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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 33-34 are directed to a "tangible computer-readable medium" which can be interpreted as referring to a signal per se and does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Examiner has reviewed Applicant's disclosure and has found that the specification (including page 3, lines 20-27 which discuss “computer readable storage medium”) does not define the term “tangible computer readable medium”, much less the term excluding a transitory embodiment.
Examiner suggests to amend the claims by replacing “computer-readable medium” with “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” as disclosed in page 3, lines 20-27. The proposed amendment would resolve the particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification discloses a “testing arrangement 100”; however, item 100 is not shown in any of the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, R4-2114730 fails to disclose, teach or suggest alone or in combination the limitations that read, “while the UE is scheduled with the one or more UL gap intervals for proximity sensing and is placed in the free-space environment: during one or more UL gap intervals, performing a third measurement indicative of a third measured in-band peak EIRP value of the UE; and verifying that the third measured in-band peak EIRP value is smaller than or equal to a third threshold value”, in combination and within the context of all the limitations of independent claim 15.
Note: the claims will be allowed only after all the objections and/or rejections are resolved.
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.
Claims 15-24 and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Email Discussion Summary for [100-e][130] NR_RF_FT2_req_enh2_Part_2 (hereinafter R4-2114730) in view of US 2024/0107464 A1 (Niu et al., hereinafter Niu).
Regarding claim 15, R4-2114730 discloses a method for testing a user equipment (UE) (Introduction, “UL gap testing”; Pag. 7, “Test”, please see test table at the beginning of the page), comprising:
while the UE is scheduled without uplink (UL) gap intervals for proximity sensing (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of second row and third column: “Step 1: UL gap: No”);
performing a first measurement indicative of a first measured peak effective
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP”; lower table, “EIRP test 1”), and
obtaining a first UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4…peak EIRP reporting…”);
while the UE is scheduled with one or more UL gap intervals for proximity sensing and is placed in a free-space environment (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of “step 2: Blocking/Phantom: No; Step 1; UL gap: No”);
outside the one or more UL gap intervals (“this is implicit in the test case suggested in the table, as measuring during the gap interval couldn’t make any sense, technically”), performing a second measurement indicative of a second measured peak EIRP value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4...”; second table, column 1, “EIRP test 2”), and
obtaining a second UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP reporting…”); and
determining whether the UE is eligible for UL gap configuration at least based on the first and second measured peak EIRP values and on the first and second UL transmit power reports (Pages. 6-7, “implicit on detecting the type of UE A, B, C, D of the table of page and also confirmed in the last column of the line ‘RIRP test 2’ of the 2nd table of page 7”. Note: it seems like the claims are merely collecting data/information to obtain a result without applying the results into a practical application).
Although implied, R4-2114730 does not show the method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network.
In related art concerning methods of type 1 UL gap triggering in FR2, Niu discloses a method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network (please see at least Figs. 1-2 and 5, showing elements of a 5G network employing an UL gap configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Niu’s teachings about a UL gap configuration method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network about with the UL gap for transmit power management method disclosed by R4-2114730 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that at least a UE and a BS would be part of the elements in a network to which UL gap configuration apply.
Regarding claim 26, R4-2114730 discloses a testing arrangement (Pag. 1, Introduction, where according to the specification of the present application, a “testing arrangement” can be a “UE”) comprising at least one processor (“UE” inherently comprise at least a “processor”), and at least one memory (“UE” inherently comprise at least a “memory”) storing computer program code that, when executed by the at least one processor (“UE” inherently comprise computer code stored in at least a “memory” and executed by at least a “processor”), cause the testing arrangement to:
while a user equipment (UE) is scheduled without uplink (UL) gap intervals for proximity sensing (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of second row and third column: “Step 1: UL gap: No”):
perform a first measurement indicative of a first measured peak effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP”; lower table, “EIRP test 1”), and
obtain a first UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4…peak EIRP reporting…”);
while the UE is scheduled with one or more UL gap intervals for proximity sensing and is placed in a free-space environment (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of “step 2: Blocking/Phantom: No; Step 1; UL gap: No”);
outside the one or more UL gap intervals, perform a second measurement indicative of a second measured peak EIRP value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4...”; second table, column 1, “EIRP test 2”), and
obtain a second UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP reporting…”, where UL reports can vary in number); and
determine whether the UE is eligible for UL gap configuration at least based on the first and second measured peak EIRP values and on the first and second UL transmit power reports (Pages. 6-7, “implicit on detecting the type of UE A, B, C, D of the table of page and also confirmed in the last column of the line ‘RIRP test 2’ of the 2nd table of page 7”).
Although implied, R4-2114730 does not show the method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network.
Niu discloses a method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network (please see at least Figs. 1-2 and 5, showing elements of a 5G network employing an UL gap configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Niu’s teachings about a UL gap configuration method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network about with the UL gap for transmit power management method disclosed by R4-2114730 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that at least a UE and a BS would be part of the elements in a network to which UL gap configuration apply.
Regarding claim 33, R4-2114730 discloses a tangible computer-readable medium storing computer program code (Pag. 1, Introduction, where according to the specification of the present application, a “testing arrangement” can be a “UE”, where inherently, UEs comprise storage storage/memory device that store program/instructions/software/code), the computer program code when executed by a processor (Pag. 1, Introduction, where according to the specification of the present application, a “testing arrangement” can be a “UE”, where inherently, UEs inherently comprise at least a processor that execute the program/instructions/software/code stored in the storage/memory device of the UE) causing a testing arrangement to:
while a user equipment (UE) is scheduled without uplink (UL) gap intervals for proximity sensing (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of second row and third column: “Step 1: UL gap: No”):
perform a first measurement indicative of a first measured peak effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP”; lower table, “EIRP test 1”), and
obtain a first UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4…peak EIRP reporting…”);
while the UE is scheduled with one or more UL gap intervals for proximity sensing and is placed in a free-space environment (Pag. 7, first table, intersection of “step 2: Blocking/Phantom: No; Step 1; UL gap: No”);
outside the one or more UL gap intervals, perform a second measurement indicative of a second measured peak EIRP value of the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4...”; second table, column 1, “EIRP test 2”), and
obtain a second UL transmit power report from the UE (Pag. 7, “Option 4… peak EIRP reporting…”, where UL reports can vary in number); and
determine whether the UE is eligible for UL gap configuration at least based on the first and second measured peak EIRP values and on the first and second UL transmit power reports (Pages. 6-7, “implicit on detecting the type of UE A, B, C, D of the table of page and also confirmed in the last column of the line ‘RIRP test 2’ of the 2nd table of page 7”).
Although implied, R4-2114730 does not show the method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network.
Niu discloses a method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network (please see at least Figs. 1-2 and 5, showing elements of a 5G network employing an UL gap configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Niu’s teachings about a UL gap configuration method applied into a network and/or different elements of the network about with the UL gap for transmit power management method disclosed by R4-2114730 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that at least a UE and a BS would be part of the elements in a network to which UL gap configuration apply.
Regarding claims 16, 27 and 34, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 15, 26 and 33, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses wherein the first and second UL transmit power reports comprise first and second UL transmit power reduction values respectively (pages 6 and 7, “P-MPR reporting”).
Regarding claims 17 and 28, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 16 and 27, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses verifying that the first measured peak EIRP value is equal to or larger than a first threshold value; verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is consistent with a difference between the first and second UL transmit power reduction values; and verifying that a difference between the first and second UL transmit power reduction values is equal to or larger than a second threshold value (page 10, table showing last comment of Nokia company, “We support Peak EIRP option 1: with at least 6dB improvement and P-MPR report option x: with at least 6dB improvement (in the case that there is no phantom in the test setup)”).
Regarding claim 18, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claim 17. R4-2114730 further discloses wherein the first threshold value is specific to a particular antenna array type used by the UE (Page 1, Introduction, where UEs using MIMO use antenna arrays and where the entire document and evaluation/testability is related to “UE calibration”, suggesting adjustments and adaptations to the specific antenna being used by the UE. Further instances of the UE calibration are mentioned throughout the entire document).
Regarding claim 19, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claim 17. R4-2114730 further discloses wherein the first threshold value is determined from near-field simulations for the particular antenna array type (Page 1, Introduction, where UEs using MIMO use antenna arrays and where the entire document and evaluation/testability is related to “UE calibration”, suggesting adjustments and adaptations to the specific antenna being used by the UE. Further instances of the UE calibration are mentioned throughout the entire document).
Regarding claim 20, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claim 17. R4-2114730 further discloses wherein the first threshold value is determined from near-field measurements or simulations (Pag. 8, table, “Measured quantity value” and page 10, table showing last comment of Nokia company, “We support Peak EIRP option 1… test setup)”).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 16 and 27, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses verifying that the first measured peak EIRP value is equal to or larger than a first threshold value; verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is consistent with a difference between the first and second UL transmit power reduction values; and verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is equal to or larger than a second threshold value (page 10, table showing last comment of Nokia company, “We support Peak EIRP option 1: with at least 6dB improvement and P-MPR report option x: with at least 6dB improvement (in the case that there is no phantom in the test setup)”).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 15, 26 and 33, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses wherein the first and second UL transmit power reports comprise first and second current maximum UL transmit power values respectively (Pag. 7, “Option 4…peak EIRP reporting…”).
Regarding claims 23 and 31, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 15 and 30, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses verifying that the first measured peak EIRP value is equal to or larger than a first threshold value; verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is consistent with a difference between the first and second current maximum UL transmit power values; and verifying that a difference between the first and second current maximum UL transmit power values is equal to or larger than a second threshold value (page 6, second table, “Type of UE” in combination with the results of table 3 in page 6 and table 1 in page 7).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, R4-2114730 and Niu disclose all the limitations of claims 15 and 30, respectively. R4-2114730 further discloses verifying that the first measured peak EIRP value is equal to or larger than a first threshold value; verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is consistent with a difference between the first and second current maximum UL transmit power values; and verifying that a difference between the first and second measured peak EIRP values is equal to or larger than a second threshold value (page 6, second table, “Type of UE” in combination with the results of table 3 in page 6 and table 1 in page 7).
Note: The examiner agrees with the PCT/EP2021/079386 Written Opinion. The Written Opinion is being quoted in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0015708 A1, relates to configuring an uplink gap for calibration inside the UE.
US 2022/0182961 A1, relates to system and method for UL compensation gap.
US 2024/0244533 A1, relates to gap triggering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Private PAIR only. For more information about the pair system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649