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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/25/2024. Claims 3, 7, 9, 15-17, 22 and 28-62 have been cancelled. Claims 4-6, 8, 10-14, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 27 have been amended. Currently, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 18-21 and 23-27 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 09/25/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18, 19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20110319120 A1) in view of Nagaoka et al. (US 20060217088 A1).
Consider claim 1, Chen discloses an apparatus (read as apparatus 700 as at least part of user equipment (UE), figure 7, par [0170] and [0174]) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as processor 704 and memory 702, with memory 702 storing instructions and processor 704 executing the stored instructions to operate the apparatus/UE, figure 7, par [0175] and [0183]):
determine a transmission power requested with a network node (read as the base station sends DCI containing power control parameters that request UE transmit power levels and adjustments; the UE determines the resulting total requested uplink power P.sub.T (i), par [0152] and [0161]);
determine a transmission quality class based on power frequency profile parameters (read as the UE selects power backoff value (MPR) entry from a lookup table that parametizes the power-frequency profile of the uplink waveform; and the lookup table entry corresponds to the transmission quality class, figure 4, par [0163]);
wherein the transmission quality class comprises a predefined maximum power reduction (read as the lookup table entry provides the MPR, which defined as maximum power reduction; since the MPR is stored in the lookup table before selection, it reasonably corresponds to a predetermined maximum power reduction, par [0157] and [0163]);
determine an output power value based on the transmission quality class (read as determining configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX by subtracting the MPR provided by the selected lookup table entry from the P.sub.MAX (P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR); thus, the P.sub.CMAX corresponds to the output power value determined from the selected quality class, par [0157] and [0163]);
determine an uplink transmission power as a minimum of: the output power value, and the transmission power requested with the network node (read as selecting the transmit power using (min{P.sub.CMAX(i), P.sub.T(i)}), which is minimum of configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX(i) (the output power value) and requested power P.sub.T(i) (the transmission power requested by base station), par [0163]); and
transmit an uplink transmission, based on the uplink transmission power (read as the UE adjusts the allocated channel power using the selected MPR and transmits the channels on the uplink at the adjusted power level; the uplink transmission is thus based on the determined uplink transmission power, figure 4, par [0170]).
However, Chen discloses the claimed invention above with lookup table entry (transmission quality class) that provides MPR (figure 4, par [0163]) but does not disclose determine a transmission quality class based on the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka disclose a controller that compares requested transmission power P with stored Pmax thresholds; the resulting requested power range selects no clipping or one of clipping levels X, Y and Z; thus, the magnitude of the power requested by the base station is used to select among discrete control levels, figure 9, par [0061]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, to configure Chen’s MPR look up process using Nagaoka’s requested power threshold range so that each range selects a stored MPR entry, in order to adjust Chen’s configured maximum power accordingly to how closely the requested power approaches the UE maximum and address Chen’s conflict among requested power, UE capability and emission backoff (See par [0152] of Chen, par [0055] and [0062]-[0066] of Nagaoka).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein: the output power value is smaller than or equal to a maximum output power for a considered user equipment power class (read as reducing the applicable maximum UE transmit power P.sub.MAX by MPR to produce the configured maximum UE power P.sub.CMAX, since MPE is a power reduction, P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR is no greater than P.sub.MAX; P.sub.MAX performs the maximum output power applicable to the UE power class, figure 4, par [0157] and [0163]); and the output power value is larger than or equal to: the maximum output power for the considered user equipment power class minus the predefined maximum power reduction defined for the determined transmission quality class (read as the lookup table provide MPR and that the configured output power value is P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR; equality with P.sub.MAX-MPR corresponds to the “equal to” lower bound, with the selected lookup table MPR defining the reduction used to determine P.sub.MAX, figure 4, par [0157] and [0163]).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive an uplink grant from the network node, the uplink grant comprising at least one parameter configured to be used to determine the transmission power requested with the network node 9read as the UE receiving DCI from the base station containing an uplink resource allocation, a dynamically scheduled resource grant, allocated PUSCH resource block and a TPC command; the allocated resource and TPC values are parameters used in the uplink power calculation, so the DIC carrying those parameters corresponds to the uplink grant, figure 4, par [0158], [0160] and [0170]); and determine the transmission power requested with the network node based on a transmission power formula and the at least one parameter (read as calculating PUSCH power with a transmission power formular that uses the allocated resource block factor and the TPC command received through the grant within the DCI; then sums the calculated channel powers as P.sub.T(i), which identified as the total uplink transmit power requested by the base station, par [0160]-[0161]).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein a power control range has been partitioned into at least two transmission quality classes comprising the transmission quality class, and the transmission quality class comprises at least one quality target (read as the parametized lookup table including entries (partitioned) for different power and frequency profiles, with different profiles mapping to different MPR values; the distinct MPR-bearing entries corresponds to two transmission quality classes, and the MPR stored in each entry is a class specific quality target, figure 4, par [0157], [0163] and [0166]).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the transmission quality class is one of a number of transmission quality classes defined discretely based on power frequency profile parameter (read as parametized lookup table entries selected according to power and frequency profile parameters, with different profiles mapping to different MPR values; each MPR-bearing entry corresponds to one of a number of transmission quality classes, figure 4, par [0163] and [0166]) but does not specifically disclose defining the transmission quality classes discretely based on a plurality of ranges of the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka further discloses multiple discrete regions of transmission power requested by the base station, with a corresponding transmission control selection for each region, figure 9, par [0062]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, to configure Chen’s MPR lookup entries using Nagaoka’s discrete requested power regions, in order to select the applicable power reduction class according to the requested power’s proximity to the UE maximum (see par [0055] and [0066] of Nagaoka).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the transmission quality class is defined based on an allowed error vector magnitude, an allowed maximum power reduction, and/or a configured output power (read as lookup table entry containing an MPR, as defined as maximum power reduction, which is selected and applied to determine configured maximum power, figure 4, par [0157] and [0163]).
Consider claim 19, Chen discloses an apparatus comprising (read as transmitter system 210, which is a base station or access point, figure 2, par [0135]):
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as base station processor 230 and memory 232, with memory 232 storing program codes used by processor 230 to direct the operations of transmitter system 210, figure 2, par [0150]):
request, with a network node, a transmission power for a user equipment (read as base station sends DCI requesting specific UE transmit power levels and adjustments, the resulting total uplink power P.sub.T(i) is identified as power requested by the base station for the user equipment (UE), par [0152] and [0161]);
transmit an uplink grant to a user equipment, the uplink grant comprising at least one parameter configured to be used to determine the transmission power requested with the network node for the user equipment (read as the base station sends DCI to the UE containing an uplink resource allocation and power control commands; the dynamically scheduled resource grant, allocated PUSCH resource blocks and TPC command provide parameters used by the PUSCH power equation and the resulting calculation of requested power P.sub.T(i); the DCI containing the scheduling and power control information as the uplink grant, par [0152] and [0158]-[0161]);
wherein a transmission quality class is determined based on power frequency profile parameters (read as the UE selects power backoff value (MPR) entry from a lookup table that parametizes the power-frequency profile of the uplink waveform; and the lookup table entry corresponds to the transmission quality class, figure 4, par [0163]);
wherein the transmission quality class comprises a predefined maximum power reduction (read as the lookup table entry provides the MPR, which defined as maximum power reduction; since the MPR is stored in the lookup table before selection, it reasonably corresponds to a predetermined maximum power reduction, par [0157] and [0163]);
wherein an output power value is determined based on the transmission quality class (read as determining configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX by subtracting the MPR provided by the selected lookup table entry from the P.sub.MAX (P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR); thus, the P.sub.CMAX corresponds to the output power value determined from the selected quality class, par [0157] and [0163]);
wherein an uplink transmission power is determined as a minimum of: the output power value, and the transmission power requested with the network node for the user equipment (read as selecting the transmit power using (min{P.sub.CMAX(i), P.sub.T(i)}), which is minimum of configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX(i) (the output power value) and requested power P.sub.T(i) (the transmission power requested by base station), par [0163]); and
receive an uplink transmission, based on the uplink transmission power (read as the UE adjusts the allocated channel power using the selected MPR and transmits the channels on the uplink at the adjusted power level to the base station to receive (see figure 2); the uplink transmission is thus based on the determined uplink transmission power, figures 2 and 4, par [0135], [0143], [0148] and [0170]).
However, Chen discloses the claimed invention above with lookup table entry (transmission quality class) that provides MPR (figure 4, par [0163]) but does not disclose determine a transmission quality class based on the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka disclose a controller that compares requested transmission power P with stored Pmax thresholds; the resulting requested power range selects no clipping or one of clipping levels X, Y and Z; thus, the magnitude of the power requested by the base station is used to select among discrete control levels, figure 9, par [0061]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, to configure Chen’s MPR look up process using Nagaoka’s requested power threshold range so that each range selects a stored MPR entry, in order to adjust Chen’s configured maximum power accordingly to how closely the requested power approaches the UE maximum and address Chen’s conflict among requested power, UE capability and emission backoff (See par [0152] of Chen, par [0055] and [0062]-[0066] of Nagaoka).
Consider claim 21, as applied to claim 19 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein a power control range has been partitioned into at least two transmission quality classes comprising the transmission quality class, and the transmission quality class comprises at least one quality target (read as the parametized lookup table including entries (partitioned) for different power and frequency profiles, with different profiles mapping to different MPR values; the distinct MPR-bearing entries corresponds to two transmission quality classes, and the MPR stored in each entry is a class specific quality target, figure 4, par [0157], [0163] and [0166]).
Consider claim 24, as applied to claim 19 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the transmission quality class is one of a number of transmission quality classes defined discretely based on power frequency profile parameter (read as parametized lookup table entries selected according to power and frequency profile parameters, with different profiles mapping to different MPR values; each MPR-bearing entry corresponds to one of a number of transmission quality classes, figure 4, par [0163] and [0166]) but does not specifically disclose defining the transmission quality classes discretely based on a plurality of ranges of the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka further discloses multiple discrete regions of transmission power requested by the base station, with a corresponding transmission control selection for each region, figure 9, par [0062]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure Chen’s MPR lookup entries using Nagaoka’s discrete requested power regions, in order to select the applicable power reduction class according to the requested power’s proximity to the UE maximum (see par [0055] and [0066] of Nagaoka).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20110319120 A1) in view of Nagaoka et al. (US 20060217088 A1), and in further view of Piipponen et al. (US 20200022079 A1).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the transmission quality class is defined based on a modulation order (read as the lookup table with the MPR entry selected according to the modulation scheme and other power and frequency profiles parameters; the modulation scheme identifies the modulation order used for the uplink channel, thus accounts for defining the class using that modulation order, figure 4, par [0160], [0163] and [0166]) but does not specifically discloses wherein the transmission quality class is defined based on an error vector magnitude limit for a modulation order.
However, Piipponen discloses a separate EVM limit for each listed modulation method: 17.5 percent for QPSK or BPSK, 12.5 percent for 16QAM, and 8 percent for 64QAM; those EVM limits corresponds to the respective modulation methods and modulation orders, par [0063] and [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piipponen into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure Chen’s modulation sensitive MPR lookup table using Piipponen’s modulation specific EVM limits, in order to apply configured power consistent with transmit signal quality limit for the scheduled modulation (see par [0063] and [0069] of Piipponen).
Consider claim 14, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses wherein the transmission quality class for a scenario comprises a smaller predefined maximum power reduction (read as power backoff adjustments would increase or decrease accordingly to waveform characteristics and that different power and frequency profile scenarios map to different MPR values; a scenario would thus map to a smaller predefined MPR, and P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR establishes that the smaller MPR produces a larger configured maximum output power, figure 4, par [0156]-[0157], [0163] and [0166]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the transmission quality class for the scenario comprises a more relaxed quality target for the smaller predefined maximum power reduction.
Nonetheless, Piipponen discloses a relaxed requirement set applies less strict EVM or emissions requirements and would permit a higher output power than the regular requirement set, par [0089]-[0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piipponen into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure Chen’s scenario specific MPR entry using Piipponen’s relaxed EVM requirement, in order to permit the higher configured output power allowed when less strict transmit quality requirement apply (see par [0090]-[0093] of Piipponen).
