FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed March 27, 2026 (“Amendment”).
The instant 18/807,679 application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent 11,419,058 to Pipponen et al. “the ‘058 Patent”), which issued August 16, 2022 from U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 16/756,201, filed November 6, 2018 as a 371 Application of PCT/FI2018/050809, filed November 6, 2018. The ‘058 Patent has an earliest possible U.S. filing date of November 16, 2017 based on provisional application 62/587,220.
Claims 1-13 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application, claims 1-13 were amended and claims 14-20 were added. By way of the Amendment, claims 1, 7, 13, and 14 are further amended, and claims 15, 18, and 19 are canceled. claims Thus claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 20 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘058 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘058 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘058 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘058 Patent is not deemed to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration of March 27, 2026 is objected to for the following:
The new declaration states that the error is the presence of certain limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13. However, these limitations are present in the instant claims, and as noted in the previous Office action the removal of surrender-related subject matter is not an error upon which a reissue may be based. A proper declaration is required in response to this Office action. See also MPEP § 1414.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 20 would be allowable if Patent Owner files a proper reissue declaration obviating the rejection above under §251.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising determining, by a user device within a wireless network, a base station channel bandwidth, receiving, by the user device, a resource block allocation including one or more resource blocks in a user device channel bandwidth that are allocated to the user device for uplink transmission, wherein the user device channel bandwidth being a bandwidth part of and located inside the base station channel bandwidth, and the user device channel bandwidth is less than the base station channel bandwidth, determining, by the user device, a distance of the resource block allocation from at least one edge of the base station channel bandwidth, controlling, by the user device based on the distance, a transmission power of the user device for uplink transmission, and determining, by the user device, a modulation rate for uplink transmission wherein the controlling comprises:
determining, by the user device based on the distance and the modulation rate, a maximum power reduction value, determining, by the user device based on the maximum power reduction value, a maximum transmission power, and controlling, by the user device based on signals received from a base station, a transmission power of the user device for uplink transmission via the resource block allocation within a power range up to the maximum transmission power.
References of record in this application teach a similar system; see, inter alia, U.S. Pat PGPUB 2013/0182663A1 to Ji et al. as well as U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2015/0094078A1 to Cheadle et al. Cheadle, for example, discloses a method at a UE in a wireless network. Cheadle at FIGS 1 and 5. The UE receives a resource block allocation including one or more RBs in a UE channel bandwidth. Cheadle at FIG 5 step 502 and at P57 (“the UE 108 receives from the network an assignment of a Transmission Bandwidth Configuration, specified by a center subcarrier frequency and bandwidth, a total number of resource blocks available, and an assigned allocation of resource blocks identified”). The Transmission Bandwidth Configuration reads on the UE channel bandwidth as this is how the ‘058 Patent defines it. ‘058 Patent at FIG 3. Notably, the TBC of Cheadle is part of a larger channel bandwidth 300 which reads on the claimed base station channel bandwidth. However, Cheadle and Ji are both concerned with power control regarding RB allocations regarding a distance from an edge of the UE channel, not the edge of the larger BS channel. Note Cheadle at FIG 4 showing a power back-off region for power control designing a guard band within the UE channel. Thus the prior art does not teach or suggest controlling the power at the UE by determining a distance of the resource block allocation from at least one edge of the base station channel bandwidth and controlling the power thereby as claimed. Claims 2-6 and 14 contain allowable subject matter as being dependent on claim 1 above.
Claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and contains allowable subject matter for the same reason set forth as to claim 1 above. Claims 8-12 and 16 contain allowable subject matter as being dependent on claim 7 above, and claims 17 and 20 contain allowable subject matter as being dependent on claim 13 above.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments with the Amendment (“Remarks”).
As to the previous objection as to the Consent of Assignee (Remarks at 12), the objection is withdrawn in light of the corrected Consent filed with the Amendment.
As to the previous rejection of claims as to the reissue declaration (Remarks at 12), the rejection is sustained above. The Examiner notes that the newly-filed declaration provides an error statement as to limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 that are not currently removed in the claims, and that further the removal of such matter is not an error correctable by reissue because such is improper recapture of previously-surrendered subject matter as shown in the previous Office action.
As to the previous rejection of claims under §103 (Remarks at 13-15), the rejection is withdrawn in light of the Amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights