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 filed 06/24/2026 (approximate second half of page 11, page 12 and approximate first half of page 12) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “…as discussed during the interview, MATSUMURA discusses a configuration related to maximum output power, where the UE then determines a maximum output power. However, a configuration related to maximum output power, as described in MATSUMURA, does not disclose or suggest "receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, the uplink grant indicating a duration of time allocation and indicating a configured transmit power level," as recited in amended claim 9.”
Examiner has carefully reviewed the reference to Matsumura and the language of claim 9. The above argument is not persuasive. The configured transmit power level of Matsumura (PCMAX, f,c) satisfies a threshold “a maximum peak effective isotropic radiation power (EIPR) as disclosed in at least [0080] the “satisfies” is interpreted as claiming at least being less than or equal of EIPRmax and optionally refer to Equation 9 or equation 10 or equation 11).
Regarding the secondary reference to Wang, Applicant argues:
Thus, as discussed during the interview, WANG describes dropping a part of a PUSCH when the PUSCH exceeds a number of symbols. However, as discussed during the interview, WANG does not disclose "the uplink transmission using a first antenna group and a second antenna group based at least in part on the duration satisfying a length threshold," as recited in amended claim 9”.
Examiner Response:
[0186] of the instant application specification discloses: “As used herein, “satisfying a threshold” may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, or not equal to the threshold, among other examples.”
In Wang et al. ([0133]-[0134]) an UL grant includes the length (duration of time allocation) of a PUSCH transmitted by a UE. If the indicated length exceeds (“satisfies”) a length threshold, PUSCH transmission takes place but with a remaining part of the PUSCH dropped in the scheduled slot. Alternatively, if the indicated length does not exceed (different “satisfies”) and the PUSCH is transmitted in the remaining symbols of the scheduled slot).
In Matsumura, a PUSCH is transmitted from each panel p ([0085], lines 1-2 of [0087] and for example Fig. 3A PUSCH simultaneous transmission, [0012]). In the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection the cited teachings of Wang are applied per PUSCH transmission per panel.
Examiner has carefully reviewed the prior art rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Gao et al. (US 2026/0046782) as the primary reference.
The disclosed RRC message (configuration information of maximum transmitting power) 301 in Fig. 6 is no longer interpreted as corresponding to or be part of the claimed “uplink grant for an uplink transmission”. The decision is made in light of updating the prior art search for the claimed “uplink grant”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (U.S. 2025/0267592) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2024/0106611) and Guan et al. (U.S. 2021/0168714).
With respect to claim 1, Matsumura et al. disclose: one or more memories (e.g. Fig. 14, UE, [0221] at least“…that executes the processes of the radio communication method of the present disclosure”,[0224], refer to memory 1002); and one or more processors (1001, [0223]-[0224]), coupled to the one or more memories (as shown in Fig. 14 and described in [0221], [0223]-[0224]), configured to cause the UE to: receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission ([0085] the disclosed configuration (e.g. DCI physical layer signaling [0085], [0122], lines 3-end of [0172]) corresponds to the claimed uplink grant, also refer to lines 1-4 of [0057], [0085] disclosing “CMAX,f,c…”); and transmit in a same time allocation ([0085] “UL simultaneous transmission for multi-panel is supported…” a same time allocation is used to perform the UL simultaneous transmission (and related Fig. 7-9 for example, and [0008]. [0085] “…simultaneously transmit UL transmissions…(in transmission occasion i) by using multi-panel (for example, two panels)), the uplink transmission using a first panel (e.g. panel#1 of the UE) and a second (e.g. panel#2 of the UE) based at least in part the configured transmit power level satisfying a power threshold (e.g. the PCMAX,f,c , the maximum output power for carrier f for serving cell c, is understood to satisfy (e.g. is equal to, or less than) a maximum (allowed) power threshold e.g. Fig. 7-9. Alternatively or additionally refer to [0080] and equation 4, disclosing PCMAX,f,c is less than or equal (satisfies) to EIRPmax, and associated lines 1-3 of [0081]).
Matsumura et al. do not expressly disclose: the uplink grant indicating a duration of time allocation and; a first antenna group; a second antenna group, based at least in part on the duration satisfying a length threshold and.
Implementing control of uplink transmission and uplink transmission, Wang et al. disclose: an uplink grant comprising a duration of time allocation ([0133]-[0134] refer to the UL grant (transmitted by a base station) comprising the length (duration of time allocation) of the PUSCH) based at least in part on the duration satisfying a length threshold ([0133]-[0134] e.g. the indicated length exceeds (“satisfies”) a length threshold, PUSCH transmission takes place but with a remaining part of the PUSCH dropped in the scheduled slot. Alternatively, the indicated length does not exceed (different “satisfies”) and the PUSCH is transmitted in the remaining symbols of the scheduled slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumura et al. to further include in the uplink grant (configuration included in the DCI) a duration of time allocation (the length of the PUSCH) as taught by Wang et al., to allow the UE of Matsumura et al. to transmit the PUSCH (transmitted by each panel [0085], line 1 of [0087]) based at least in part on the duration satisfying a length threshold (exceed or not exceed a number of symbols remaining in a scheduled slot) to either transmit the PUSCH by dropping the part of the scheduled PUSCH that exceeds the number of symbols remaining in the scheduled slot or transmit the (entire) PUSCH in the scheduled slot (at least [0043] of Matsumura et al. which discloses “PUSCH transmission occasion i is a certain period in which the PUSCH is transmitted, and may be constituted by, for example, one or more symbols, one or more slots”, and [0133]-[0134] of Wang et al.)
Modified Matsumura et al., Wang et al. do not disclose: a first antenna group; a second antenna group.
Implementing wireless communication using antenna panels of a UE, Guan et al. disclose: first antenna group, a second antenna group (e.g. Fig. 1, two antenna panels of the UE each comprise a respective antenna group or the first antenna panel comprises a first antenna group and the second antenna panel comprises a second antenna group ([0100], also [0096] description of the antenna panel concept).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel of Matsumura et al. to respectively include a first antenna group (integrated antenna elements) and a second antenna group (integrated antenna elements), as taught by Guan et al. regarding a plurality of antenna elements (an antenna group) being integrated in an antenna panel and each antenna panel covering a different direction to allow the UE of Matsumura et al. to generate respective panel beams (in the directions of the TRP#1 and TRP#2 of Fig. 1B or 1C of Matsumura et al. [0026]) respectively by using the fist antenna group and the second antenna group respectively integrated in the first (antenna) panel and the second (antenna) panel of Matsumura et al.
With respect to claim 11, modified Matsumura et al. disclose: wherein the UE includes N antenna groups (N antenna panels, e.g. N=2 according to the portions of Matsumura et al. cited above), N being an integer, the first antenna group and the second antenna group being includes in the N antenna groups at the UE (refer above), and wherein a first transmit power level of the first antenna group and a second transmit power level of the second antenna group are based at least in part on a factor of N ([0098] refer to the equation for maximum output powers for the respective panels (2 panels) being the same).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1, 3-8, 13, 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 10, 12, 21-22 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khoshnevis et al. (US 2014/0334391) [0071] discloses: “An uplink DCI allocates resources for uplink transmission. An uplink DCI may also be referred to as an uplink grant…”
Matsumura et al. (US 2021/0345253) [0033] discloses: “…the DCI (which may be referred to as UL grant) that schedules PUSCH transmission”.
Lim et al. (US 2024/0187183) refer to at least Fig. 33-34.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 07/730/2026
Prosecution Insights