Claims 5, 8, 20, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20110319120 A1) in view of Nagaoka et al. (US 20060217088 A1), and in further view of Mukkavilli et al. (US 20200374804 A1).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein: the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive an uplink grant from the network node, the uplink grant comprising information related to whether an uplink transmission regulatory framework comprises a legacy regulatory framework or a relaxed regulatory framework; determine the transmission quality class based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the uplink transmission regulatory framework comprising the legacy regulatory framework, or determine the transmission quality class based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the transmission power requested with the network node being at or below a threshold.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses a downlink transmission containing an uplink grant, an indication of which transmission efficiency operating mode to use, and relaxed parameters, for example, the standard transmission efficiency operating mode and the high transmission efficiency operating mode; the base station would provide operation mode indication on a pre-scheduling grant basis, and the UE selects the indicated mode, and the ACLR and EVM requirements follow the selected mode, including relaxed requirements for high transmission efficiency operation; the standard transmission efficiency operating mode with its non-relaxed emissions requirement corresponds to the legacy regulatory framework, while the high transmission efficiency operating mode with relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements correspond to relaxed regulatory frameworks; and the grant indication provides the condition governing which requirement set applies to the scheduled uplink, figure 6 and 15, par [0116], [0118], [0120]-[0121] and [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure the grant responsive MPR selection process using Mukkavilli’s per-grant operating mode indication so that the transmission quality class selected from requested power and the corresponding P.sub.CMAX determination are preformed when the grant selects relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements, in order to align Chen’s configured maximum power with the emissions requirement set selected by the network/base station and support power efficient uplink allocation (see par [0052], [0116] and [0120] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as processor 704 and memory 702, with memory 702 storing instructions and processor 704 executing the stored instructions to operate the apparatus/UE, figure 7, par [0175] and [0183]) but does not specifically disclose transmit, from a user equipment to the network node, an indication indicating a capability of the user equipment to support a transmission quality class.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses UE capability reporting, in which the UE transmitting a capability report to the base station that identifies supported indexed transmission efficiency modes and would include associated MPR values; an indexed operating mode having an associated MPR corresponds to a supported quality class, figures 6 and 15, par [0050], [0114] and [0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure Chen’s UE using Mukkavilli’s indexed mode and MPR indication, in order to allow the base station to schedule only power and emissions modes supported by the UE (see par [0050] and [0114] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 20, as applied to claim 19 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein: the uplink grant comprises information related to whether an uplink transmission regulatory framework comprises a legacy regulatory framework or a relaxed regulatory framework; the transmission quality class is determined based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the uplink transmission regulatory framework comprising the legacy regulatory framework, or the transmission quality class is determined based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the transmission power requested with the network node for the user equipment being at or below a threshold.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses a downlink transmission containing an uplink grant, an indication of which transmission efficiency operating mode to use, and relaxed parameters, for example, the standard transmission efficiency operating mode and the high transmission efficiency operating mode; the base station would provide operation mode indication on a pre-scheduling grant basis, and the UE selects the indicated mode, and the ACLR and EVM requirements follow the selected mode, including relaxed requirements for high transmission efficiency operation; the standard transmission efficiency operating mode with its non-relaxed emissions requirement corresponds to the legacy regulatory framework, while the high transmission efficiency operating mode with relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements correspond to relaxed regulatory frameworks; and the grant indication provides the condition governing which requirement set applies to the scheduled uplink, figure 6 and 15, par [0116], [0118], [0120]-[0121] and [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure the grant responsive MPR selection process using Mukkavilli’s per-grant operating mode indication so that the transmission quality class selected from requested power and the corresponding P.sub.CMAX determination are preformed when the grant selects relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements, in order to align Chen’s configured maximum power with the emissions requirement set selected by the network/base station and support power efficient uplink allocation (see par [0052], [0116] and [0120] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 23, as applied to claim 19 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as processor 704 and memory 702, with memory 702 storing instructions and processor 704 executing the stored instructions to operate the apparatus/UE, figure 7, par [0175] and [0183]) but does not specifically disclose receive, with the network node from the user equipment, an indication indicating a capability of the user equipment to support a transmission quality class.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses UE capability reporting, in which the UE transmitting a capability report to the base station that identifies supported indexed transmission efficiency modes and would include associated MPR values; an indexed operating mode having an associated MPR corresponds to a supported quality class, figures 6 and 15, par [0050], [0114] and [0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure Chen’s UE using Mukkavilli’s indexed mode and MPR indication, in order to allow the base station to schedule only power and emissions modes supported by the UE (see par [0050] and [0114] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 25, Chen discloses an apparatus (read as apparatus 700 as at least part of user equipment (UE), figure 7, par [0170] and [0174]) comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as processor 704 and memory 702, with memory 702 storing instructions and processor 704 executing the stored instructions to operate the apparatus/UE, figure 7, par [0175] and [0183]):
receive an uplink grant from a network node, the uplink grant comprising at least one parameter configured to be used to determine a transmission power requested with the network node (read as the UE receives DCI from the base station containing an uplink resource allocation and power control commands; the dynamically scheduled resource grant, allocated PUSCH resource blocks and TPC command provide parameters used by the PUSCH power equation and the resulting calculation of requested power P.sub.T(i); the DCI containing the scheduling and power control information as the uplink grant, par [0152] and [0158]-[0161]);
determine the transmission power requested with the network node, based on the at least one parameter received with the uplink grant (read as the scheduled resource block allocation and TPC command enter the PUSCH power calculation, and the resulting channel powers are summed as P.sub.T(i), the total uplink power requested by the base station; thus, the P.sub.T(i) is determined using at least one parameter received in the grant contained in the DCI, par [0158] and [0160]-[0161]);
wherein the uplink grant comprises power control commands (read as uplink grant DCI comprising power control commands for the allocated uplink channels, par [0158]);
determine a transmission quality class based on power frequency profile parameters (read as the UE selects power backoff value (MPR) entry from a lookup table that parametizes the power-frequency profile of the uplink waveform; and the lookup table entry corresponds to the transmission quality class, figure 4, par [0163]);
wherein the transmission quality class comprises a predefined maximum power reduction (read as the lookup table entry provides the MPR, which defined as maximum power reduction; since the MPR is stored in the lookup table before selection, it reasonably corresponds to a predetermined maximum power reduction, par [0157] and [0163]);
determine an output power value based on the transmission quality class (read as determining configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX by subtracting the MPR provided by the selected lookup table entry from the P.sub.MAX (P.sub.CMAX = P.sub.MAX – MPR); thus, the P.sub.CMAX corresponds to the output power value determined from the selected quality class, par [0157] and [0163]);
determine an uplink transmission power as a minimum of: the output power value, and the transmission power requested with the network node (read as selecting the transmit power using (min{P.sub.CMAX(i), P.sub.T(i)}), which is minimum of configured maximum power P.sub.CMAX(i) (the output power value) and requested power P.sub.T(i) (the transmission power requested by base station), par [0163]); and
transmit an uplink transmission, based on the uplink transmission power (read as the UE adjusts the allocated channel power using the selected MPR and transmits the channels on the uplink at the adjusted power level; the uplink transmission is thus based on the determined uplink transmission power, figure 4, par [0170]).
However, Chen discloses the claimed invention above with lookup table entry (transmission quality class) that provides MPR (figure 4, par [0163]) but does not disclose determine a transmission quality class based on the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka disclose a controller that compares requested transmission power P with stored Pmax thresholds; the resulting requested power range selects no clipping or one of clipping levels X, Y and Z; thus, the magnitude of the power requested by the base station is used to select among discrete control levels, figure 9, par [0061]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, to configure Chen’s MPR look up process using Nagaoka’s requested power threshold range so that each range selects a stored MPR entry, in order to adjust Chen’s configured maximum power accordingly to how closely the requested power approaches the UE maximum and address Chen’s conflict among requested power, UE capability and emission backoff (See par [0152] of Chen, par [0055] and [0062]-[0066] of Nagaoka).
However, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka, discloses the claimed invention above with uplink grant, transmission quality class and output power (par [0158]-[0163] and [0170]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the uplink grant comprises information related to whether an uplink transmission regulatory framework comprises a legacy regulatory framework or a relaxed regulatory framework; determine the transmission quality class and the output power in response to the uplink transmission regulatory framework comprising the relaxed regulatory framework.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses a downlink transmission containing an uplink grant, an indication of which transmission efficiency operating mode to use, and relaxed parameters, for example, the standard transmission efficiency operating mode and the high transmission efficiency operating mode; the base station would provide operation mode indication on a pre-scheduling grant basis, and the UE selects the indicated mode, and the ACLR and EVM requirements follow the selected mode, including relaxed requirements for high transmission efficiency operation; the standard transmission efficiency operating mode with its non-relaxed emissions requirement corresponds to the legacy regulatory framework, while the high transmission efficiency operating mode with relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements correspond to relaxed regulatory frameworks; and the grant indication provides the condition governing which requirement set applies to the scheduled uplink, figure 6 and 15, par [0116], [0118], [0120]-[0121] and [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka, to configure the grant responsive MPR selection process using Mukkavilli’s per-grant operating mode indication so that the transmission quality class selected from requested power and the corresponding P.sub.CMAX determination are preformed when the grant selects relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements, in order to align Chen’s configured maximum power with the emissions requirement set selected by the network/base station and support power efficient uplink allocation (see par [0052], [0116] and [0120] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 26, as applied to claim 25 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka and Mukkavilli, discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (read as processor 704 and memory 702, with memory 702 storing instructions and processor 704 executing the stored instructions to operate the apparatus/UE, figure 7, par [0175] and [0183]) bit does not specifically disclose determine the output power value based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the uplink transmission regulatory framework comprising the legacy regulatory framework; or determine the output power value based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the transmission power requested with a network node being at or below a threshold; or determine the transmission quality class based on the legacy regulatory framework, in response to the uplink transmission regulatory framework comprising the legacy regulatory framework.
Nonetheless, Mukkavilli discloses a downlink transmission containing an uplink grant, an indication of which transmission efficiency operating mode to use, and relaxed parameters, for example, the standard transmission efficiency operating mode and the high transmission efficiency operating mode; the base station would provide operation mode indication on a pre-scheduling grant basis, and the UE selects the indicated mode, and the ACLR and EVM requirements follow the selected mode, including relaxed requirements for high transmission efficiency operation; the standard transmission efficiency operating mode with its non-relaxed emissions requirement corresponds to the legacy regulatory framework, while the high transmission efficiency operating mode with relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements correspond to relaxed regulatory frameworks; and the grant indication provides the condition governing which requirement set applies to the scheduled uplink, figure 6 and 15, par [0116], [0118], [0120]-[0121] and [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mukkavilli into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka and Mukkavilli, to configure the grant responsive MPR selection process using Mukkavilli’s per-grant operating mode indication so that the transmission quality class selected from requested power and the corresponding P.sub.CMAX determination are preformed when the grant selects relaxed ACLR or EVM requirements, in order to align Chen’s configured maximum power with the emissions requirement set selected by the network/base station and support power efficient uplink allocation (see par [0052], [0116] and [0120] of Mukkavilli).
Consider claim 27, as applied to claim 25 above, Chen, as modified by Nagaoka and Mukkavilli, discloses wherein the transmission quality class is one of a number of transmission quality classes defined discretely based on power frequency profile parameter (read as parametized lookup table entries selected according to power and frequency profile parameters, with different profiles mapping to different MPR values; each MPR-bearing entry corresponds to one of a number of transmission quality classes, figure 4, par [0163] and [0166]) but does not specifically disclose defining the transmission quality classes discretely based on a plurality of ranges of the transmission power requested with the network node.
Nonetheless, Nagaoka further discloses multiple discrete regions of transmission power requested by the base station, with a corresponding transmission control selection for each region, figure 9, par [0062]-[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nagaoka into the teachings of Chen, which modified by Nagaoka and Mukkavilli, to configure Chen’s MPR lookup entries using Nagaoka’s discrete requested power regions, in order to select the applicable power reduction class according to the requested power’s proximity to the UE maximum (see par [0055] and [0066] of Nagaoka).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights