DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 30 August 2024 in which claims 16-22, 24-31 are currently pending, claims 1-15 have been cancelled, and claim 23 does not exist.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 30 August 2024, 19 December 2025, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 23, 25, 26, 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 17, 25, 28, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “and/or” in claim 17 line 2, claim 25 line 2, and claim 28 line 2 respectively.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
In this case, there is no claim 23 between claims 22 and 24.
Regarding claim 25, the claimed limitation “preferably” is not a positive limitation. This makes the rest of the claim following the term “preferably wherein” to not be a necessary technical feature.
Regarding claim 26, it is suggested to replace the comma at the end of the claim with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-22, 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (PG Pub US 2025/0081126 A1) in view of Piipponen et al. (PG Pub US 2020/0280926 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 29, Frank discloses an apparatus and a method.
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the apparatus at least to perform (device: processor 606, memory 608, fig. 6):
receiving, from a network node, an indication of a second radio frequency carrier, the second radio frequency carrier being contained within a first radio frequency carrier over which the network node communicates, one or more emission requirements for the apparatus being defined with respect to the first radio frequency carrier (“a base station 102 can communicate a channel notification 116 that includes various information such as an identifier associated with a first carrier bandwidth, an identifier for a location of a bandwidth part within the first carrier bandwidth, and a resource block allocation within the bandwidth part .. the channel notification 116 includes an emission parameter associated with the base station 102 .. identify a second carrier bandwidth within the first carrier bandwidth” [0028]);
determining at least one user equipment radio frequency requirement based on the second radio frequency carrier (“where the channel notification 116 includes an emission parameter, the carrier identification 118 determines whether the UE 104 is able to apply A-MPR to satisfy the emission parameter for the bandwidth part” [0028], “meet emissions parameters at the edge of a carrier band where additional network signaled (NS) emissions requirements may apply in addition to general emissions requirements” [0029], “With NS emissions requirements, there can be a significant benefit in using the A-MPR for the smaller carrier” [0033]); and
transmitting a signal over the second radio frequency carrier based on the at least one user equipment radio frequency requirement and the one or more out-of-band emission requirements (“the UE 104 generates a response notification 120 to the base station 102 that indicates whether the UE 104 is able to satisfy an emission parameter for a bandwidth part signaled” [0028], “1. Signaling to allow the UE to indicate to the network the smaller carrier bandwidths within a larger carrier bandwidth for which the UE can meet emissions parameters and additional NS emissions requirements for the smaller carrier bandwidth with the MPR/A-MPR allowed for the smaller carrier bandwidth. 2. Signaling to indicate that the UE can meet the emissions requirements for all smaller bandwidths centered on the LO which contain the indicated configured and/or activated bandwidth parts and which are contained within the larger carrier” [0042], “the notification is transmitted as part of signal transmission over the second carrier bandwidth” [0064]).
However, Frank does not explicitly disclose out-of-band emission requirement
Nevertheless, Piipponen discloses “Out-of-band emission requirements” [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have out-of-band emission requirement because “This enlarges the space of inner allocations, improving UE UL transmission power (based on a lower/smaller MPR value)” [0053].
Regarding claim 24, Frank discloses an apparatus.
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the apparatus at least to perform (base station: processor 706, memory 708, fig. 7):
configuring a second radio frequency carrier over which a user equipment is configured to transmit, the second radio frequency carrier being contained within a first radio frequency carrier over which the apparatus communicates, one or more emission requirements for the user equipment being defined with respect to the first radio frequency carrier (“a base station 102 can communicate a channel notification 116 that includes various information such as an identifier associated with a first carrier bandwidth, an identifier for a location of a bandwidth part within the first carrier bandwidth, and a resource block allocation within the bandwidth part .. the channel notification 116 includes an emission parameter associated with the base station 102 .. identify a second carrier bandwidth within the first carrier bandwidth” [0028]),
the second radio frequency carrier is configured based on at least one user equipment radio frequency requirement (“where the channel notification 116 includes an emission parameter, the carrier identification 118 determines whether the UE 104 is able to apply A-MPR to satisfy the emission parameter for the bandwidth part” [0028], “meet emissions parameters at the edge of a carrier band where additional network signaled (NS) emissions requirements may apply in addition to general emissions requirements” [0029], “With NS emissions requirements, there can be a significant benefit in using the A-MPR for the smaller carrier” [0033]); and
transmitting an indication of the second radio frequency carrier to the user equipment (“a base station 102 can communicate a channel notification 116” [0028]).
However, Frank does not explicitly disclose out-of-band emission requirement
Nevertheless, Piipponen discloses “Out-of-band emission requirements” [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have out-of-band emission requirement because “This enlarges the space of inner allocations, improving UE UL transmission power (based on a lower/smaller MPR value)” [0053].
Regarding claims 17, 25, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Frank discloses the at least one first user equipment radio frequency requirement comprises a maximum power reduction value and/or an additional-maximum power reduction value (“standard MPR and A-MPR values for applying A-MPR to satisfy emissions parameters” [0017]), preferably wherein configuring the second radio frequency carrier is based on reducing at least one of the following: the maximum power reduction value, the additional-maximum power reduction value, a maximum of the maximum power reduction value and the additional-maximum power reduction value, and a total of the maximum power reduction value and the additional-maximum power reduction value (“the second carrier bandwidth having a minimum of the maximum power reduction value over the set of resource block allocations within the bandwidth part from the set of carrier bandwidths” [0059], “a power reduction that is less than or equal to the value for the A-MPR associated with the second carrier bandwidth” [0062], “maximum power reduction values” [0092]).
Regarding claims 18, 30, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Piipponen discloses determining a maximum transmission power based on the at least one user equipment radio frequency requirement, and transmitting the signal with a power equal to or less than the maximum transmission power (“adjust its uplink transmission power .. A UE may have a maximum transmission power .. include a transmit power control (TPC) command, which may be used to request the UE to increase or decrease its transmission power” [0032]).
Regarding claims 19, 26, 31, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Frank discloses in response to receipt of an indication of a bandwidth part contained within the second radio frequency carrier, transmitting the signal within the bandwidth part (“the notification is transmitted as part of signal transmission over the second carrier bandwidth” [0064], “an identifier for a location of a bandwidth part within the first carrier bandwidth, and a resource block allocation within the bandwidth part .. identify a second carrier bandwidth within the first carrier bandwidth” [0028]).
Regarding claims 20, 27, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Frank discloses the bandwidth part comprises a plurality of resource blocks (“resource block (RB) allocations within the bandwidth parts” [0030]), and in response to receipt of an indication of a resource block allocation contained within the bandwidth part, transmitting the signal using the resource block allocation (“a transmission over the resource block allocation” [0058]); and the user equipment radio frequency requirement comprises a maximum power reduction value (“The MPR/A-MPR for the small carrier 210 can be applied for an RB allocation within the bandwidth part 202” [0048]), the maximum power reduction value being determined based on a classification of the resource block allocation, each allocation of one or more resource blocks of the bandwidth part being classified, based on the second radio frequency carrier, as at least one of the following: an inner resource block allocation, an outer resource block allocation, and an edge resource block allocation (“The location of the LO is particularly important when evaluating the A-MPR needed to meet emissions parameters at the edge of a carrier band where additional network signaled (NS) emissions requirements may apply in addition to general emissions requirements” [0029], ““outer” allocation for a smaller carrier and an “inner” allocation for a larger carrier” [0032]).
Regarding claim 21, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Frank discloses each allocation of one or more resource blocks of the bandwidth part is classified as an inner resource block allocation (“the RB allocation may be an inner allocation for the larger carrier” [0032]).
Regarding claim 22, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Piipponen discloses an out-of-band emissions region comprises outside the first radio frequency carrier, out-of-band emissions being signals resulting from transmissions over the second radio frequency carrier falling in the out-of-band emissions region (“Out-of-band emission requirements apply immediately outside the channel bandwidth” [0040], “out-of-band channel emissions requirements apply to frequencies just outside of the wide BS channel bandwidth .. emissions from a UE transmission via resources allocated within the UE channel bandwidth part 220 may be subject to the strict out-of-band emissions requirements (e.g., thus, possibly requiring a greater MPR value, resulting in a lower maximum transmission power)” [0041]).
Regarding claim 28, Frank, Piipponen discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Piipponen discloses the second radio frequency carrier is configured to be offset by a number of resource blocks with respect to a starting resource block and/or an ending resource block of the first radio frequency carrier (“RBstart0 might be derived from other information (rather than explicitly provided; BS may still provide LCRBmax); Synchronization Blocks (or Synchronization signal blocks) can be used by UE, and may include carrier offset information (e.g., indicating carrier location for Random access carrier)” [0076]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 09/24/2026
Prosecution Insights