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
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 6/16/2026.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-30 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) (pages 8-11) in a reply filed 6/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to dependent claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the remarks, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MolavianJazi et al., (Pub. No.: US 2020/0053724 A1), in view of Kalyanasundaram et al., (Pub. No.: US 2023/0262613 A1)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
MolavianJazi does not teach the limitation in claim 3
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), in [0100], MolavianJazi further mentions that "UE may be semi-statically configured with an MGP fraction…" which maps to receiving an indication and "the UE reduces transmission power in any portion of subframe i.sub.2 of the SCG (i e LTE) so that {circumflex over (P)}.sub.MCG(i1)+{circumflex over (P)}.sub.SCG(i2)≤{circumflex over (P)}.sub.Total.sup.EN-DC in any portion of subframe i.sub.2, where {circumflex over (P)}.sub.MCG(i.sub.1) and {circumflex over (P)}.sub.SCG(i.sub.2) are the linear values of the total UE transmission powers in slot i.sub.1 of the MCG and in subframe i.sub.2 of the SCG, respectively" which means the transmit power is divided between slot 1 and slot 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 (page 11) in a reply filed 6/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
On page 12 of the remarks, in regard to the dependent claims, the Applicant states that the claims are allowable at least due to the deficiencies of the ground of rejection applied to the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner kindly refer the Applicant to the reasoning pertaining to the independent claims, detailed above.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-21, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MolavianJazi et al. US 2020/0053724 A1 (hereinafter “MolavianJazi”) in view of Lee et al. US 20180294940 (hereinafter “Lee”)
As to claim 1 and 28 (claim 28 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 1):
MolavianJazi discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a transceiver; one or more memories configured to, individually or in combination, store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (FIG. 2, MolavianJazi): transmit, for a network entity, an indication of available energy at the apparatus for a period of time and a buffer size at the apparatus; (MolavianJazi, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses time period 410 which is period of time, Fig. 7 [0086] a time period 710, Fig. 8, paragraph [0087] a time period 810, paragraph [0037] disclose indicate, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses a first time 402 indicates/a time period 410 indicates)
and allocate (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0009]-[0010] transmission power which is transmit power allocation/transmission power allocated), based on the available energy and according to the sequence of multiple scheduling grants, a transmit power for transmitting the communications in the resources over the period of time or one or more additional periods of time. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses time period 410 which is period of time, Fig. 7 [0086] a time period 710, Fig. 8, paragraph [0087] a time period 810, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048] transmitter 210 transmits transmit power for uplink transmission, paragraph [0134] discloses periodic sequence, paragraphs [0009]-[0010] disclose scheduling information, Figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0046], and [0050] disclose scheduling information, Fig. 11, paragraph [0169] discloses scheduling information, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses PUSCH grant) (“In certain embodiments, a “cut-off” time for how to determine whether a PHR value for a serving cell in an NR-CA (or NR-DC or MR-DC) operation may be based on actual or virtual PHR to avoid tight timeline issues for PHR computation for transmissions in which UL grant and/or scheduling DCI arrive late (e.g., very close to the start of the PUSCH transmission that carries the PHR). The “cut-off” time for actual and/or virtual PHR determination may be defined as the first UL grant for a new transmission after PHR trigger, so a UE may report actual PHR for all overlapping transmissions (e.g., on all cells) for which UL grants are received before “the first UL grant after PHR trigger,” and reports virtual PHR for all other cells even if they have a transmission, but whose UL grant is received after “the first UL grant after PHR trigger”, MolavianJazi [0103])
MolavianJazi as described above does not explicitly teach:
receive, from the network entity and based on transmitting the indication of the available energy and the buffer size, a sequence of multiple scheduling grants indicating resources for the apparatus to use in transmitting the communications in the period of time, wherein the resources indicated by the sequence of multiple scheduling grants are based on the available energy and the buffer size at the apparatus;
However, Lee further teaches receiving information about the buffer and power availability for scheduling which includes:
receive, from the network entity and based on transmitting the indication of the available energy and the buffer size, a sequence of multiple scheduling grants indicating resources for the apparatus to use in transmitting the communications in the period of time, wherein the resources indicated by the sequence of multiple scheduling grants are based on the available energy and the buffer size at the apparatus; (“Terminals that already have a valid grant obviously do not need to request uplink resources. However, to allow the scheduler to determine the amount of resources to grant to each terminal in future subframes, information about the buffer situation and the power availability is useful, as discussed above. This information is provided to the scheduler as part of the uplink transmission through MAC control element. The LCID field in one of the MAC subheaders is set to a reserved value indicating the presence of a buffer status report”, Lee [0096]) (“the MAC layer can receive up to two grants (one per HARQ process) for the same TTI from lower layers.”, Lee [0099])
MolavianJazi and Lee are analogous because they both pertain to uplink scheduling.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving information about the buffer and power availability for scheduling as described in Lee into MolavianJazi. By modifying the method to include receiving information about the buffer and power availability for scheduling as taught by Lee, the benefits of efficient usage of resources (Lee [0096]) and improved handling of power limitations (MolavianJazi [0155]) are achieved.
As to claim 2 and 29 (claim 29 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 2):
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive, from the network entity and based on transmitting the indication, a second indication related to using the available energy to allocate transmit power for transmitting communications in the period of time, wherein allocating the transmit power is further based on the second indication. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2. paragraph [0047]-[0048] memory 204, processor 202, paragraph [0048] the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0009]-[0010] transmission power which is transmit power allocation/transmission power allocated)
As to claim 3:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating to allocate the transmit power as an energy level divided by a number of slots in the period of time. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0084] second time 504 indicates) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0009]-[0010] transmission power which is transmit power allocation/transmission power allocated, paragraphs [0061], [0064]-[0065], [0077]-[0078], and [0081] disclose slots/multiple mini-slots which is being interpreted as number of slots)
As to claim 5:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive, from the network entity, a third indication of the scaling factor in RRC signaling. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2. paragraph [0047]-[0048] memory 204, processor 202, paragraph [0048] the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0039], and [0041] network unit 104 is a network entity) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070], [0079], and [0093] disclose power scaling/exact scaling, paragraphs [0075], [0077], [0106], and [0107] disclose RRC signaling)
As to claim 6:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating a scaling factor divided by a number of slots in the period of time for multiplying the available energy to allocate the transmit power in each of the number of slots. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0084] second time 504 indicates) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0066], [0068], [0070], [0079], and [0093] disclose power scaling/exact scaling, paragraphs [0061], [0064]-[0065], [0077]-[0078], and [0081] disclose slots/multiple mini-slots which is being interpreted as number of slots)
As to claim 7:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating to allocate the transmit power as a maximum transmit power. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0084] second time 504 indicates) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0009]-[0010] transmission power which is transmit power allocation / transmission power allocated)
As to claim 8:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating to limit a maximum transmit power for the transmit power at least a portion of slots in the period of time. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0084] second time 504 indicates) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses time period 410 which is period of time, Fig. 7 [0086] a time period 710, Fig. 8, paragraph [0087] a time period 810, paragraphs [0061], [0064]-[0065], [0077]-[0078], and [0081] disclose slots/multiple mini-slots which is being interpreted as number of slots/portion of slots, paragraphs [0003], [0066], [0068], [[0070] [0088]-[0091, and [0100]-[0101] disclose maximum transmit power “Pcmax”)
As to claim 9:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating a target duty cycle for the apparatus over the period of time. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses time period 410 which is period of time, Fig. 7 [0086] a time period 710, Fig. 8, paragraph [0087] a time period 810)
As to claim 10:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive the second indication in a media access control (MAC)-control element (CE). (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2. paragraph [0047]-[0048] memory 204, processor 202, paragraph [0048] the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0084] second time 504 indicates) (MolavianJazi, paragraphs [0106]-[0108] disclose MAC CE)
As to claim 11:
MolavianJazi discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to estimate the available energy based on a history of transmit power used by the apparatus in multiple previous periods of time. (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0047] apparatus 200) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 2. paragraph [0047]-[0048] memory 204, processor 202, paragraph [0048] the processor 202 executes instructions stored in the memory 204) (MolavianJazi, Fig. 4, paragraph [0083] discloses time period 410 which is period of time, Fig. 7 [0086] a time period 710, Fig. 8, paragraph [0087] a time period 810)
As to claim 12 and 30 (claim 30 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 12):
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9 from the perspective of the receiving end.
As to claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 10 from the perspective of the receiving end.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MolavianJazi in view of Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fong et al. US 20110080893 (hereinafter “Fong”)
As to claim 4:
The combination of MolavianJazi and Lee as discussed above does not teach:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating a scaling factor, greater than one, for multiplying the available energy to allocate the transmit power.
However, Fong further teaches scaling factor for power allocation which includes:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second indication includes a value indicating a scaling factor, greater than one, for multiplying the available energy to allocate the transmit power. (“the mobile station 161 in the embodiment shown adjusts the control channel power stored in the control channel power store 270 by multiplying the control channel power in the control channel power store 270 by the power control parameter in the power control parameter field 268 (shown in FIG. 23). Therefore, in the embodiment shown, if the power control parameter is greater than 1, then the control channel power in the control channel power store 270 is increased by the scaling factor represented in the power control parameter, and if the power control parameter is less than one, then the control channel power in the control channel power store 270 is decreased by the scaling factor represented in the power control parameter”, Fong [0141]) (“FIG. 23 is a schematic representation of an example power control message sent by the base station control system of FIG. 14”, Fong [0063])
MolavianJazi, Lee, and Fong are analogous because they pertain to uplink scheduling.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include scaling factor for power allocation as described in Fong into MolavianJazi as modified by Lee. By modifying the method to include scaling factor for power allocation as taught by Fong, the benefits of efficient usage of resources (Lee [0096]), power control based on channel conditions (Fong [0035]), and improved handling of power limitations (MolavianJazi [0155]) are achieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights