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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on 10/15/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-10 and 15-24 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 3, 7, 17 and 21 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 3 and 17 recite the limitation “...in order to transmit the PHR…” whereas claim 1 recites “…a periodic power headroom report (PHR)… “ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 and 21 recite the limitation “...the first uplink slot…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 15-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan Zhiyu, CN 111436070 (translation provided for citations), hereinafter Yan.
Regarding Claim 1 Yan teaches the limitations "A method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: (see abstract);
waiting for a multiple component carrier (multi-CC) uplink slot in which an uplink slot on a first component carrier (CC) overlaps with an uplink slot of a second CC in order to transmit a periodic power headroom report (PHR) in a current PHR period; and (see fig. 2 and claim 6 “if the subcarrier interval of the Kth carrier is not larger than the subcarrier interval of the first carrier, the target time slot is overlapped with the time slot of the ith reported PUSCH in the first carrier.” Here, the ith slot and kth slot overlap as shown in fig. 2. Also see par. 0007 “the method comprises the steps that N reported PUSCHs are contained in one time unit; the reported PUSCH is used for sending a power headroom report; the power headroom report comprises power headroom values of M carriers, and the time unit is a time unit of a timer triggering the power headroom report, wherein N is more than or equal to 2, and M is more than or equal to 2.”);
transmitting, in the multi-CC uplink slot, the periodic PHR with power headroom (PH) values for the first CC and the second CC" (see claim 1 “the power headroom report comprises power headroom values of M carriers, and the time unit is a time unit of a timer triggering the power headroom report, wherein N is more than or equal to 2, and M is more than or equal to 2.” Also see par. 0016 “the power headroom report includes power headroom values of a plurality of carriers.”).
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 2 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 1, wherein: the first CC comprises a primary CC (PCC) and the second CC comprises a secondary CC (SCC); or the first CC comprises an SCC and the second CC comprises a PCC" (see fig. 2, primary and secondary equated to ith and kth carrier slots).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 4 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating a timer within the current PHR period; and waiting for an uplink transmission grant for the multi-CC uplink slot in order to transmit the PHR, while the timer is running" (see background, “the terminal device only reports the PHR once after triggering the PHR reporting and meeting the PHR reporting conditions; the terminal device restarts the timer after triggering the PHR reporting and meeting the PHR reporting conditions. That is, after the reporting of the PHR is triggered, the PHR is transmitted in one PUSCH, then the timer is restarted, and the PHR is reported after the next trigger condition is met.” Also “Preferably, the terminal device further includes a timer, and the timer includes periodicPHR-Timer and or prohibitPHR-Timer, which are used to trigger power headroom reporting.”).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 5 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, wherein the uplink transmission grant comprises a grant for an initial uplink transmission" (see par. 0003 “after reporting the PHR is triggered, the PHR is transmitted in one PUSCH, and then the timer is restarted to wait for reporting the PHR again when the trigger condition is met next time.”).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 6 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, wherein a duration of the timer is defined by a timestamp when the timer is initiated and a periodic PHR timer expiration timestamp" (see par. 0009-0010 “the terminal device restarts the timer at the end of the time unit.
[0010] Preferably, the condition for triggering the reporting of the power headroom includes: the timer times out.” Also see par. 0019 “after triggering the PHR report and meeting the PHR report condition in the first time unit, the terminal equipment restarts the periodicPHR-Timer and the prohibitPHR-Timer at the end time of the first time unit.”).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 7 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, wherein waiting for the first uplink slot in order to transmit the PHR, while the timer is running, comprises: skipping an uplink slot scheduled by an uplink transmission grant, if that uplink slot is an uplink slot for only one of the first or second CCs" (see par. 0005 “The invention solves the problems that when the scheduling indication information is later than the scheduling indication information of the reported PUSCH, the target PUSCH cannot be used for calculating the power margin based on the real power value, the efficiency of the terminal equipment for sending the PHR is low, and the scheduling accuracy of the network equipment is influenced.” Also see par. 0003 “…the timer is restarted to wait for reporting the PHR again when the trigger condition is met next time.”).
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 8 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, further comprising, if a first downlink control information (DCI) for an uplink transmission grant for the first CC is received before a second DCI for an uplink transmission grant for the second CC: converting a virtual PH value for the second CC to a real PH value; and including the converted real PH value in the transmitted PHR" (see par. 0032-0033 “After triggering PHR report, if DCI format 0_0 or
DCI format 0_1 is detected to schedule a transmission block to transmit on a PUSCH, acquiring a PH value from a physical layer; and generating a PHR control unit to transmit on the PUSCH based on the PH value, and restarting a timer. By using the reporting method of the power headroom and the terminal equipment, the terminal equipment determines that the time unit meets the condition of sending the PHR; the terminal equipment sends N PHR MAC CEs through N reported PUSCHs in the time unit, wherein any 2 of the N reported PUSCHs are different carrier waves positioned in the time unit and/or different time positions positioned in a first time unit; and the terminal equipment restarts the timer when the time unit is finished.”).
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 9 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, further comprising, if the timer expires without finding a multi-CC uplink slot in order to transmit the PHR, selecting an uplink slot scheduled by a next uplink transmission grant for transmitting the PHR" (see par. 0003 “after reporting the PHR is triggered, the PHR is transmitted in one PUSCH,
and then the timer is restarted to wait for reporting the PHR again when the trigger condition is met next time.”).
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 10 Yan teaches the limitations "The method of claim 4, wherein: the first CC comprises a primary CC (PCC) and the second CC comprises a secondary CC (SCC); (see par. 0007 “N reported PUSCHs are contained in one time unit; the reported PUSCH is used for
sending a power headroom report; the power headroom report comprises power headroom values of M carriers, and the time unit is a time unit of a timer triggering the power headroom report, wherein N is more than or equal to 2, and M is more than or equal to 2.”);
and the method further comprises resetting the timer if the SCC is deactivated or a virtual radio link failure (vRLF) is detected on the SCC" (see par. 0019 “after triggering the PHR report and meeting the PHR report condition in the first time unit, the terminal equipment restarts the periodicPHR-Timer and the prohibitPHR-Timer at the end time of the first time unit.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 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 and overcoming the 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard Time. 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
