[0076].
However, Liu does not expressly teach "a field indicating whether the one or more SRI-PUSCH power control IDs correspond to a first sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set or correspond to a second SRS resource set."
Huang teaches first and second SRS resource sets associated with different transmission reception points (TRPs). Specifically, Huang teaches that a first specific SRS resource set is associated with a first TRP and a second specific SRS resource set is associated with a second TRP (Huang, ¶¶ [0513]-[0516]). Huang further teaches including a TRP-related index in the SRS-ResourceSet configuration to distinguish the TRP associated with the SRS resource set (Huang, ¶ [0516]). Huang also teaches associating SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl information and corresponding PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS information with the respective first and second SRS resource sets (Huang, ¶¶ [0435]-[0446]; Figs. 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Liu's MAC CE to include an indication identifying whether the indicated SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl ID corresponds to the first or second SRS resource set in view of Huang's teaching of distinguishing first and second SRS resource sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such an indication so that the receiving terminal can correctly associate the indicated SRI-PUSCH power-control configuration and corresponding pathloss reference signal with the appropriate SRS resource set in a multi-TRP deployment, thereby improving the accuracy and flexibility of uplink power-control signaling.
Accordingly, claim 10 would have been obvious over Liu in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 11, Liu and Huang teach the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
"wherein usage of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set is codebook or non-codebook." Huang teaches that the disclosed multi-TRP framework supports both codebook-based and non-codebook-based uplink transmission using the first and second SRS resource sets. See, e.g., Huang, ¶¶ [0418]-[0426].
Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious over Liu in view of Huang.
Regarding claims 12–14, these claims recite a method (claim 12), a base station (claim 13), and a system comprising a terminal and a base station (claim 14), each corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10. As such, claims 12–14 are similarly rejected as being obvious over Nokia in view of Huawei for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights