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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a device (Fig 1 or fig. 3, electronic device 101 or 300) for reporting power-related information (Paragraph [0051]……..transmission power information), applicable to a first network node, the first network node comprising a first module (See fig. 3, item 310) and a second module 320, the device comprising: reporting processor circuitry provided in the first module of the first network node and configured to report power-related information of the second module (Paragraph [0051]……. the electronic device 101 may transfer, to the external device, transmission power information of a first communication module or a second communication module of the electronic device 101. The external electronic device may generate, on the basis of the transmission power information received from the electronic device 101, control information for controlling transmission power of the first communication module or the second communication module of the electronic device 101 and may transmit the generated control information to the electronic device 101. The electronic device 101 may control, on the basis of the received control information, transmission power of the first communication module or the second communication module through the device management application).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the power-related information comprises uplink power-related information and/or downlink power-related information of the second module (Paragraph [0051]……. the electronic device 101 may transfer, to the external device, transmission power information (uplink power information) of a first communication module or a second communication module of the electronic device 101
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the reporting processor circuitry further reports power-related information of the first module (Paragraph [0051]……. the electronic device 101 may transfer, to the external device, transmission power information of a first communication module or a second communication module of the electronic device 101. The external electronic device may generate, on the basis of the transmission power information received from the electronic device 101, control information for controlling transmission power of the first communication module or the second communication module of the electronic device 101 and may transmit the generated control information to the electronic device 101. The electronic device 101 may control, on the basis of the received control information, transmission power of the first communication module or the second communication module through the device management application).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the first module is a terminal equipment (MT) module (Fig. 3, item 310), and the second module is a radio unit (RU) module (Fig. 3, item 320).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527).
Regarding claim 3, Lee fails to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein, the power-related information comprises at least one of power headroom, a gain and transmit power of the second module.
However, in related art, Uchino teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the power-related information comprises at least one of power headroom, a gain and transmit power of the second module (Paragraphs [0009, 0035, and 0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Uchino’s teaching about wherein, the power-related information comprises at least one of power headroom, a gain and transmit power of the second module with Lee’s invention in order to facilitate scheduling of uplink transmissions.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527), and further in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2023/0189355).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Uchino teach all the claimed elements in claim 3. In addition, Uchino teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein, the power headroom of the second module comprises uplink power headroom of the second module and/or downlink power headroom of the second module (Paragraphs [0009, 0035, and 0121]), but does not specifically teach the uplink power headroom of the second module being first power headroom, and the downlink power headroom of the second module being second power headroom.
However, in related art, Damnjanovic teaches the uplink power headroom of the second module being first power headroom, and the downlink power headroom of the second module being second power headroom (Paragraphs [0130, 0175, and 0232]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Damnjanovic’s teaching about the uplink power headroom of the second module being first power headroom, and the downlink power headroom of the second module being second power headroom with Lee’s, and Uchino’s invention in order to establish a sidelink communication link for communications between a base station and a second UE via the first UE.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee, Uchino, and Damnjanovic teach all the claimed elements in claim 4. In addition, Damnjanovic teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein, the first power headroom and/or the second power headroom are for one cell, or one BWP of a cell, or one carrier, or one pass band (Paragraphs [0209-0210]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2023/0189355), and further in view of Cui (US 2018/0376434).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Uchino, and Damnjanovic fail to teach the device according to claim 4, wherein, the first power headroom denotes a difference between a current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated uplink transmit power, and/or, the second power headroom denotes a difference between the current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated downlink transmit power.
However, in related art, Cui teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein, the first power headroom denotes a difference between a current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated uplink transmit power (Paragraph [0004]……… user equipment (UE) reports a power headroom to a base station (eNB) through a Media Access Control (MAC) layer. The power headroom indicates a difference between a maximum transmission power of the user equipment and an estimated uplink transmission power of the user equipment and is an important basis for the base station to perform uplink scheduling and power control), and/or, the second power headroom denotes a difference between the current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated downlink transmit power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Cui’s teaching about wherein, the first power headroom denotes a difference between a current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated uplink transmit power with Lee’s, Uchino’s, and Damnjanovic’s invention in order to utilize radio resource efficiently.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of You et al. (US 2020/0077451).
Regarding claim 7, Lee fails to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports at least one piece of uplink power headroom of the second module and at least one frequency band identifier (ID) to which the uplink power headroom corresponds to a network device, and/or, the reporting processor circuitry reports at least one piece of downlink power headroom of the second module and at least one frequency band identifier (ID) to which the downlink power headroom corresponds to the network device.
However, in related art, You teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports at least one piece of uplink power headroom of the second module (Paragraph [0042]) and at least one frequency band identifier (ID) to which the uplink power headroom corresponds to a network device (See claims 9 and 19; Paragraphs [0039, 0207]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use You’s teaching about wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports at least one piece of uplink power headroom of the second module and at least one frequency band identifier (ID) to which the uplink power headroom corresponds to a network device with Lee’s invention in order to efficiently utilize resources in a wireless communication system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Ryoo et al. (US 2014/0329551).
Regarding claim 8, Lee fails to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports the power headroom of the second module via a first media access control (MAC) control element (CE).
However, in related art, Ryoo teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports the power headroom of the second module via a first media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (Paragraph [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ryoo’s teaching about wherein, the reporting processor circuitry reports the power headroom of the second module via a first media access control (MAC) control element (CE) with Lee’s invention in order to communicate with a macro BS and a small BS inside limited power, and a BS performs uplink scheduling based on a power headroom amount of the MS.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2023/0189355), and further in view of Niu et al. (US 2020/0305148).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Uchino, and Damnjanovic fail to teach the device according to claim 4, wherein the device further comprises: a transmitter provided in the second module and configured to transmit reference signals, and the second power headroom denotes a difference between the current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated transmit power of the reference signals.
However, in related art, Niu teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein the device further comprises: a transmitter provided in the second module and configured to transmit reference signals, and the second power headroom denotes a difference between the current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated transmit power of the reference signals (Paragraph [0025]……. Power headroom (PHR) value is defined as the difference between the terminal maximum transmit power and the estimated power for UL communication, including shared channel transmission, sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission, and/or physical control channel (PUCCH) transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Niu’s teaching about wherein the device further comprises: a transmitter provided in the second module and configured to transmit reference signals, and the second power headroom denotes a difference between the current maximum transmit power of the second module in a frequency band and estimated transmit power of the reference signals with Lee’s, Uchino’s, and Damnjanovic’s invention in order to control the overall operation of the UE.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee, Uchino, Damnjanovic, and Niu teach all the claimed elements in claim 9. In addition, Niu teaches the device according to claim 9, wherein, the reference signals comprise at least one of a synchronization signal block (SSB), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) and a downlink sounding reference signal (SRS) (Paragraph [0025]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527), and further in view of Polehn et al. (US 2016/0080073).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and Uchino fail to teach the device according to claim 3, wherein, the first module reports a gain of the second module in at least one frequency band to the network device.
However, in related art, Polehn teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein, the first module reports a gain of the second module in at least one frequency band to the network device (Paragraph [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Polehn’s teaching about wherein, the first module reports a gain of the second module in at least one frequency band to the network device with Lee’s, and Uchino’s invention in order to realizing optimization of network performances.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527) in view of Polehn et al. (US 2016/0080073), and further Raghavan et al. (US 2021/0391966).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee, Uchino, and Polehn fail to the device according to claim 11, wherein, the gain is for one cell, or one bandwidth part (BWP) of a cell, or one carrier, or one pass band.
However, in related art, Raghavan teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein, the gain is for one cell, or one bandwidth part (BWP) of a cell, or one carrier, or one pass band (Paragraphs [0053 and 0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Raghavan’s teaching about wherein, the gain is for one cell, or one bandwidth part (BWP) of a cell, or one carrier, or one pass band with Lee’s, Uchino’s, and Polehn’s invention in order to facilitate communication between BS and UE.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0227862).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Uchino fail to teach the device according to claim 3, wherein, the first module reports the gain of the second module via a second MAC CE or radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
However, in related art, Liu teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein, the first module reports the gain of the second module via a second MAC CE or radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Paragraph [0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Liu’s teaching about wherein, the first module reports the gain of the second module via a second MAC CE or radio resource control (RRC) signaling with Lee’s and Uchino’s invention in order to allocate radio resources to the designated terminal.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Uchino et al. (US 2021/0235527) in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0227862) in view of Sun et al. (US 2023/0110967), and further in view of Clare et al. (US 2011/0080267).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, Uchino, and Liu fail to teach the device according to claim 13, wherein, the second MAC CE or the RRC signaling comprises a frequency band identifier (ID) and an uplink gain and/or a downlink gain corresponding to the frequency band identifier.
However, in related art, Sun teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein, the second MAC CE or the RRC signaling comprises a frequency band identifier (ID) (Paragraph [0120]….. the frequency band group ID can be given in the MAC CE to update all of the control beams in that frequency band group). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Sun’s teaching about wherein, the second MAC CE or the RRC signaling comprises a frequency band identifier (ID) with Lee’s, Uchino’s, and Liu’s invention in order to utilize radio resource efficiently.
The combination of Lee, Uchino, Liu, and Sun fail to teach uplink or downlink gain corresponding to the frequency band identifier.
However, in related art, Clare teaches uplink or downlink gain corresponding to the frequency band identifier (Paragraphs [0220-0221], especially Paragraph [0220]………. the calibration feedback processor 1410 processes the data received from the calibration nodes 1230 using an algorithm to generate specific commands for the beamforming nodes 1210 to control the phase and/or gain of the radio frequency identification signal 1160 transmitted using RFID channel antenna 1260). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Clare’s teaching about uplink or downlink gain corresponding to the frequency band identifier with Lee, Uchino, Liu, and Sun’s invention in order to efficiently utilize resources in a wireless communication system.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Futaki et al. (US 2018/0255545).
Regarding claim 16, Lee fails to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein, in an MAC CE for reporting power-related information, power headroom to which a first cell corresponds is power headroom of the first module, and power headroom to which a second cell corresponds is power headroom of the second module, and the second cell comprises an operating frequency band of the second module.
However, in related art, Futaki teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, in an MAC CE for reporting power-related information, power headroom to which a first cell corresponds is power headroom of the first module, and power headroom to which a second cell corresponds is power headroom of the second module, and the second cell comprises an operating frequency band of the second module (Claims 44-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Futaki’s teaching about wherein, in an MAC CE for reporting power-related information, power headroom to which a first cell corresponds is power headroom of the first module, and power headroom to which a second cell corresponds is power headroom of the second module, and the second cell comprises an operating frequency band of the second module with Lee’s invention in order to communicate with each other using a plurality of cells.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Futaki et al. (US 2018/0255545), and further in view of Narasimha et al. (US 2012/0218904).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Futaki fail to teach the device according to claim 16, wherein, at least one type of power headroom of the first module or at least one type of power headroom of the second module has a priority for reporting.
However, in related art, Narasimha teaches the device according to claim 16, wherein, at least one type of power headroom of the first module or at least one type of power headroom of the second module has a priority for reporting (See abstract….. The terminal is configured to transmit a power headroom report of a first type, determine that a condition for transmission of a power headroom report of a second type is satisfied, and transmits a power headroom report of the second type. In other embodiments, essential power headroom reports are prioritized over non-essential power headroom reports). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Narasimha’s teaching about wherein, at least one type of power headroom of the first module or at least one type of power headroom of the second module has a priority for reporting with Lee’s and Futaki’s invention in order to uplink transmission power to be maintained at an appropriate level.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Tang et al. (US 2019/0082346).
Regarding claim 18, Lee fails to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein, when a second condition is satisfied, the reporting processor circuitry reports a gain of the second module.
However, in related art, Tang teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, when a second condition is satisfied, the reporting processor circuitry reports a gain of the second module (Claims 19 and 20; Paragraph [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Tang’s teaching about wherein, when a second condition is satisfied, the reporting processor circuitry reports a gain of the second module with Lee’s invention in order to communicate with each other using a plurality of cells.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0296460) in view of Tang et al. (US 2019/0082346), and further in view of Kuo (US 2022/0225398).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee and Tang fail to teach the device according to claim 18, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following conditions that: a third timer expires while the first module obtains an uplink resource for new data transmission, and a change between a gain of the second module in a frequency band and a gain of last power reporting is greater than or equal to a third threshold; a fourth timer expires; and an RRC layer configures or reconfigures a gain reporting function for the first module.
However, in related art, Kuo teaches the device according to claim 18, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following conditions that: a third timer expires while the first module obtains an uplink resource for new data transmission, and a change between a gain of the second module in a frequency band and a gain of last power reporting is greater than or equal to a third threshold; a fourth timer expires (Paragraph [0080]); and an RRC layer configures or reconfigures a gain reporting function for the first module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Kuo’s teaching about wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following conditions that a fourth timer expires with Lee’s invention in order to optimize overall network performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang et al. (US 2024/0430821), Cirik et al. (US 2024/0056987), Cirik et al. (US 2023/0276377), Tsai et al. (US 2022/0361277), Huang et al. (US 2022/0330174), Cirik et al. (US 2022/0322246), Tung et al. (US 2022/0083124), Lee et al. (US 2022/0046556), Zhang et al. (US 2022/0014344), Gao et al. (US 2021/0337453), Abedini et al. (US 2021/0306962), Eleftheriadis et al. (US 2021/0296926), Shih et al. (US 2021/0211994), Sha et al. (US 2021/0160791), Osawa et al. (US 2020/0367180), Zhang et al. (US 2020/0275443), Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0213955), Chang et al. (US 2020/0169966), MolavianJazi et al. (US 2019/0313348).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights