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 .
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 20 recites limitations having “means for” plus function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US2015/0189606 A1, and further in view of Liu et al., US2025/0392996 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 11, par. 0119; configuration of the UE), comprising: one or more memories (Fig. 11; although the memory of the configuration for the UE is not shown in Fig. 11 or taught in the specification. However, it is implicit that the UE has a memory which is part of the UE for storing data as led by one of ordinary skill in the art.); and one or more processors (Fig. 11, par. 0120; a controller 1110, a control message processor 1135, and higher layer processors 1125 and 1130.), the one or more processors, individually or collectively and based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, being configured to: receive a power class change reporting configuration (par. 0060; Upon receipt of the control message, the UE 505 configures downlink and uplink and continues normal operations according to the instruction from the eNB 510.); and transmit one or more medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communications (par. 0082; The UE transmits the MAC PDU to the eNB.), wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates a power class change or a change in one or more uplink capability parameters (par. 0077; The UE inserts the PH and other information per serving cell in the extended PHR MAC CE.).
Kim fails to teach the following recited limitation. However, Liu teaches wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates one or more uplink full power transmission (ULFPTx) parameters or one or more ULFPTx modes (par. 0009; That the full power transmission mode changes means that a power class currently supported by the terminal device for a specific band/carrier is different from a full power transmission mode currently configured for the band/carrier, or is different from a full power transmission mode reported by the terminal device for the band/carrier.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kim’s teachings with Liu’s teachings in order to enable the network device to properly allocate transmission power to the terminal to improve communication performance (Liu, par. 0003).
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates an uplink multiple input multiple output (MIMO) capability (par. 0009).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Liu further teaches wherein each of the one or more ULFPTx parameters or each of the one or more ULFPTx modes correspond to a ULFPTx value stored in a table (par. 0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kim’s teachings with Liu’s teachings in order to enable the network device to properly allocate transmission power to the terminal to improve communication performance (Liu, par. 0003).
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claim 3. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a configuration for the table (par. 0105).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect the power class change or the change in one or more uplink capability parameters, wherein transmitting the one or more MAC-CE communications occurs as a result of detecting the power class change (par. 0052).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Kim further teaches wherein the power class change reporting configuration includes a configuration for the one or more MAC-CE communications (par. 0054).
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the configuration for the one or more MAC-CE communications includes one or more rules, and wherein each rule is associated with one or more of a reporting threshold, a reporting timer, a prohibit timer, a cell or resource pool identifier, or a secondary cell group identifier (par. 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the power class change reporting configuration includes one or more timing parameters, and wherein each of the one or more timing parameters is associated with one or more of a reporting of the power class change, a reporting of a change in an uplink full power transmission parameter, or a reporting of a change in an uplink rank (par. 0055).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Kim further teaches wherein the power class change reporting configuration is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (par. 0105).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Kim further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit a UE assistance information (UAI) message in accordance with the power class change reporting configuration, wherein the UAI message includes one or more of an uplink full power transmission parameter or an uplink rank capability (par. 0109).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Kim and Liu teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 12. Kim further teaches further comprising transmitting, via a measurement report, one or more of an uplink full power transmission parameter or an uplink rank capability (par. 0080).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 5), comprising: receiving a power class change reporting configuration (par. 0060; Upon receipt of the control message, the UE 505 configures downlink and uplink and continues normal operations according to the instruction from the eNB 510.); and transmitting one or more medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communications (par. 0082; The UE transmits the MAC PDU to the eNB.), wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates a power class change or a change in one or more uplink capability parameters (par. 0077; The UE inserts the PH and other information per serving cell in the extended PHR MAC CE.).
Kim fails to teach the following recited limitation. However, Liu teaches wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates one or more uplink full power transmission (ULFPTx) parameters or one or more ULFPTx modes (par. 0009; That the full power transmission mode changes means that a power class currently supported by the terminal device for a specific band/carrier is different from a full power transmission mode currently configured for the band/carrier, or is different from a full power transmission mode reported by the terminal device for the band/carrier.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kim’s teachings with Liu’s teachings in order to enable the network device to properly allocate transmission power to the terminal to improve communication performance (Liu, par. 0003).
Regarding claim 19, Kim and Liu teaches all the limitations in claim 12. Kim further teaches further comprising transmitting a capability update indicating a change in a power control capability (par. 0047).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches An apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 11, par. 0119; configuration of the UE), comprising: means for receiving a power class change reporting configuration (par. 0060; Upon receipt of the control message, the UE 505 configures downlink and uplink and continues normal operations according to the instruction from the eNB 510.); and means for transmitting one or more medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) communications (par. 0082; The UE transmits the MAC PDU to the eNB.), wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates a power class change or a change in one or more uplink capability parameters (par. 0077; The UE inserts the PH and other information per serving cell in the extended PHR MAC CE.).
Kim fails to teach the following recited limitation. However, Liu teaches wherein at least one of the one or more MAC-CE communications indicates one or more uplink full power transmission (ULFPTx) parameters or one or more ULFPTx modes (par. 0009; That the full power transmission mode changes means that a power class currently supported by the terminal device for a specific band/carrier is different from a full power transmission mode currently configured for the band/carrier, or is different from a full power transmission mode reported by the terminal device for the band/carrier.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kim’s teachings with Liu’s teachings in order to enable the network device to properly allocate transmission power to the terminal to improve communication performance (Liu, par. 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE whose telephone number is (571)270-7983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 at 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 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.
/AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights