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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble begins with "A computer-readable storage medium". The specification mentioned it may include “any other medium that can carry or store desired program code in a form of instructions or a data structure”, based on the broadest interpretation, a computer-readable storage medium may include a propagation signal that is non-statutory subject matter. Claims 14-18 are rejected for being the same medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4.Claims 4, 6, 10 and 12-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first threshold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same argument applies to claims 10 and 16.
Claims 16-18 appear to be dependent of claim 15 instead of claim 13, “the second threshold” of claim 16 lacks antecedent basis; “the third threshold” of claim 17 lacks antecedent basis; finally in claim 18 reciting “the fourth threshold” is “the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset”…the fifth offset is an offset related to “the power aggregation”, the highlighted terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 6 reciting wherein the fourth threshold is “the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset”… “the power aggregation”, the highlighted terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 12 reciting wherein the fourth threshold is “the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset”… “the power aggregation”, the highlighted terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “A computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer-executable instructions; and when the computer-executable instructions are executed by a processor of a device, the device performs the steps comprising”, however when it’s not executed by the processor, it’s unclear that whether or not the instructions still includes the steps as part of the limitations, thus removing the phrase “when” is suggested. Claims 14-18 are rejected for depend from claim 13.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papasakellariou (US 20190124600 A1).
For claim 1. Papasakellariou discloses A communication method, comprising: determining, by a terminal device (Abstract, [0002]), at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260, [0118]-[0120]) based on at least two expected transmit powers (figure 12 step 1210), and a first maximum transmit power (figure 12, [0118]-[0120], P_CMAX(i)) and/or (the term “and/or” is an alternative form, thus the optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered) at least two second maximum transmit powers, wherein the at least two expected transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with at least two uplink transmissions simultaneously performed by the terminal device ([0073], claim 1, figure 12), the first maximum transmit power is a maximum transmit power of the terminal device (P_CMAX(i)), the at least two second maximum transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions, and the at least two actual transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions (figure 12 step 1260); and performing, by the terminal device, uplink transmission based on the at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260).
For claim 2. The method according to claim 1, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the determining, by a terminal device, at least two actual transmit powers based on at least two expected transmit powers and at least two second maximum transmit powers comprises: determining, by the terminal device, a corresponding actual transmit power based on a value relationship between each expected transmit power and a second maximum transmit power corresponding to each expected transmit power (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation; additionally Papasakellariou discloses this limitation in figure 12, [0118]-[0120]).
For claim 3. The method according to claim 1, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the at least two second maximum transmit powers meet one or more of the following conditions: a sum of actual radiated powers corresponding to the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a second threshold; and a effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) corresponding to each of the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a third threshold and is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 4. The method according to claim 3, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are preset upper limits of transmit powers (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 5. The method according to claim 3, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the third threshold is a preset upper limit of an EIRP (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 6. The method according to claim 3, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the fourth threshold is the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset, and then plus a fifth offset, and the third offset is a corresponding offset when multiple uplink transmissions are performed simultaneously, and the fourth offset is determined based on multiple maximum power reduction indicators, the fifth offset is an offset related to the power aggregation (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 7. Papasakellariou discloses A communication apparatus (Abstract, [0002]), comprising: a processor, configured to execute computer instructions to determine at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260, [0118]-[0120]) based on at least two expected transmit powers (figure 12 step 1210), and a first maximum transmit power (figure 12, [0118]-[0120], P_CMAX(i)) and/or (the term “and/or” is an alternative form, thus the optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered) at least two second maximum transmit powers, wherein the at least two expected transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with at least two uplink transmissions simultaneously performed by a terminal device ([0073], claim 1, figure 12), the first maximum transmit power is a maximum transmit power of the terminal device (P_CMAX(i)), the at least two second maximum transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions, and the at least two actual transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions (figure 12 step 1260); and a transceiver, configured to perform uplink transmission based on the at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260).
For claim 8. The apparatus according to claim 7, Papasakellariou discloses wherein when determining the at least two actual transmit powers based on the at least two expected transmit powers and the at least two second maximum transmit powers, the processor is configured to: determine the corresponding actual transmit power based on a value relationship between each expected transmit power and a second maximum transmit power corresponding to each expected transmit power (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation; additionally Papasakellariou discloses this limitation in figure 12, [0118]-[0120]).
For claim 9. The apparatus according to claim 7, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the at least two second maximum transmit powers meet one or more of the following conditions: a sum of actual radiated powers corresponding to the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a second threshold; a effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) corresponding to each of the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a third threshold and is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 10. The apparatus according to claim 9, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are preset upper limits of transmit powers (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 11. The apparatus according to claim 9, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the third threshold is a preset upper limit of a EIRP (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 12. The apparatus according to claim 9, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the fourth threshold is the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset, and then plus a fifth offset, and the third offset is a corresponding offset when multiple uplink transmissions are performed simultaneously, and the fourth offset is determined based on multiple maximum power reduction indicators, the fifth offset is an offset related to the power aggregation (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 13. Papasakellariou discloses A computer-readable storage medium (Abstract, [0002]), wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores computer-executable instructions; and when the computer-executable instructions are executed by a processor of a device, the device performs the steps comprising: determining, by a terminal device, at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260, [0118]-[0120]) based on at least two expected transmit powers (figure 12 step 1210), and a first maximum transmit power (figure 12, [0118]-[0120], P_CMAX(i)) and/or (the term “and/or” is an alternative form, thus the optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered) at least two second maximum transmit powers, wherein the at least two expected transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with at least two uplink transmissions simultaneously performed by the terminal device ([0073], claim 1, figure 12), the first maximum transmit power is a maximum transmit power of the terminal device (P_CMAX(i)), the at least two second maximum transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions, and the at least two actual transmit powers are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two uplink transmissions (figure 12 step 1260); and performing, by the terminal device, uplink transmission based on the at least two actual transmit powers (figure 12 step 1260).
For claim 14. The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the determining, by a terminal device, at least two actual transmit powers based on at least two expected transmit powers and at least two second maximum transmit powers comprises: determining, by the terminal device, a corresponding actual transmit power based on a value relationship between each expected transmit power and a second maximum transmit power corresponding to each expected transmit power (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation; additionally Papasakellariou discloses this limitation in figure 12, [0118]-[0120]).
For claim 15. The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the at least two second maximum transmit powers meet one or more of the following conditions: a sum of actual radiated powers corresponding to the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a second threshold; a effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) corresponding to each of the at least two second maximum transmit powers is less than or equal to a third threshold and is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 16. The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are preset upper limits of transmit powers (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 17. The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the third threshold is a preset upper limit of a EIRP (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
For claim 18. The computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, Papasakellariou discloses wherein the fourth threshold is the preset lower limit of the EIRP minus the third offset and the fourth offset, and then plus a fifth offset, and the third offset is a corresponding offset when multiple uplink transmissions are performed simultaneously, and the fourth offset is determined based on multiple maximum power reduction indicators, the fifth offset is an offset related to the power aggregation (the term “and/or” in its base claim is an alternative form, thus the first optional limitation “first maximum transmit power” is considered, and the second optional limitation “at least two second maximum transmit powers” is not considered, this limitation is directed to the unselected second optional limitation).
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. 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.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
August 31, 2026
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights