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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-4, 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem et al US 20220124796 A1 in view of Guo et al US 2020/0137592 A1 (cited by applicant).
4. Consider claim 1. Salem teaches (fig 2) an apparatus for wireless communication (110), comprising: a processor (200); a transceiver (202)communicatively coupled to the processor; and a memory (208) communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the apparatus is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, an indication of a power spectral density for a sounding reference signal (SRS), (from 0096…the BS 170 may indicate the spatial filter, to the UE 110, via a value in a dedicated SRS resource indicator (SRI) field in reference to the spatial filter the UE 110 has used to transmit the SRS indicated by the SRI field….)wherein the indication identifies a power spectral density value representing a power per resource unit (from 0120…value for the EDT.sub.Rx may be determined based on at least the target received power per resource block (RB), P.sub.0(j). This value may be found among open-loop UL power control (PC) parameters provided, by the BS 170, to the UE 110.….); and transmit, via the transceiver, the SRS at a power level that is based on the power spectral density value (from 0132 … the UE 110 has used to transmit the SRS indicated by the SRI field….). Although Salem discussing Power Spectral Density (PSD) in (0047) and provides his indicator (or value) in “power per resource block” as stated above, he doesn’t explicitly tie the two together and call it an indicator. However, Guo et al, from the same field of endeavor teaches such (see 0178). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to have the indicator identified as such since Salem et al already provides the same functional output. Method claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1, since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
5. For what is called for in apparatus claim 2 and similar method claim 11, see (0120) of Salem where he teaches claimed power resource block.
6. Regarding Claim 3 and similar method claim 12. Salem teaches (0153) wherein the apparatus is further configured to execute the transmission, via the transceiver, of the SRS at the power level when a usage parameter for the SRS is set to beam management to indicate that the SRS is to be used for beam management (…Such purposes may include supporting a MIMO feature or “usage” (i.e., beam management, codebook-based transmissions, non-codebook-based transmissions or antenna switching), or supporting positioning features….)
7. For what is called for in apparatus claim 4 and similar method claim 13, see (0179) of Guo which measures the pathloss PL from a downlink reference signal NR-SSS to execute the transmission.
8. For what is called for in apparatus claim 8 and similar method claim 16, see (0118) of Guo in which after it receives the indication including the proper power level adjustment for the Tx beam, transmits and further adjusts (after measuring the quality) the beam.
9. For what is called for in claim 9, see (0189) of Guo where the high layer signaling is part of the downlink signal.
10. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem et al US 20220124796 A1 in view of Chen WO-202155541-A1.
11. Consider claim 7. Salem fails to teach, but Chen, from the same field of endeaver does teach wherein the apparatus is further configured to maintain (…SRS resource set can adopt different TCI states, and these different TCI states correspond to the same closed-loop power control adjustment state index, and the terminal can determine according to the TCI state adopted by different SRS resources in the SRS resource set The closed-loop power control adjustment state index corresponding to the TCI state is the same….) an SRS closed loop power control adjustment state, wherein the SRS closed loop power control adjustment state is an offset in an uplink power level calculation for one or more other sounding reference signals (…one SRS resource set can be used for SRS transmission on one uplink antenna panel, and the same uplink antenna panel corresponds to one SRS resource set. The same closed-loop power control adjustment state can be used, and different uplink antenna panels use different The closed-loop power control adjustment status can realize the independent SRS closed-loop power control of each uplink antenna panel…); and one or more of determine the power level for the SRS independent of the SRS closed loop power control adjustment state, or reset the SRS closed loop power control adjustment state to zero before determining the power level for the SRS (…during signaling, the terminal resets the closed-loop power control adjustment state corresponding to the SRS resource set, and sets the corresponding value h .sub.b, f, c (i, l) to zero.….). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teachings of Chen in Salem in order to have more efficient power control. Method claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 7, since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
12. Claims 17-20, 23-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem et al US 20220124796 A1 in view of Guo et al US 2018/026132 A1 further in view of Volker et al US 2011/136484 A1.
13. Consider claim 17. The combination of Salem et al in view of Guo et al teaches all that is claims (as pointed above in the rejection of claim 10) with the exception of receiving, from an uplink (UL) receive point via the communication interface, an indication of a measured power of the SRS received by the UL receive point, wherein the SRS is transmitted at a power level that is based on the power spectral density value; and transmit, to the UE via the communication interface, an UL transmitter configuration based on the indication of the measured power of the SRS. However, Volker, from the same field of endeavor teaches such (see fig 2A, 0066 and 0080). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to add the additional measurement teaches of Volker in order to increase the cell usage in a densely coverage area.
14. Method claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 17 since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
15. For what is called for in claims 18, 19 and 26 see fig 2A, 0076 and 0078 of Volker where step 220 reads on claim 18 and step 250 reads on the selection of the UE after the measured difference that is stated in both claim 19 and 26.
16. For what is called for in claims 20 and 27, see the rejections of claim 2 and 11 above as it relates to (0120) of Salem et al.
17. For what is called for in claims 24 and 30, see the rejections of claim 9 above as it relates to Guo.
18. For what is called for in claim 23 and 29, see the rejection of claim 8 and 16 above as it relates to Guo.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 5-6, 14, 21, 22 and 28 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.
20. Regarding Claim 5. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the apparatus is further configured to store a plurality of power spectral density values, wherein power spectral density value is one of the plurality of power spectral density values. Claim 6 is objected to as allowable since it depends upon claim 5. Claims 14, 21 and 28 are objected to since they contain the same limitations as in claim 6. Claim 22 is objected to as allowable since it depends upon claim 21.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights