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
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, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US 2020/0112349; art cited by applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: transmitting, to a base station (BS), an indicator indicating a maximum transmit power level associated with a first transmit chain of the UE (fig. 3, 305; [0054], [0056] and [0066], “maximum transmit power per transmit chain”); receiving, from the BS, an indicator indicating a transmit power level associated with a physical uplink channel (fig. 3, 325 and [0073]-[0076], “maximum transmit power” in the “transmission mode configuration” corresponds to the “indicator” as claimed); and transmitting, to the BS, a communication via the physical uplink channel at a lesser of: the maximum transmit power level associated with the first transmit chain of the UE; or the indicated transmit power level associated with the physical uplink channel (fig. 3, note that both the power reported in step 305 and the power signaled in step 325 are maximum power constraints, therefore the lesser applies.).
Regarding independent claim 17, the claim is a corresponding apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 25, the claims correspond to base station with reverse transmitting/receiving (mutatis mutandis) and recites similar subject matter as in claims 1 and 17, respectively. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1 and 17.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 10, 18 and 26, Yang further teaches transmitting, to the BS, an indicator indicating the UE supports uplink transmit (UL TX) switching; and wherein the transmitting the indicator indicating the maximum transmit power level associated with the first transmit chain of the UE comprises transmitting the indicator based on the UE support for UL TX switching. See [0054] and [0059].
Regarding dependent claims 8, 16 and 24, Yang further teaches wherein the transmitting the indicator indicating the maximum transmit power level associated with the first transmit chain of the UE comprises transmitting the indicator via a radio resource control (RRC) communication. See [0078].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-23 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2020/0112349; art cited by applicant).
Regarding dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, 19-21, 27 and 28, Yang teaches all subject matter claimed and further teach signaling via RRC ([0054]) and the indicated transmit power being dependent on the maximum power signaled by the UE ([0077]) which, in turn, may depend on the number of Tx chains ([0064]). Yang fails to further teach the power delta value. However, this feature can be understood as signaling said maximum power in terms of a power difference/delta with respect to a reference value (e.g. 29 or 23 dBm in fig.3, 310 and [0064]) is a solution to the problem of reducing signaling overhead. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yang in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would not involve any inventive feature since it is well-known in the art of digital communications that using smaller value (a difference) requires less signaling bits.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 14, 22 and 29, Yang teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach using two transmit chains to operate at different frequency bands. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized to modify the system of Yang in order to arrive at the claimed invention since it is well-known in the art to have transmission by a UE in different bands or ranges in the field of telecommunications such as existing 4G and 5G networks.
Regarding dependent claims 7, 15, 23 and 30, Yang teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach associating uplink channel with a slot. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that Yang makes use of radio frame including slots in the wireless communication systems as disclosed in [0003]-[0005].
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Gaal et al (US 2012/0115537), Yi et al (US 2015/0063275), Hugl et al (US 2018/0098223) and Siomina et al (US 20220/0137601) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for configuring maximum power for uplink.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634