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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 11 September 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 11 September 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “wherein based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by the UE in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters”. Here, the limitation introduces the notation, “(ii)”; however, there is no prior recitation of “(i)”. Examiner respectfully suggests either correcting the numbering notation or determining whether Applicant intends another portion of the limitation to be preceded by “(i)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 and Claim 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “wherein based on receiving the SRS in an RRC inactive state of an RRC state of the user equipment and (ii) receiving an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS from the user equipment in the RRC inactive state before receiving the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameter”. Here, the limitation introduces the notation, “(ii)”; however, there is no prior recitation of “(i)”. Examiner respectfully suggests either correcting the numbering notation or determining whether Applicant intends another portion of the limitation to be preceded by “(i)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “wherein based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by the apparatus in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters”. Here, the limitation introduces the notation, “(ii)”; however, there is no prior recitation of “(i)”. Examiner respectfully suggests either correcting the numbering notation or determining whether Applicant intends another portion of the limitation to be preceded by “(i)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “wherein based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by a device including the one or more processors in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters”. Here, the limitation introduces the notation, “(ii)”; however, there is no prior recitation of “(i)”. Examiner respectfully suggests either correcting the numbering notation or determining whether Applicant intends another portion of the limitation to be preceded by “(i)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 9, Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14, and Claim 15, said claims recites that “the transmission power [of the SRS]” is determined after, or based on, “transmitting the SRS in the RRC inactive state”. Here, the transmission power for the [SRS} must have been determined prior to transmission of the SRS. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to correct the logical inconsistency.
Regarding Claims 2-8 and Claims 10-11, Claims 2-8 and Claims 10-11 are rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1 and rejected Claim 9.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US 20230337239 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Lei”) in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 20220174727 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yerramalli”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 5, Lei in view of Yerramalli discloses the method of claim 1.
Yerramalli, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein based on the UL signal being a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH), the one or more power offsets are determined as a total power ramp-up related to transmission of the PRACH (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the delta transmission power is determined based upon reception of a downlink signal, MSG4 that is in response to reception of two uplink signals, MSG1 and MSG3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lei in view of Yerramalli by requiring that the one or more power offsets are determined as a total power ramp-up related to transmission of the PRACH based on the UL signal being a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) as taught by Yerramalli because positioning accuracy is improved (Yerramalli, ¶105).
Regarding Claim 6, Lei in view of Yerramalli discloses the method of claim 1.
Yerramalli, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein based on the UL signal being a response signal to a Random Access Response (RAR), the one or more power offsets are determined as a Transmit Power Control (TPC) command value included in the RAR (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the delta transmission power is determined as a Transmit Power Command (TPC) delta transmission value included in an uplink grant based upon MSG3 signal being a response to a MSG2 signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lei in view of Yerramalli by requiring that the one or more power offsets are determined as a Transmit Power Control (TPC) command value included in the RAR based on the UL signal being a response signal to a Random Access Response (RAR) as taught by Yerramalli because positioning accuracy is improved (Yerramalli, ¶105).
Regarding Claim 9, Lei discloses a User Equipment (UE) operating in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
a transceiver (¶115 & Fig. 15 (1508), Lei discloses a communications device, such as a user equipment (UE), comprising a transceiver 1508); and
one or more processors connected to the transceiver (¶115 & Fig. 15 (1504), Lei discloses a communications device, such as a user equipment (UE), comprising a processor 1504 where the processor 1504 is coupled to the transceiver 1508. ¶115 & Fig. 15 (1502), Lei discloses the UE further comprising a computer-readable medium 1512 coupled to the processor 1504 where the computer-readable medium stores code for performing operations of a method),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signal (¶103 & Fig. 11 (1102) & ¶109, Lei discloses receiving, by the UE, signaling via radio resource control (RRC) signaling) including configuration information of a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) (¶103 & Fig. 11 (1102) & ¶109, Lei discloses that the signaling includes information configuring the UE with resources for sounding reference signal (SRS) transmissions),
wherein the configuration information includes one or more parameters for determining transmission power of the SRS (¶108 & Abstract, Lei discloses that the signaling includes power control (PC) commands for SRS),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the SRS based on the configuration information (¶104 & Fig. 11 (1104), Lei discloses transmitting, by the UE, the SRS based upon the signaling),
wherein the RRC signal is received in an RRC connected state (¶109 & ¶111, Lei discloses RRC signaling is transmitted in an RRC_Connected state).
However, Lei does not disclose wherein based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by the UE in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters, and wherein the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal.
Yerramalli, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by the UE in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the determination of the transmission power for SRS positioning is based upon reception of at least two downlink signals that are in response to prior uplink signals, namely the random access preamble (MSG1 of Step 706) and the RRC Connection Request (MSG3 of Step 714) where both MSG1 and MSG3 are transmitted prior to the SRS that is transmitted after the reception of MSG4), the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses determining, by the UE, a transmission power corresponding to SRS positioning based upon at least a delta transmission power of a random access response, or MSG2, where the delta transmission power is a delta transmission power command for SRS positioning. Examiner correlates MSG1 and MSG3 to uplink signals occurring prior to the SRS triggered by MSG4. ¶79 & Fig. 6, Yerramalli further discloses that MSG2 comprises additional parameters used for SRS positioning), and wherein the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the delta transmission power is determined based upon reception of a downlink signal, MSG4 that is in response to reception of MSG1 and MSG3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lei by requiring that the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters based on transmitting the SRS in an RRC inactive state and (ii) transmitting an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS by the UE in the RRC inactive state before transmitting the SRS and the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal and as taught by Yerramalli because positioning accuracy is improved (Yerramalli, ¶105).
Regarding Claim 11, Lei in view of Yerramalli discloses the UE of claim 9.
Lei further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to communicate with one or more of a mobile terminal, a network, and an autonomous vehicle other than a vehicle including the UE (¶50 & ¶43, Lei discloses that the processor of the UE is configured to communicate with a terminal, a wireless network, and a vehicular component or sensor).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 13, Lei discloses a base station operating in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver (¶117-118 & Fig. 16 (1608), Lei discloses a communications device, such as a base station (BS), comprising a transceiver 1608.); and
one or more processors connected to the transceiver (¶117-118 & Fig. 16 (1604), Lei discloses the BS comprising a processor 1604 coupled to the transceiver 1608. ¶117-118 & Fig. 16, Lei discloses the UE further comprising a computer-readable medium 1612 coupled to the processor 1604 where the computer-readable medium stores code for performing operations of a method);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signal (¶103 & Fig. 11 (1102) & ¶109, Lei discloses transmitting, by the BS, signaling via radio resource control (RRC) signaling) including configuration information of a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) (¶103 & Fig. 11 (1102) & ¶109, Lei discloses that the signaling includes information configuring the UE with resources for sounding reference signal (SRS) transmissions),
wherein the configuration information includes one or more parameters for determining transmission power of the SRS (¶108 & Abstract, Lei discloses that the signaling includes power control (PC) commands for SRS),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive, from a user equipment, the SRS related to the configuration information (¶104 & Fig. 11 (1104), Lei discloses receiving, by the BS, the SRS based upon the signaling),
wherein the RRC signal is transmitted in an RRC connected state (¶109 & ¶111, Lei discloses RRC signaling is transmitted in an RRC_Connected state).
However, Lei does not disclose wherein based on receiving the SRS in an RRC inactive state of an RRC state of the user equipment and (ii) receiving an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS from the user equipment in the RRC inactive state before receiving the SRS, the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters, and wherein the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal.
Yerramalli, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein based on receiving the SRS in an RRC inactive state of an RRC state of the user equipment and (ii) receiving an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS from the user equipment in the RRC inactive state before receiving the SRS (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the determination of the transmission power for SRS positioning is based upon transmission of at least two downlink signals that are in response to reception of prior uplink signals, namely the random access preamble (MSG1 of Step 706) and the RRC Connection Request (MSG3 of Step 714) where both MSG1 and MSG3 are transmitted prior to the SRS that is transmitted after the reception of MSG4), the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses determining, by the UE, a transmission power corresponding to SRS positioning based upon at least a delta transmission power of a random access response, or MSG2, where the delta transmission power is a delta transmission power command for SRS positioning. Examiner correlates MSG1 and MSG3 to uplink signals occurring prior to the SRS triggered by MSG4. ¶79 & Fig. 6, Yerramalli further discloses that MSG2 comprises additional parameters used for SRS positioning), and
wherein the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal (¶96 & ¶100 & Fig. 7 (712 & 720) & ¶106, Yerramalli discloses that the delta transmission power is determined based upon reception of a downlink signal, MSG4 that is in response to reception of MSG1 and MSG3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lei by requiring that the transmission power is determined based on the one or more parameters and one or more power offsets for compensation of the one or more parameters based on receiving the SRS in an RRC inactive state of an RRC state of the user equipment and (ii) receiving an Uplink (UL) signal different from the SRS from the user equipment in the RRC inactive state before receiving the SRS and the one or more power offsets are determined based on the UL signal and as taught by Yerramalli because positioning accuracy is improved (Yerramalli, ¶105).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights