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)(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 1 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2020/0,022,097; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang disclose a method performed by a wireless device configured with dual connectivity between a first group of cells (LTE) and a second group of cells (NR) (¶ [0124]), the method comprising: determining a limit of a power of transmission of a first uplink transmission in the first group of cells (¶ [0125]; Fig. 5),
wherein the determining comprises: using a first power limit to determine the power of transmission for the first uplink transmission when the wireless device detects a downlink grant or assignment set to trigger the second uplink transmission in the second group of cells that overlaps with the first uplink transmission where the downlink grant or assignment is detected before a second time offset preceding a start of the first uplink transmission (using a first modified power limit to determine the power of transmission for the first uplink transmission when an overlap is detected with the second uplink transmission wherein a downlink assignment is detected before a scheduling delay/time offset before the first uplink transmission; paragraphs [0112]-[0114], [0126], [0128], [0132]);
in an absence of the detection of the downlink grant or assignment, using a second power limit to determine the power of transmission for the second unlink transmission (when there is no overlap detected which signals no detection of downlink assignment, using the unmodified first or second power limit to find the transmission power for the second uplink transmission; [0126]); and setting the power of transmission for the first uplink transmission based on the limit (setting the transmission power for the first uplink transmission based on the unmodified power limit; paras. [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang disclose a wireless device (UE 115, 605, 905) comprising: processing circuitry (940) (Figs. 1, 9; paras. [0130], [0157], [0162]); and memory (930) coupled with the processing circuitry (940) via bus (945), wherein the memory (930) includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the wireless device to perform operations according to claim 1 (paras. [0010], [0012], [0157], [0161]; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Wang disclose a wireless device (UE 115, 605, 905; Figs. 1, 6, 9) adapted to perform the steps of claim 1.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2020/0,022,097).
Regarding claim 12, Wang the method of Claim 1, wherein Wang do not explicitly disclose the first power limit is less than the second power limit. However, the examiner takes official notice that since Wang disclose setting of the first and second power limits and modifying one of the power limit based on detecting an overlap, it is well-known in the art that the first power limit can be less than the second power limit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2020/0,022,097) in view of Kim et al (US 9,468,018; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Wang do not disclose the determining comprises using the limit to identify the power of transmission for the first uplink transmission. In the same field of endeavor, Kim disclose the determining comprises using the limit to identify the power of transmission for the first uplink transmission (identifying a transmission power based on the first uplink maximum transmission power; clm. 1, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to set the transmission power of the uplink transmission based on the power limit to ensure the transmission power does not exceed the power limit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2020/0,022,097) in view of Raghavan et al (US 2021/0,314,785; hereinafter Raghavan).
Regarding claim 13, Wang disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein Wang do not explicitly disclose the second time offset is based on a capability signaling from the wireless device. In the same field of endeavor, Raghavan disclose the second time offset is based on a capability signaling from the wireless device (¶ [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the UE capability signaling in order for network elements of the core network to determine the time and delay requirements based on the UE capability signaling (Raghavan; [0043]).
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2020/0,022,097) in view of Rahman et al (US 2017/0,367,045; hereinafter Rahman).
Regarding claim 14, Wang disclose method of claim 1, wherein Wang do not disclose the second time offset is based on whether a synchronous dual connectivity operation or an asynchronous dual connectivity operation is used. In the same field of endeavor, Rahman disclose the second time offset is based on whether a synchronous dual connectivity operation or an asynchronous dual connectivity operation is used (the first cell group and the second cell group are synchronized or non-synchronized with respect to the received time difference of signals between subframe boundaries of the first cell group and the second cell group in multi-connectivity operation; paras. [0066]-[0067], [0075]-[0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to determine the time difference in accordance with whether the first cell group and the second cell group are synchronized or not.
Regarding claim 15, Wang disclose method of Claim 1, wherein Wang do not disclose the second time offset includes a timing difference between the first group of cells and the second group of cells. In the same field of endeavor, Rahman disclose the second time offset includes a timing difference between the first group of cells and the second group of cells (paras. [0066]-[0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to find the time delay between the first and second group of cells to determine if the first and second group of cells are synchronized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 2, Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the identified second uplink transmission in the second group of cells overlapping with the first uplink transmission is based on a detection of a downlink grant or assignment that triggers the second uplink transmission in the second group of cells that would overlap in time with the first uplink transmission.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 2, wherein the detection of a downlink grant or assignment that triggers the second uplink transmission is based on a first time offset in relation to a beginning of a time of transmission of the first uplink transmission.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 3, wherein the identified second uplink transmission is based on obtaining from a network node one or more parameters of the second group of cells.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 4, wherein the one or more parameters for the second group of cells comprises: a time division duplex uplink or downlink configuration for transmission or reception on a serving cell or bandwidth portion, BWP, in the second group of cells; a configuration for a transmission of at least one configured uplink grant for a serving cell or BWP in the second group of cells; a slot format indicator for a serving cell or BWP in the second group of cells; and at least one higher layer configured parameter.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 4, wherein the one or more parameters for the second group of cells is determined based on semi-static signalling.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 3, wherein the determining is further based on: a prediction, based on the one or more parameters, of a first downlink transmission set to trigger the second uplink transmission, in a time period preceding a beginning of the transmission of the first uplink transmission; and the detecting the first downlink transmission.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises identifying that a combined power of transmission across the first group of cells and the second group of cells is less than a threshold amount of power.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 3, wherein the first time offset and the second time offset are the same.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30pm.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim, can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights