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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 23-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hossein WO 2023199291-A1.
4. Consider claim 23. Hossein teaches an apparatus (fig 8) for wireless communications, comprising a processing system (800) that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (806), the processing system configured to cause a network entity to: send, to a user equipment (UE), a first indication (from 0029…the second value for an open loop power control parameter is selected based on the indicated index from a first set of configured values. The third value for an open loop power control parameter is selected based on the indicated index from a second set of configured values.….) of at least one of: a range of selectable values for each of one or more open-loop power control (OLPC) parameters (see 0004), or a set of selectable values for each of the one or more OLPC parameters; and obtain, from the UE, a communication associated with the one or more OLPC parameters, wherein the one or more OLPC parameters are based on the range of selectable values (from 0036…the device transmits the UL transmission with a transmit power that includes the power boost. The set of OLPC parameters provides an acceptable range for the UL transmit power. A range is given, allowing some latitude for the UE to provide a power boost when necessary to meet the QoS requirement or to provide a lower power level when not required, enabling power savings. The UE selects a particular boost value from the set…) or the set of selectable values (configuration values). Method claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 23 since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
5. Regarding claim 24. Hossein teaches wherein the processing system is configured to cause the network entity to send the first indication of at least the set of selectable values for the one or more OLPC parameters (from 0036…the device transmits the UL transmission with a transmit power that includes the power boost.…), wherein the set of selectable values (from 0036…the UE selects a particular boost value from the set...) includes a plurality of adjustments for an OLPC parameter.
6. Regarding claim 25. Hossein teaches wherein the processing system is configured to cause the network entity to send the first indication of at least the range of selectable values for the one or more OLPC parameters, wherein the range of selectable values includes a plurality of adjustments (from 0036…the UE selects a particular boost value from the set….) for an OLPC parameter.
7. Regarding claim 26. Hossein wherein the processing system is configured to cause the network entity to receive information indicating a capability of the UE, wherein the first indication is associated with the capability (reads on quality of service in 0036) of the UE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang WO 2023/202530 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Zhang et al US 2025/0119842 A1.
10. Consider claim 1. Wang (fig 1) teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising a processing system (fig 5) that includes one or more processors (501)and one or more memories (502)coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause a user equipment (UE) to: obtain a set of input parameters (reads on …the first power control parameter set is specifically determined based on the transmit power corresponding to the multiple power control parameter sets determined by one or more power control parameters in the multiple power control parameter sets….) associated with an open-loop power control (OLPC) parameter determination (…the RRC signaling configuration may be open-loop power control parameters…); and transmit a communication using one or more OLPC parameters (…when the uplink signal/uplink channel is associated with multiple power control parameter sets, the terminal device may receive indication information from the network device, where the indication information includes identification information of the first power control parameter set…), wherein the one or more OLPC parameters are based on the set of input parameters and the OLPC parameter determination. Wang fails to teach wherein the one or more OLPC parameters are associated with at least one of a quality of service or an energy allocation. However, from the same field of endeavor Zhang et al teaches such (see quality of service 0247 and 0249, energy 0074 and power insufficiency 0250). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to include additional sensing parameters as taught by Zhang et al in Wang allowing more efficient use of power used in communication. Method claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1, since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
11. Regarding claim 2. Zhang et al teaches wherein the one or more OLPC parameters are associated with the quality of service based on at least one of: a reliability parameter (QOS in 0249) associated with the communication, a latency parameter (reads on sensing range in 0251) associated with the communication, or a priority parameter (0249) associated with the communication.
12. Regarding claim 3. Zhang et al teaches (0249) wherein the one or more OLPC parameters are associated with the energy allocation based on at least one of: an energy budget associated with the communication, or an energy allocation associated with the communication.
13. Regarding claim 4. Zhang et al teaches (0013) wherein the set of input parameters includes one or more input parameters associated with a radio link status.
14. Regarding claim 5. Zhang et al teaches (0062) wherein the set of input parameters includes one or more input parameters associated with a physical environment of the UE.
15. Regarding claim 6. Zhang et al teaches (0096) wherein the set of input parameters includes one or more input parameters associated with a characteristic (reads on SINR) of data traffic.
16. Regarding claim 7. Zhang et al teaches (0248) wherein the set of input parameters includes one (reads on configuration data) or more input parameters associated with UE information of the UE.
17. Regarding claim 9. Zhang et al teaches (0236) wherein the one or more OLPC parameters include a target receiving power parameter (…P.sub.O and/or α. P.sub.O can be understood as target power…).
18. Regarding claim 10. Zhang et al teaches (0124) wherein the one or more OLPC parameters include a pathloss parameter.
19. Regarding claim 11. Zhang et al teaches (0132) wherein the one or more OLPC parameters include a scaling factor (reads on correction factor) for a pathloss parameter.
20. Regarding claim 12. Zhang et al teaches (fig 4, 0246) wherein the processing system is configured to cause the UE to perform the OLPC parameter determination to determine the one or more OLPC parameters based on the set of input parameters (transmit power model).
21. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang WO 2023/202530 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Zhang et al US 2025/0119852 A1 further in view of Korpi et al US 20240007961 A1.
22. Consider claims 8 and 13. The combination of Wang and Zhang et al fail to teach wherein the set of input parameters includes one or more input parameters associated with an artificial intelligence or machine learning model. However, Korpi et al teaches such (see abstract). It would have been obvious to substitute Rath AI processing for that taught by Wang in order to make the power control more efficient.
23. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang WO 2023/202530 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Zhang et al US 2025/0119842 A1 further in view of Hossein WO 2023199291-A1.
24. Claims 14-17 contain the same limitations as claim 23-17 as analyzed in paragraphs 3-7 above. It would have been obvious to substitute Hossein OLPC parameter sets, before the effective date, for those taught by the combination, to allow for more flexibility and power control thus making it a more efficient system.
Claim Objections
25. Claims 18-22, 27 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 18 and 27. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the processing system is configured to cause the network entity to send a second indication which includes at least one of: a reconfiguration of the range of selectable values or the set of selectable values, an activation of the range of selectable values or the set of selectable values, a deactivation of the range of selectable values or the set of selectable values, or a fall back to a configured value for the one or more OLPC parameters. Dependent claims 19-22 and 22 are objected to since it depends upon claims 18 and 27 respectively.
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abotable et al US 20250133506 A1 teaches that a user equipment (UE) may receive an indication of a slot format configuration for a plurality of slots, where the plurality of slots includes one or more half-duplex slots and one or more full-duplex slots. The UE may receive control signaling that is indicative of a first one or more parameters associated with half-duplex operation and a second one or more parameters associated with full-duplex operation, where the first one or more parameters and the second one or more parameters are uplink control channel parameters that pertain to power control or spatial resource allocation. The UE may transmit, during an uplink resource within the plurality of slots, an uplink message in accordance with the first one or more parameters or the second one or more parameters based on the slot format configuration.
Zhang et al US 2025/0008446 A1 teaches where a network may configure two sets of power control parameters for a user equipment (UE) so that the UE may use different uplink power control parameters for transmissions in different types of time resources associated with different interference conditions. For example, the network may indicate for a carrier which time resources are uplink time resources and which time resources are subband full-duplex (SBFD) resources, and UE may apply a first set of uplink power control parameters to transmissions in the uplink resources and a second set of uplink power control parameters to transmissions in the SBFD resources.
Conclusion
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights