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 .
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 - 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,108,348 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,348. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application is obvious in view of the claims 1 - 20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,108,348. Specifically, the claims of U.S. Patent (12,108,348) are the same elements, same function, and same result as claims of present application. Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
More specifically, the claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 of the present application is the same elements, same function, and same result as claims 1 - 20 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348), specially, the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S Patent 12,108,348
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising: a configuration parameter indicating at least two sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets of a cell; and a power headroom report (PHR) configuration for the cell; and transmitting a PHR comprising one Type 1 power headroom (PH) value of the cell, wherein the transmitting is based on a parameter, indicating to report two power headroom values of the cell, being absent in the PHR configuration.
The other independent claims 9 and 17 are same as claim 1.
1. A wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: receive one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising: a configuration parameter indicating at least two sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets of a cell; and a power headroom report (PHR) configuration of the cell; and determine whether to report one power headroom (PH) value or at least two PH values for the cell based on a parameter indicating to report two power headroom values of the cell being present in the PHR configuration; and based on the parameter being absent in the PHR configuration, transmit a PHR comprising one Type 1 PH value of the cell.
The additional limitation is not affecting the scope of the present invention. In addition, even though the claim of present application omitted or rearrangement of the claim structure (simply rearranged and restructured the claim elements using same or similar words), the limitation of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348) is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claim 1, 9 and 17 of the present application.
Therefore, the function and results of the claim invention of present application are same as the claim invention of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
Furthermore, the dependent claim 2 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 2 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 3 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 3 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 4 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 4 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 5 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 5 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 6 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 6 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 7 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 7 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 10 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 11 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 12 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 11 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 13 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 12 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 14 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 13 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 15 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 14 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 18 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 16 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 19 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 17 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
The dependent claim 20 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 18 of the U.S. Patent (12,108,348).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIN et al. (US 2021/0235390).
Regarding claim 1, LIN teaches that receiving, by a wireless device (Fig. 1), one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages (RRC configuration parameter) (Fig. 6, 7 and pages 7, paragraphs 153 – pages 8, paragraphs 178) comprising a configuration parameter indicating at least two sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets of a cell (pages 8, paragraphs 163-173, Fig. 2, 5, and pages 12, paragraphs 256 – pages 13, paragraphs 276, where teaches RRC configuration parameter containing the number of value for the SRI field), and a power headroom report (PHR) configuration of the cell (pages 5, paragraphs 89 – 99, Fig. 8, 9, and pages 14, paragraphs 290 – 307, where teaches PHR configuration of a cell), and transmitting a PHR comprising one Type 1 power headroom (PH) value of the cell (Fig. 10, 11, pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187, where teaches determining and transmitting power headroom values for PHR of the cell configuration parameter), the transmitting is based on a parameter, indicating to report two power headroom values of the cell, being absent in the PHR configuration (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 10, 11, pages 13, paragraphs 284 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187, where teaches transmitting a PHR comprising Type 1 PH value as the PHR configuration is not indicating power headroom values).
Regarding claim 2, LIN teaches that the one Type 1 PH value is calculated based on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission associated with a first SRS resource set of the at least two SRS resource sets (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 10, 11, pages 13, paragraphs 277 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187).
Regarding claim 3, LIN teaches that the PUSCH transmission used to calculate the one Type 1 PH value is an actual PUSCH transmission (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 15, 16, pages 13, paragraphs 277 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187).
Regarding claim 4, LIN teaches that the PHR is a PHR medium access control control element (MAC CE) comprising only one Type 1 PH value for the cell (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 15, 16, and pages 14, paragraphs 290 – pages 14, paragraphs 332).
Regarding claim 5, LIN teaches that receiving downlink control information (DCI) scheduling one or more physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions, wherein each of the one or more PUSCH transmissions comprises a transport block (pages 9, paragraphs 198 – pages 10, paragraphs 221, Fig. 16, 17, and pages 7, paragraphs 153 – pages 8, paragraphs 187).
Regarding claim 6, LIN teaches that the one or more RRC messages further comprise at least two power control parameter sets, wherein each of the at least two SRS resource sets is associated with one power control parameter set of the at least two power control parameter sets (pages 8, paragraphs 163-173, Fig. 2, 5, and pages 12, paragraphs 256 – pages 13, paragraphs 276, where teaches RRC configuration parameter containing the number of value for the SRI field), and the one type 1 PH value is calculated using a power control parameter set of the at least two power control parameter sets (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 15, 16, pages 13, paragraphs 277 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187).
Regarding claim 7, LIN teaches that receiving one or more second RRC messages comprising a second PHR configuration of the cell (pages 8, paragraphs 163-173, Fig. 2, 21, pages 18, paragraphs 401 – 406, and pages 12, paragraphs 256 – pages 13, paragraphs 276, where teaches RRC configuration parameter containing the number of value for the SRI field), and based on the parameter being present in the second PHR configuration, transmitting a second PHR comprising two Type 1 PH values of the cell (pages 18, paragraphs 401 – 406, Fig. 10, 11, pages 13, paragraphs 284 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187).
Regarding claim 9, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, LIN further teaches that transmit, by a base station to a wireless device (Fig. 2), one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising a configuration parameter indicating at least two sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets of a cell (pages 8, paragraphs 163-173, Fig. 2, 5, and pages 12, paragraphs 256 – pages 13, paragraphs 276, where teaches RRC configuration parameter containing the number of values for the SRI field), and a power headroom report (PHR) configuration for the cell (pages 5, paragraphs 89 – 99, Fig. 8, 9, and pages 14, paragraphs 290 – 307, where teaches PHR configuration of a cell), and based on a parameter being absent in the PHR configuration, receiving, from the wireless device, a PHR comprising one Type 1 power headroom (PH) value of the cell, wherein the parameter indicates to report two power headroom values of the cell (pages 6, paragraphs 142 – 150, Fig. 10, 11, pages 13, paragraphs 284 – pages 14, paragraphs 289, and pages 8, paragraphs 159 – 187, where teaches the base station for determining and transmitting power headroom values for PHR of the cell configuration parameter, and receiving from wireless device a PHR comprising Type 1 PH value as the PHR configuration is not indicating power headroom values).
Regarding claim 10, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 2 and 9.
Regarding claim 11, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 3 and 9.
Regarding claim 12, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 4 and 9.
Regarding claim 13, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 5 and 9.
Regarding claim 14, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 6 and 9.
Regarding claim 15, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 7 and 9.
Regarding claim 17, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 18, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 19, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 20, LIN teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8 and 16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHENG et al. (US 2020/0100193) discloses Method and Apparatus for Triggering Power Headroom Reports.
Loehr et al. (US 2019/0082399) discloses Power Headroom Report Generation.
KIM et al. (US 2021/0037481) discloses Method and Apparatus for Performing Power Headroom Report in Wireless Communication System.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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.
J.L
July 11, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights