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
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 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 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rudolf, Marian et al. (US 20240214948 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rudolf).
Regarding claim 1, Rudolf teaches:
an apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to (Rudolf discloses and apparatus with a processor that is coupled to memory that executes the instruction of the following limitations. See paragraphs [0044-0045] and Figure 2).
determine, for full-duplex operation, that at least one of a change in a path loss or a change in a transmit power back-off requirement exceeds a predefined full-duplex transmission power factor parameter; and send a power headroom report (PHR) for full-duplex operation (FD-PHR) based on at least one of a first determination or a second determination, wherein the first determination comprises a determination that the path loss or the change in the transmit power back-off requirement exceeds the predefined full-duplex transmission power factor parameter (Rudolf discloses power headroom reporting for full-duplex operations where a PHR is sent based on the determination that there has been a change of path loss. See Abstract and [0122]).
Regarding claim 2, Rudolf teaches an apparatus that can enable a first prohibit timer to prevent the one or more processors from causing the apparatus to send a PHR for half-duplex operation (HD-PHR) while the first prohibit timer is active; and enable a second prohibit timer to prevent the one or more processors from causing the apparatus to send the FD-PHR while the second prohibit timer is active (Rudolf discloses that multiple prohibit timers can be enabled for both non-SBFD slots (half duplex) and SBFD slots (full duplex). It is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that a prohibit timer temporarily blocks transmission during the active status of that timer. See paragraph [0147]).
Regarding claim 3, Rudolf teaches an apparatus that can determine that the second prohibit timer is expired; and send the FD-PHR based on the first determination and the second determination, wherein the second determination comprises the determination that the second prohibit timer is expired (Rudolf discloses sending a PHR based on the determination that the prohibit timer has expired. See paragraph [0155]).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 3.
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf in view of Zheng, Ruiming (US 20240147385 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zheng).
Regarding claim 4, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, reset the second prohibit timer based on the one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to send the FD-PHR.
In the same field of endeavor, Zheng discloses resetting the timer once a PHR is reported. See paragraph [0076].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to incorporate using the event of PHR transmission to reset the PHR prohibit timer. The motivation to combine is to reduce latency in power headroom reporting.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf in view of Marupaduga, Sreekar (US 11277800 B1, hereinafter referred to as Marupaduga).
Regarding claim 5, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein the predefined full-duplex transmission power factor parameter is at least one of 1 dB, 3dB, or 6 dB.
In the same field of endeavor, Marupaduga discloses an initial, predefined power factor being set to 3 dB. See paragraph [42].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to incorporate having a predefined transmission power factor. The motivation to combine is to optimize performance and reduce costs in power transmission and distribution.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 5.
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf in view of Su, Di et al. (US 20220159580 A1, hereinafter referred to as Su).
Regarding claim 6, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, to send the FD-PHR, the one or more processors are configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to use a single entry PHR medium access control control element (MAC-CE), and the single entry PHR MAC-CE comprises an indication the PHR corresponds to full-duplex operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses a single-entry MAC-CE sending a full duplex PHR that indicates that it supports full duplex operations. See paragraphs [0008], [0012], [0016], [0227] and [0229-0230].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to incorporate using a single entry PHR MAC-CE with an indication of it being full-duplex. The motivation to combine is to enable smarter resource allocation and accurate power reporting.
Regarding claim 7, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein a value of a reserve field of the single entry PHR MAC-CE is configured as the indication.
In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses a reserved bit that can be configured as an indication. See paragraph [0230].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to incorporate using a reserved bit for indication of the duplex mode. The motivation to combine is to provide a clear and standardized way to control bidirectional communication.
Regarding claim 8, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, to send the FD-PHR, the one or more processors are configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to use a multiple entry power headroom report (PHR) medium access control control element (MAC-CE), and the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE comprises an indication that the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE includes one or more PHRs for a half-duplex operation or the full-duplex operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses that the process can be done for multiple entry PHR MAC-CE with a byte for dynamic indication. See paragraphs [0234] and [0236].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to incorporate using a multiple entry PHR MAC-CE with an indication of the duplex mode. The motivation to combine is to have correct operational context for optimal scheduling and power control.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 8.
Claims 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf in view of Su and further in view of Shim, Jaenam et al. (US 20230284155 A1, hereinafter referred to as Shim).
Regarding claim 9, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein a first PHR result within the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE is the FD-PHR.
In the same field of endeavor, Shim discloses a report with slots that contain half duplex ops that are followed by full duplex operations. However, order is not specified in the disclosure and can be interpreted as starting with a full duplex operation. See paragraphs [0171], [0176] and Figure 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf and Su to incorporate arranging the full-duplex PHR first in a multiple entry PHR. The motivation to combine is to prioritize the network's scheduler and power control.
Regarding claim 10, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein a first PHR result within the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE is the FD-PHR and a subsequent PHR result within the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE is a PHR for half-duplex operation (HD-PHR).
In the same field of endeavor, Shim discloses a report with slots that contain half duplex ops that are followed by full duplex operations. However, order is not specified in the disclosure and can be interpreted as starting with a full duplex operation and being followed by half duplex operations. See paragraphs [0171], [0176] and Figure 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf and Su to incorporate sorting the different PHR modes a specific way in a multiple entry PHR. The motivation to combine is to improve scheduling accuracy and resource allocation.
Regarding claim 11, Rudolf teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except, wherein a first PHR result within the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE is a PHR for half-duplex operation (HD-PHR) and a subsequent PHR result within the multiple entry PHR MAC-CE is the FD-PHR.
In the same field of endeavor, Shim discloses a report with slots that contain half duplex ops that are followed by full duplex operations. However, order is not specified in the disclosure and can be interpreted as starting with a full duplex operation and being followed by half duplex operations. See paragraphs [0171], [0176] and Figure 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf and Su to incorporate sorting the different PHR modes a specific way in a multiple entry PHR. The motivation to combine is to improve scheduling accuracy and resource allocation.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsai, Lung-Sheng et al. (US 20250097850 A1, POWER CONTROL FOR REPEATERS AND MULTI-PATH COMMUNICATION)
Zhang, Qian et al. (US 12015987 B2, POWER HEADROOM REPORTS ASSUMING HALF DUPLEX AND/OR FULL DUPLEX)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/C.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights