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 Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed July 29, 2026. Claims 13-15, 17-19 and 21 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha et al. (US 2023/0208483, “Cha”).
Regarding claim 13, Cha teaches UE (user equipment) (FIG. 4A), comprising:
a transceiver to transmit a signal and to receive a signal (FIG. 4A, RFIC 410); and
a processor to control the transceiver (FIG. 4a, Communication Processor 260),
wherein the transceiver includes two antennas (FIG. 4a, antennas 441, 442),
wherein the UE is a UE of power class 2 ([0118] “<Table 3> shows the MPR for power class 2”)
wherein the processor determines transmission power based on MPR (Maximum Power Reduction) ([0121] “when the minimum values of P-MAX Power and UE Tx MAX Power are calculated by applying the MPR backoff of <Table 2> and <Table 3> to the UE Tx MAX Power),
wherein the transceiver transmits a signal to a base station with the transmission power ([0121] “when the minimum values of P-MAX Power and UE Tx MAX Power are calculated by applying the MPR backoff of <Table 2> and <Table 3> to the UE Tx MAX Power)
wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB for a modulation type of CP-OFDM (Cylic Prefix-Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) and 256QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) ([0118] “<Table 3> shows the MPR for power class 2.” <Table 3> last row indicates CP-OFDM 256 QAM having MPR (dB) ≤ 6.5. Since MPR ≤ 6.5 dB is well within the range of “MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB”, the claim requirement is satisfied).
Regarding claim 17, Cha teaches a method for performing communication, performed by a UE (user equipment), comprising:
determining transmission power based on MPR (Maximum Power Reduction); and transmitting a signal to a base station with the transmission power ([0121] “when the minimum values of P-MAX Power and UE Tx MAX Power are calculated by applying the MPR backoff of <Table 2> and <Table 3> to the UE Tx MAX Power),
wherein the UE includes two antennas (FIG. 4a, antennas 441, 442),
wherein the maximum output power of the UE is 26 dBm ([0103] “For example, when the power class is PC2, the maximum transmittable power may be determined as a value (e.g., 25 to 27 dBm) in a range configured based on 26 dBm.” Note: it is well known in the art that 3GPP defines power class 2 (PC2) corresponds to maximum power of 26 dBm, with tolerance of +/- 2dB),
wherein the MPR is based on Edge RB allocations, Outer RB allocations and Inner RB allocations (par [0117], table 3 lists MPR values depending on Edge, Outer, Inner RB),
wherein the MPR is based on CP (Cyclic Prefix)-OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) (par [0117], table 3 lists modulation schemes including CP-OFDM QPSK, 16, 64 and 256 QAM),
wherein the MPR is based on QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying), 16QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation), 64QAM and 256QAM (par [0117], table 3 lists modulation schemes including CP-OFDM QPSK, 16, 64 and 256 QAM).
Regarding claim 21, Cha teaches a non-volatile computer readable storage medium having recorded instructions, wherein the instructions, based on being executed by one or more processors ([0270]), cause the one or more processors to:
determine a transmission power based on MPR (Maximum Power Reduction); and transmitting a signal to a base station with the transmission power ([0121] “when the minimum values of P-MAX Power and UE Tx MAX Power are calculated by applying the MPR backoff of <Table 2> and <Table 3> to the UE Tx MAX Power),
wherein a UE (User Equipment) including the non-volatile computer readable storage medium includes two antennas (FIG. 4a, antennas 441, 442),
wherein the UE is a UE of power class 2 ([0118] “<Table 3> shows the MPR for power class 2”) and
wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB for a modulation type of CP-OFDM (Cylic Prefix-Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) and 256QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) ([0118] “<Table 3> shows the MPR for power class 2.” <Table 3> last row indicates CP-OFDM 256 QAM having MPR (dB) ≤ 6.5. Since MPR ≤ 6.5 dB is well within the range of “MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB”, the claim requirement is satisfied).
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.
Claims 14-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of “CR for TS 38.101-1 TX diversity requirements” (Huawei, HiSilicon, 3GPPTSG-W4 Meeting #98-e, R4-2102384 cited by IDS filed on December 17, 2025; “R4-2102384”).
Regarding claim 14, Cha teaches claim 13 but does not teach wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) and ii) Edge RB (Resource Block) allocations.
However, R4-2102384 teaches a change to the standard to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity, in which wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) and ii) Edge RB (Resource Block) allocations (Table 6.2.2-2a, list CP-OFDM QPSK having MPR value for Edge RB allocations being ≤ 4 dB)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) and ii) Edge RB (Resource Block) allocations, as taught by R4-2102384 in Cha to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity.
Regarding claim 15, Cha teaches claim 13 but does not teach wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations.
However, R4-2102384 teaches a change to the standard to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity, in which wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations (Table 6.2.2-2a, list CP-OFDM 16 QAM having MPR value for Edge RB allocations being ≤ 4 dB)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations, as taught by R4-2102384 n Cha to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity.
Regarding claim 18, Cha teaches claim 17 but does not teach wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) and ii) Edge RB (Resource Block) allocations.
However, R4-2102384 teaches a change to the standard to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity, in which wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) and ii) Edge RB (Resource Block) allocations. (Table 6.2.2-2a, list CP-OFDM QPSK having MPR value for Edge RB allocations being ≤ 4 dB)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature wherein the signal is transmitted by modulation scheme of the QPSK, wherein the signal is transmitted via the Edge RB allocations, wherein the MPR is 4.0 dB. or less than 4.0 dB, as taught by R4-2102384 in Cha to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity.
Regarding claim 19, Cha teaches claim 17 but does not teach wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations.
However, R4-2102384 teaches a change to the standard to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity, in which wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations (Table 6.2.2-2a, list CP-OFDM 16 QAM having MPR value for Edge RB allocations being ≤ 4 dB)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 4.0 dB for i) a modulation type of CP-OFDM and 16QAM and ii) Edge RB allocations, as taught by R4-2102384 in Cha to eliminate the ambiguity for supporting transparent Tx diversity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13, Applicant argues “a feature of Applicant’s amended independent claims is the specific limit value (specific MPR value0 of MPR (=8.0dB). Applicant’s claimed specific MPR value is not shown in the applied refences, and is based on specific simulation assumptions and is the result of the inventor’s efforts and research, this possessing an inventive step.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “wherein the MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB for a modulation type of CP-OFDM (Cylic Prefix-Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) and 256QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation)”.
Cha discloses in [0118] “<Table 3> shows the MPR for power class 2.” <Table 3> last row indicates CP-OFDM 256 QAM having MPR (dB) ≤ 6.5. Since MPR ≤ 6.5 dB is well within the range of “MPR is less than or equal to 8.0 dB”, the claim requirement is satisfied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US) teaches a method for controlling transmission power.
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 QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
