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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 20210297959 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Claim 1 is a method of claim 9 and is thus rejected.
Claim 4 is a method of claim 12 and is thus rejected.
Claim 5 is a method of claim 13 and is thus rejected.
Claim 6 is a method of claim 14 and is thus rejected.
Claim 7 is a method of claim 15 and is thus rejected.
Claim 8 is a method of claim 16 and is thus rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches,
A User Equipment (UE) for power control enhancement, the UE comprising:
at least one processor; and (figure 15b, label 1531, paragraph 0226)
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to: (figure 15b, labels 1535, paragraph 0226)
determine a first power state based on a first evaluation period; (Figure 53, label 5330, paragraph 0491 – The UE (label 5315) triggers a first panel power state report procedure)
determine a second power state, which is associated with a new transmission, based on a second evaluation period; (Figure 53, label 5340, paragraph 0491 – The UE (label 5315) triggers a second panel power state report procedure)
determine whether a power state change has occurred by comparing the first power state with the second power state; and (paragraph 0507 - The first panel is compared to the second panel based on a threshold to predict whether a power state change has occurred or is likely to occur. The panel power state report procedure is then implemented based on that determination of a power state change occurring.)
in response to determining that the power state change for the new transmission has occurred, trigger a Power Headroom Report (PHR) procedure. (figure 54, label 5304B, paragraph 0507 – A panel power state report procedure may be triggered if the change of the P-MPR (power management maximum power reduction) of the first panel is greater than the change of the P-MPR of the second panel.)
wherein:
each of the first power state and the second power state is one of a High Power State (HPS) or a Nominal Power State (NPS), the HPS being a state in which the UE is allowed to use an increased power for the new transmission and the NPS being a state in which the UE is not allowed to use the increased power for the new transmission. (paragraphs 0293-0307 generally; figures 29, 30. paragraph 0293, 0294 – The UE (wireless device) has both a normal transmit power state and a scaled down state. Paragraph 0294 - The scaled down power state is depending on the maximum power exposure and measurements corresponding to a threshold. The scaled down power state can be analogous to a nominal power state and the non-scaled down power state can be analogous to a high power state due to the transmission power being higher or sometimes exceeding the threshold an example of a threshold being (maxUplinkDutyCycle-FR2) as seen in paragraph 0293. Paragraph 0288 – Definition of P-MPM (maximum power reduction) for the wireless device)).
the first power state is the HPS in a case that a first average percentage of uplink symbols transmitted during the first evaluation period is not larger than a duty-cycle value that is associated with an inter-band Carrier Aggregation (CA) band combination, and is the NPS in a case that the first average percentage is larger than the duty-cycle value. (Paragraphs 0293-0307 generally; Figure 29, 30. Paragraph 302 – “A first uplink duty cycle of the first panel may be defined/indicated as percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent/transmitted via the first panel within/during an evaluation period. A second uplink duty cycle of the second panel 2920 may be defined/indicated as a percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent/transmitted via the second panel within/during the evaluation period.” paragraph 0303, 0304– A power reduction is configured if the first uplink duty cycle exceeds a threshold which as mentioned can be a maxUplinkDutyCycle-FR2. Paragraph 0304 “The wireless device 2910 may determine to apply the P-MPR value based on one of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle being greater than the threshold. The wireless device 2910 may apply the P-MPR based on at least one of: the first uplink duty cycle, the second uplink duty cycle, a greatest of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle, and/or a least of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle.” Paragraph 0305 - “The duty cycle parameter (e.g., maxUplinkDutyCycle) may indicate a percentage or quantity (e.g., maximum percentage or quantity) of symbols during an evaluation period (e.g., 1 second or any other duration) that may be scheduled for uplink transmission, for example, which may help to ensure compliance with applicable electromagnetic power density exposure requirements (e.g., provided by one or more regulatory bodies, standards organizations, etc.).” Paragraph 0305 – The use of a maximum power reduction (P-MPR, as defined in paragraph 0288) is dependent on whether the first/second uplink duty cycle exceeded the duty cycle threshold, if it does not exceed the threshold than the high power state would be used and if it did exceed the threshold the nominal power state would be used (reduced power in the reference). Paragraph 0298, 0299 – use of RRC messaging. Paragraphs 0146-0150 - Use of inter-band CA and corresponding RRC signaling.)
the second power state is the HPS in a case that a second average percentage of uplink symbols transmitted during the second evaluation period is not larger than the duty-cycle value, and is the NPS in a case that the second average percentage is larger than the duty-cycle value, and (Paragraphs 0293-0307 generally; Figure 29, 30. Paragraph 0302 – “A first uplink duty cycle of the first panel may be defined/indicated as percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent/transmitted via the first panel within/during an evaluation period. A second uplink duty cycle of the second panel 2920 may be defined/indicated as a percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent/transmitted via the second panel within/during the evaluation period.” paragraph 0303, 0304– A power reduction is configured if the second uplink duty cycle exceeds a threshold which as mentioned can be a maxUplinkDutyCycle-FR2. Paragraph 0304 “The wireless device 2910 may determine to apply the P-MPR value based on one of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle being greater than the threshold. The wireless device 2910 may apply the P-MPR based on at least one of: the first uplink duty cycle, the second uplink duty cycle, a greatest of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle, and/or a least of the first uplink duty cycle and the second uplink duty cycle.” Paragraph 0305 - “The duty cycle parameter (e.g., maxUplinkDutyCycle) may indicate a percentage or quantity (e.g., maximum percentage or quantity) of symbols during an evaluation period (e.g., 1 second or any other duration) that may be scheduled for uplink transmission, for example, which may help to ensure compliance with applicable electromagnetic power density exposure requirements (e.g., provided by one or more regulatory bodies, standards organizations, etc.).” Paragraph 0305 – The use of a maximum power reduction (P-MPR, as defined in paragraph 0288) is dependent on whether the first/second uplink duty cycle exceeded the duty cycle threshold, if it does not exceed the threshold than the high power state would be used and if it did exceed the threshold the nominal power state would be used (reduced power in the reference).
each of the first average percentage and the second average percentage is determined for the inter-band CA band combination based on percentages of uplink symbols transmitted on a first NR band and a second NR band of the inter-band CA band combination, the first NR band and the second NR band being associated with different power classes. (Paragraph 0295 - “FIG. 27B shows an example of power reduction based on an exposure. A wireless device (and/or any other device such as a base station, an IoT device, a core network device, etc.) may have a maximum transmission power 2701 (e.g., Max. UE Tx Power) for transmissions during which no MPE (or other exposure requirement/limit) is identified. This maximum transmission power may correspond to P.sub.CMAX and/or any other indication of a maximum transmission power (e.g., maximum allowable transmission power).” Paragraph 0365 – The value of P.sub.CMAX may be determined by a value of a power class and may be different for each band/panel (paragraphs 0359 “The wireless device 3515 may trigger an uplink beam report (e.g., comprising an indication of proximity detection) based on change of a first P-MPR of the first panel and change of a second P-MPR of the second panel (e.g., 3503A). The change of P-MPR may be determined per panel.”). Paragraph 0358 – “The wireless device may trigger an uplink beam report via a PUCCH (or a PUSCH), for example, if the wireless device determines that the first P-MPR of the first panel is greater than the second P-MPR of the second panel. The uplink beam report may comprise at least one of: a first index identifying the first panel, the first P-MPR value, a first P.sub.CMAX determined on the first panel, a second index identifying the second panel, the second P-MPR value, and/or a second PCMAX determined on the second panel.” Paragraph 0350 – “An uplink duty cycle may be evaluated on a per-panel basis. An uplink duty cycle may be evaluated per-panel, for example, if the wireless device switches uplink transmission between the first panel and the second panel. A first uplink duty cycle of the first panel may be defined/indicated as percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent (e.g., transmitted) via the first panel within/during an evaluation period. A second uplink duty cycle of the second panel may be defined/indicated as a percentage or quantity of uplink symbols sent (e.g., transmitted) via the second panel within/during the evaluation period.” Paragraph 0298, 0299 – use of RRC messaging. Paragraphs 0146-0150 - Use of inter-band CA and corresponding RRC signaling.)
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
transmit, to a Base Station (BS), an indication indicating that the UE supports the new transmission under a CA architecture across different frequency bands with different power classes. (paragraph 0146 – The wireless device (UE) supports carrier aggregation to increase data rates. Figure 10A, Paragraph 0147 – The CA can be across different frequency bands. Paragraph 0365 – The UE uses power classes to calculate various metrics. This indicates that the UE supports different power classes that can used in transmission.)
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
transmit a PHR using the new transmission after triggering the PHR procedure; and (paragraph 0467, figure 47, label 4730 – The UE sends a new PHR in response to the PHR triggering (label 4740).
start a prohibit timer after transmitting the PHR, wherein the UE is prohibited from transmitting another PHR while the prohibit timer is running. (paragraph 0467, figure 47, label 4750 – A prohibit timer is started after transmitting the PHR (label 4740). All other triggered PHR(s) are cancelled (label 4760)).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
receive, from a Base Station (BS), an indication indicating that the UE is allowed to trigger the PHR procedure in response to determining that the power state change has occurred. (figure 46, labels 4630, 4660, paragraph 0455 – The UE triggers a PHR due to a power backoff changing more than a 2nd threshold.)
Regarding claim 14, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein:
the first evaluation period includes one or more first Uplink (UL) transmissions prior to the new transmission, and the second evaluation period includes the new transmission. (Figure 29, paragraph 0302 – The first evaluation period includes the first panel (label 2915). The second evaluation period includes the second panel (label 2920). The first panel transmission occurs during a first time period and the second panel transmissions occurs during a second time period.)
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 14, wherein the first evaluation period further includes a second UL transmission after the new transmission. (paragraph 0561 – A second transmission occurs after the first transmission of the first panel. “The wireless device may determine, based on measurement of a reference signal associated with the first antenna panel, a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with the first antenna panel. After transmitting the indication, the wireless device may receive downlink control information indicating switching from the first antenna panel to a second antenna panel for uplink transmission. The indication may indicate at least one of: the transmission power reduction value associated with the first antenna panel; and/or a second transmission power reduction value associated with a second antenna panel of the at least one antenna panel.“)
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 15, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
receive, in a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasion, a first Downlink Control Information (DCI) format that schedules the new transmission; and (paragraph 0381, figure 37, label 3725 – The base station receives the first DCI for transmission of a first BWP.)
receive, in the same PDCCH monitoring occasion, a second DCI format that schedules the second UL transmission. (paragraph 0382, figure 37, label 3730 – The second DCI format is received from the base station to schedule a TB transmission.)
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, 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.
Claims 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Oroskar et al. (US 10652890 B1) hereinafter Oroskar.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
transmit, to a Base Station (BS), an indication indicating that the UE supports transmissions under a Carrier Aggregation (CA) architecture across different frequency bands [with different power classes]. (paragraph 0146 – The wireless device (UE) supports carrier aggregation to increase data rates. Figure 10A, Paragraph 0147 – The CA can be across different frequency bands.)
Zhou may not explicitly teach the different power classes.
Oroskar teaches,
[with different power classes]. (column 13, lines 39-57 figures 6a, 6b – Wireless devices with a high power class use a higher transmission power level than those assigned to a standard power class.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the different power class teachings of Oroskar. The purpose of doing so is to determine and avoid interference between different power class devices (column 1, lines 33-62).
Claim 2 is a method of claim 10 and is thus rejected.
Claims 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Selvaganapathyet al. (US 20220038203 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou teaches,
The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the UE to:
transmit, to a Base Station (BS), an indication indicating a maximum average percentage of symbols, during an Uplink (UL) duty cycle, that are permitted to be scheduled for a UL transmission [at the increased power]. (paragraph 0353 – The duty cycle indication indicates a percentage of symbols that can be scheduled for uplink transmissions to comply with power requirements.)
Zhou may not explicitly teach the UL transmission at the increased power.
Selvaganapathy teaches,
[at the increased power]. (paragraph 0057 – power boosting increases transmission power by a predetermined amount.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the increased power teachings of Selvaganapathy. The purpose of doing so is to improve peak-to-peak average power ration in uplink transmissions (paragraph 0003).
Claim 3 is a method of claim 11 and is thus rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
US 20220240234 A1 – paragraph 0092: discussion of changing transmit power for increasing slots or symbols. General discussion of using CA.
US 20240284339 A1 – paragraphs 102, 0108: increasing transmission power, duty cycles, priority of symbols.
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 Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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.
/RYAN CRIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights