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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 4, “BWP” should be “bandwidth part (BWP).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2023/0097691 A1 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches a terminal (104 in Fig.1) comprising: a receiver (104 in Fig.1 further illustrated in Figs. 9) that receives information regarding more than one power control parameter set (PC or power control parameter set 1 and 2, see Fig.2, note [0054, 0056-0057]) for operation in a certain frequency range (404 or 408 in Fig.4); and a processor (904 in Fig.9) that, when an activation command indicating one or two power control parameter sets of the more than one power control parameter set is received (RRC, MAC CE, and DCI signaling to the UE 104, note [0072], also note [0035] closed-loop power control or TPC commands), determines a value of a closed loop index for transmit power control for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), based on a value of a closed loop index configured for the one or two power control parameter sets (note [0051], [0052] different closed-loop power control process indices may be applied, and [0114]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 5. Zhang further teaches a base station (108 in Fig.1, note [0025]). Zhang also teaches a transmitter of the base station that transmits the power control set recited in the claim (note [0034, 0035]), a processor (1004 in Fig.10, note [0144-0146]) that performs the limitations as explained in claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected as applied to 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2023/0097691 A1 (Zhang) in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #114 electronic Online, 19-27 May, 2021 (hereinafter, 3GPP).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches all as applied to claim 5. Zhang also teaches operation of terminal and base station operating in a bandwidth part of a certain serving cell (see Fig.1 and Fig. 4 operating in a frequency bandwidth on the y-axis). However, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the activation command is a PUCCH power control set update for multiple transmission/reception point (MTRP) PUCCH repetition MAC control element (CE), and indicates a correspondence relation between one PUCCH resource ID and one or two power control parameter set IDs.
3GPP teaches an activation command is a PUCCH power control set update for multiple transmission/reception point (MTRP) PUCCH repetition MAC control element (CE) (note on page 2, “Issue 1-1: How to enhance/design PUCCH spatial relation activation/deactivation MAC CE for mTRP PUCCH repetition”), and indicates a correspondence relation between one PUCCH resource ID and one or two power control parameter set IDs (note page 5, PUCCH resource ID and two spatial relation info ID field; note page 2 wherein “spatial relation info’s” can be treated as “power control parameters” or “power control parameter set IDs”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of 3GPP into the system of Zhang for the purpose of resolving issues regarding potential MAC CE enhancements /introduction (note page 2, first paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. US 11,671,925 teach power control parameters for mTRP PUSCH repetition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM K. AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-3044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5PM.
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, James Kramer can be reached at 571-272-6783. 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.
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights