DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received 06/05/2024.
2. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Domestic benefit has been claimed with regards to continuation of U.S. patent application No: 17/443,438, filed Jul. 26, 2021, which is continuation of U.S. patent application Ser: 17/247,374, filed Dec. 20, 2020, which is a continuation of and claims priority to International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2018/099223, filed on Aug. 7, 2018.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 06/05/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/05/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/05/2024, 08/09/2024, 09/05/2024,10/02/2024,12/16/2024,12/19/2024,03/11/2025,03/17/2025,04/02/2025,04/22/2025,08/08/2025,10/30/2025 are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 11 and 16 recites: “A device for wireless communication, comprising a processor…”, and thus the claim is directed to a machine (note that the preamble of claims 11 ad 16 possesses a processor as part of the device and is not present in the body of the claim hence the processor is not given patentable weight), a machine is defined as follows: "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)) [MPEP 2106.03].
In other words, a machine must consist of more than one parts, the device being claimed in claims 11 and 16 only consists of a processor (the processor is part of the preamble which is not given patentable weight). This rejection may be overcome by adding a additional structure to the machine as claimed to be consistent with the definition above.
Dependent Claims 12 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected for the same reason stated above by virtue of their dependency on a rejected based claim since claims 12 – 15 and 17 – 20 possesses no additional structure to overcome the rejection above.
Reason(s) for allowance/ Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are allowable over the prior art of record after further search and consideration as follows:
With regards to independent claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 the best prior art of record Vivo (“Remaining issues on mechanism to recover from beam failure”, R1-1806045, Busan, Korea, May 21st – 25th, 2018), discloses:
“…requesting, by a user equipment, a beam failure recovery by initiating a random access procedure;
monitoring, by the user equipment subsequent to the transmitting of the C-RNTI, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) according to a downlink reference signal associated with an index qnew provided by a higher layer; and
[see the second page which states:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
]
Vivo does not disclose the following specificity of claim 1: “…performing, by the user equipment, a first transmission on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and a second transmission on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) using a same spatial filter as used for the random access procedure upon detecting that the PDCCH is scrambled using the C-RNTI, wherein a power for the first transmission on the PUCCH and the second transmission on the PUSCH is determined based on the index qnew.
2. Similarly regarding independent claim 1 the reference of OPPO (“ Remaining issues and Text Proposal for Beam Failure Recovery”, R1-1806841, Busan, Korea, May 21st – 25th, 2018) discloses:
“…requesting, by a user equipment, a beam failure recovery by initiating a random access procedure;
monitoring, by the user equipment subsequent to the transmitting of the C-RNTI, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) according to a downlink reference signal associated with an index qnew provided by a higher layer; and
[see the third page which states:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
]
OPPO does not disclose the following specificity of claim 1: “…performing, by the user equipment, a first transmission on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and a second transmission on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) using a same spatial filter as used for the random access procedure upon detecting that the PDCCH is scrambled using the C-RNTI, wherein a power for the first transmission on the PUCCH and the second transmission on the PUSCH is determined based on the index qnew.
2. Regarding independent claim 1 the reference of Wang et al. (US 11, 051, 353 B2) discloses:
“…performing, by the user equipment, a first transmission on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and a second transmission on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) using a same spatial filter as used for the random access procedure upon detecting that the PDCCH is scrambled using the C-RNTI…”, see figure 1, step 3 in view of column 6, lines 1 – 11, the same spatial filter pertain to the previous RACH and scrambled with the C-RNTI is used to transmit PUCCH, at the same time the power is determined from the index qnew. Wang examines the case whereby qnew power is derived to be applied to the PUCCH which uses the same spatial filter of the RACH in view of scrambled C-RNTI. However, Wang or the other references cited above does not disclose: “…transmitting, by the user equipment, a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) of the user equipment to a base station during the random access procedure…”, at the same time Wang does not disclose the PUSCH uses the same filter along with the derivation of the power from index qnew for PUSCH in view of the C-NTRI transmission and monitoring.
The prior arts of record do not teach or suggest individually or in combination the limitation of amended independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6, 11 and 16. The dependent claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on an allowed based claim.
None of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the invention of the present application at or before the time it was filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights