DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on December 20, 2024. As set forth therein, claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17 have been amended, claims 9 and 16 have been canceled and claims 18 and 19 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are pending.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,683,842 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 5, 2025 and March 5, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 20, 2024 proposes amendments to the claims that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications.
The Examiner notes that new claims 18-19 are not underlined. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.173(d), matter to be added by reissue must be underlined. Thus, new claims 18 and 19 should be underlined.
Claim Objection
Claims 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 11, a semi-colon should be inserted in line 3, after “a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble”.
As to claim 15, the claim does not end with the required end punctuation (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Recapture
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
The Examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 1412.02, in Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:[AltContent: rect]
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
The Examiner notes that as shown below, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims since it removes from claim 1: “resource” from “resource configuration”, “for an uplink transmission on an uplink channel” and “wherein the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs, and wherein each of the plurality of USUs is associated with (i) a timing advance value among a plurality of timing advance values and (ii) an uplink power control value among a plurality of uplink power control values; and performing the uplink transmission on the uplink channel based on a timing advance (TA) value and a power control value which are associated with the identification of the USU, wherein a plurality of uplink channels with a same USU are associated with a same TA value and a same power control value.”
The Examiner notes that reissue claim 1 was amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
614
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, the Applicant’s error statement is specifically directed to the removal of “wherein the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs.”
The Examiner also notes that claims 9 and 17 were similarly amended and broadened. Therefore, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims.
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
The Examiner notes that during the original prosecution of the underlying patent (US Patent Application 17/257,755), in response to the non-final office action of June 1, 2022, the Applicant amended claim 1 as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
491
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also maintained that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for at least “wherein the TA value and the transmission power are determined by a transmission unit which is determined based on the resource configuration information,” and “wherein the transmission unit is defined as a set of uplink physical channel resources for which a common TA value and common power control parameters are applied,” as recited in claim 1.
The Applicant stated that Lohr’s timing alignment command and power control related configuration do not describe or suggest a transmission unit, which is determined based on the resource configuration information, determining the TA value and the transmission power and defined as a set of uplink physical channel resources for which a common TA value and common power control parameters are applied, as described in claim 1. In addition, the Applicant stated that Babaei’s SS burst set does not describe a transmission unit defined as a set of uplink physical channel resources for which a common TA value and common power control parameters are applied, as described in amended claim 1.
The Applicant stated that their arguments applied to claim 12 and new independent claim 21.
In response to the Final Office Action of December 2, 2022 claim 1 was further amended as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
613
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant maintained that Jeon does not disclose or suggest receiving, from a base station, resource configuration for an uplink transmission on an uplink channel, where the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs, and each of the plurality of USUs is associated with (i) a timing advance value among a plurality of timing advance values and (ii) an uplink power control value among a plurality of uplink power control values, and performing the uplink transmission on the uplink channel based on a timing advance (TA) value and a power control value which are associated with the identification of the USU, where a plurality of uplink channels with a same USU are associated with a same TA value and a same power control value, as described in amended claim 1.
The Examiner notes that based on the prosecution history of the underlying patent, the claims were specifically amended to add “for an uplink on an uplink channel” and “wherein the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs, and wherein each of the plurality of USUs is associated with (i) a timing advance value among a plurality of timing advance values and (ii) an uplink power control value among a plurality of uplink power control values; and performing the uplink transmission on the uplink channel based on a timing advance (TA) value and a power control value which are associated with the identification of the USU, wherein a plurality of uplink channels with a same USU are associated with a same TA value and a same power control value.”
In addition, in arguing against the prior art of record, the Applicant emphasized on “a transmission unit, which is determined based on the resource configuration information, determining the TA value and the transmission power and defined as a set of uplink physical channel resources for which a common TA value and common power control parameters are applied”, “a transmission unit defined as a set of uplink physical channel resources for which a common TA value and common power control parameters are applied” and “receiving, from a base station, resource configuration for an uplink transmission on an uplink channel, where the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs, and each of the plurality of USUs is associated with (i) a timing advance value among a plurality of timing advance values and (ii) an uplink power control value among a plurality of uplink power control values, and performing the uplink transmission on the uplink channel based on a timing advance (TA) value and a power control value which are associated with the identification of the USU, where a plurality of uplink channels with a same USU are associated with a same TA value and a same power control value”.
Therefore, the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution.
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
The Examiner notes that reissue claim 1 was narrowed relative to original claim 1 by reciting “a plurality of group IDs are configured for a serving cell based on the configuration information” and “transmitting, to the base station, an uplink signal based on a group ID of the plurality of the group IDs, wherein the uplink signal is based on at least one of i) a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), ii) a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) and iii) a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS), wherein i) an uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS, and ii) at least one power control parameter for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS are determined based on the group ID.”
The Examiner notes that the added limitations are not materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter. Therefore, the recapture rule is not avoided.
In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that claims to separate inventions/embodiments/species that were not claimed in the original application prosecution (i.e., "overlooked aspects") are not a part of a recapture analysis. See MPEP 1412.01(III). However, the Examiner finds that it is has not been shown that the reissue claims are a separate invention that the original patent claims. The Examiner also notes that original claim 9 recited that the configuration associated with the uplink synchronization unit comprises a SRS, PUCCH, or PUSCH. The Examiner notes that the claim recited a “group ID”, however, group ID doesn’t specifically indicate that it is a separate embodiment since the original claims were directed to the identification of the USU and a plurality of USUs and “same USU” and thus shows a group. The Examiner notes that the Applicant cites to col. 36, line 65 to col. 37, line 28; Col. 37, lines 39-43; col. 40, lines 3-6; col. 45, lines 22-25; and col. 52, lines 39-52 for support of the claim amendments. It is determined that these citations show that the original claim set and the currently amended claims are part of the same embodiment.
The Examiner notes that this same issue applies to independent claims 10 and 17.
For the above reasons, the Examiner finds that the claims as amended are subject to recapture.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The Examiner notes that the Reissue Declaration must “specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue.” 37 C.F.R. 1.175(a).
In this case, the Reissue Declaration states “independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,842 was inadvertently narrowed to recite “wherein the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs.”
The Examiner finds that as discussed above, “wherein the resource configuration includes an identification of an uplink synchronization unit (USU) for the uplink channel among a plurality of USUs” was subject matter surrendered to obtain Patent Claims 1, 10 and 17. It is noted that “not every event or circumstance that might be labeled 'error' is correctable by reissue" and one "such circumstance that does not satisfy the 'error' requirement is embodied by the recapture rule." Youman, 679 F.3d at 1343.
Therefore, the statement of error in the Reissue Declaration relates to an error that is uncorrectable by reissue.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US Patent Pub. 2013/0156014.
Regarding claim 1:
A method comprising:
Kim is directed to a methods and terminal apparatus which involve transmitting a sounding reference signal (SRS)-triggering-based SRS in a wireless communication system. See the abstract.
receiving, from a base station, configuration information, wherein a plurality of group IDs are configured for a serving cell based on the configuration information; and
As set forth in paragraph [0014], a base station may transmit a SRS triggering indicator to a User Equipment and the SRS triggering indicator may be received through a group SRS message format. See also paragraph [0082] which discloses that the base station transmits SRS uplink configuration to each UE through an SRS parameter by higher layer signaling. See also Table 5.
As further set forth in paragraph [0105], the base station may group UEs and may transmit configuration of a group to the UEs through a group ID so that the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID. See also paragraph [0107]. See also paragraph [0099] which discloses that a method for increasing efficiency of SRS resources, SRS transmission may be configured on a grouped UE bases to use resource of time and frequency units allocated for subsequent SRS transmission.
transmitting, to the base station, an uplink signal based on a group ID of the plurality of the group IDs,
As explained in paragraph [0105], in response to receiving a triggering indicator, the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID and as a result can discern information about an uplink CC on which the aperiodic SRS is to be transmitted.
wherein the uplink signal is based on at least one of i) a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), ii) a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) and iii) a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS),
As set forth in paragraph [0105] and above, the uplink signal is a SRS (Sounding Reference Signal). See also paragraph [0107]. The Examiner also notes that Kim discloses of PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions. See paragraphs [0066, 0109, 0112 and 0114].
wherein i) an uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS, and ii) at least one power control parameter for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS are determined based on the group ID.
As set forth in paragraph [0066], the UE may transmits both a PUCCH and a PUSCH. See also paragraph [0109] which it is a disclosed that the TPC [Transmit Power Control] command for transmit power control of a UE group may be set and that the UE will apply the TPC command. See also paragraph [0120] which discloses that a TPC index may be used for aperiodic SRS transmission for one uplink CC and that this will allow for more precise control of SRS transmission resources including timing.
Regarding claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprising: transmitting, to the base station, a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble;
As set forth in paragraph [0075], Kim discloses a random access response that is a response to a random access preamble of the UE. See also Table 4 which discloses that the UE uses PRACH transmissions.
receiving, from the base station, a random access response(RAR), wherein the uplink signal is the PUSCH scheduled by an uplink grant based on the RAR.
Kim discloses that the base station transmits downlink scheduling information. See paragraph [0005]. See also Table 1 which discloses the scheduling of PUSCH as part of a random access procedure.
Regarding claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein a configuration for the PUSCH, a configuration for the PUCCH and a configuration for the SRS are related to a same group which is indicated by the group ID.
As set forth in paragraph [0057], the PUSCH and the PDDCH is directed to a certain UE group. See also paragraphs [0099, 0105 and 0109].
Regarding claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the serving cell is based on a component carrier (CC).
Kim discloses that the cell is based on an uplink component carrier allocated to the user equipment. See paragraph [0017].
Regarding claim 10:
A user equipment (UE) comprising:
Kim discloses a user equipment 210 (see figure 2). See also paragraph [0037].
a radio frequency (RF) module;
Kim discloses in paragraph [0037], that the UE includes both a receiver 240 and a transmitter 275. In addition, Kim discloses that the UE includes a plurality of antennas and supports a MIMO system.
at least one processor; and
Kim discloses a processor 255. See Figure 2 and paragraph [0037].
at least one computer memory operably accessible to the at least one processor and for storing instructions for performing operations when executed by the at least one processor,
Kim discloses that the user equipment includes a memory 260 and that firmware or software configured to perform the disclosed methods are included in the processor or the memories so as to be executed by the processor. See paragraphs [0037, 0046 and 0048].
wherein the operations comprise: receiving, from a base station, configuration information, wherein a plurality of group IDs are configured for a serving cell based on the configuration information; and
As set forth in paragraph [0014], a base station may transmit a SRS triggering indicator to a User Equipment and the SRS triggering indicator may be received through a group SRS message format. See also paragraph [0082] which discloses that the base station transmits SRS uplink configuration to each UE through an SRS parameter by higher layer signaling. See also Table 5.
As further set forth in paragraph [0105], the base station may group UEs and may transmit configuration of a group to the UEs through a group ID so that the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID. See also paragraph [0107]. See also paragraph [0099] which discloses that a method for increasing efficiency of SRS resources, SRS transmission may be configured on a grouped UE bases to use resource of time and frequency units allocated for subsequent SRS transmission.
transmitting, to the base station, an uplink signal based on a group ID of the plurality of the group IDs,
As explained in paragraph [0105], in response to receiving a triggering indicator, the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID and as a result can discern information about an uplink CC on which the aperiodic SRS is to be transmitted.
wherein the uplink signal is based on at least one of i) a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), ii) a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) and iii) a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS),
As set forth in paragraph [0105] and above, the uplink signal is a SRS (Sounding Reference Signal). See also paragraph [0107]. The Examiner also notes that Kim discloses of PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions. See paragraphs [0066, 0109, 0112 and 0114].
wherein i) an uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS, and ii) at least one power control parameter for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS are determined based on the group ID.
As set forth in paragraph [0066], the UE may transmits both a PUCCH and a PUSCH. See also paragraph [0109] which it is a disclosed that the TPC [Transmit Power Control] command for transmit power control of a UE group may be set and that the UE will apply the TPC command. See also paragraph [0120] which discloses that a TPC index may be used for aperiodic SRS transmission for one uplink CC and that this will allow for more precise control of SRS transmission resources including timing.
Regarding claim 11:
The UE of claim 10, wherein the operation further comprises: transmitting, to the base station, a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble,
As set forth in paragraph [0075], Kim discloses a random access response that is a response to a random access preamble of the UE. See also Table 4 which discloses that the UE uses PRACH transmissions.
receiving, from the base station, a random access response(RAR), wherein the uplink signal is the PUSCH scheduled by an uplink grant based on the RAR.
Kim discloses that the base station transmits downlink scheduling information. See paragraph [0005]. See also Table 1 which discloses the scheduling of PUSCH as part of a random access procedure.
Regarding claim 13:
The UE of claim 10, wherein a configuration for the PUSCH, a configuration for the PUCCH and a configuration for the SRS are related to a same group which is indicated by the group ID.
As set forth in paragraph [0057], the PUSCH and the PDDCH is directed to a certain UE group. See also paragraphs [0099, 0105 and 0109].
Regarding claim 15:
The UE of claim 10, wherein the serving cell is based on a component carrier (CC).
Kim discloses that the cell is based on an uplink component carrier allocated to the user equipment. See paragraph [0017].
Regarding claim 17:
A base station comprising:
Kim discloses a base station 205. See Figure 2 and paragraph [0036].
a radio frequency (RF) module;
Kim discloses the base station includes a transmitter and a receiver. See paragraph [0036]
at least one processor; and
Kim discloses that the base station includes a processor 180. See paragraph [0036].
at least one computer memory operably accessible to the at least one processor and for storing instructions for performing operations when executed by the at least one processor,
Kim discloses that the base station includes a memory 285 and that firmware or software configured to perform the disclosed methods are included in the processor or the memories so as to be executed by the processor. See paragraphs [0037, 0046 and 0048].
wherein the operations comprise: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information, wherein a plurality of group IDs are configured for a serving cell based on the configuration information; and
As set forth in paragraph [0014], a base station may transmit a SRS triggering indicator to a User Equipment and the SRS triggering indicator may be received through a group SRS message format. See also paragraph [0082] which discloses that the base station transmits SRS uplink configuration to each UE through an SRS parameter by higher layer signaling. See also Table 5.
As further set forth in paragraph [0105], the base station may group UEs and may transmit configuration of a group to the UEs through a group ID so that the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID. See also paragraph [0107]. See also paragraph [0099] which discloses that a method for increasing efficiency of SRS resources, SRS transmission may be configured on a grouped UE bases to use resource of time and frequency units allocated for subsequent SRS transmission.
receiving, from the UE, an uplink signal based on a group ID of the plurality of the group IDs,
As explained in paragraph [0105], in response to receiving a triggering indicator, the UE can decode group configuration information using the group ID and as a result can discern information about an uplink CC on which the aperiodic SRS is to be transmitted.
wherein the uplink signal is based on at least one of i) a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), ii) a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) and iii) a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS),
As set forth in paragraph [0105] and above, the uplink signal is a SRS (Sounding Reference Signal). See also paragraph [0107]. The Examiner also notes that Kim discloses of PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions. See paragraphs [0066, 0109, 0112 and 0114].
wherein i) an uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS, and ii) at least one power control parameter for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS are determined based on the group ID.
As set forth in paragraph [0066], the UE may transmits both a PUCCH and a PUSCH. See also paragraph [0109] which it is a disclosed that the TPC [Transmit Power Control] command for transmit power control of a UE group may be set and that the UE will apply the TPC command. See also paragraph [0120] which discloses that a TPC index may be used for aperiodic SRS transmission for one uplink CC and that this will allow for more precise control of SRS transmission resources including timing.
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) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu et al. US Patent Pub. 2014/0086176.
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one power control parameter includes a parameter representing a reference signal which is used for a pathloss estimation of the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS.
14. The UE of claim 10, wherein the at least one power control parameter includes a parameter representing a reference signal which is used for a pathloss estimation of the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS.
Kim, as set forth above, discloses of a transmit power control command. See paragraphs [0014, 0055 and 0057]. Kim does not specifically disclose that the power control parameter includes a parameter representing a reference signal which is used for a pathloss estimation of the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS.
Liu, as set forth in paragraph [0073-0074] discloses of a UE performing an random access procedure. Liu discloses the UE uses a resource for pathloss estimation in order to perform power control for the random access procedure. See also paragraphs [0108-0109 and 0127]. See also paragraph [0041] which is directed to both physical uplink shared channel and physical uplink control channel. See also paragraphs [0046-0047]. Liu also discloses of Sounding reference signals (see paragraphs 0091-0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a parameter representing a reference signal. The Examiner finds that Kim already discloses that it was known to include power controller parameters. Liu, which is in the same field of endeavor as Kim, likewise discloses the use of power control parameters. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0009] of Liu, this helps reduce power consumption during periods of lower transmission power levels. See also paragraphs [0064] and [0069]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included a parameter representing a reference signal which is used for pathloss estimation in order to reduce power consumption.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Falconetti et al. WO 2018060172
Regarding claims 7 and 18:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one power control parameter includes a parameter related to a closed power control loop.
18. The UE of claim 10, wherein the at least one power control parameter includes a parameter related to a closed power control loop.
Kim, as set forth above, discloses of a transmit power control command. See paragraphs [0014, 0055 and 0057]. Kim does not specifically disclose that the power control parameter includes a parameters related to a closed power control loop.
Nonetheless, Falconetti discloses that closed power control loop allows a wireless device to set is transmit output power to a certain value based on a transmit power control command received form a network node. See paragraph [0059]. See also paragraphs [0095, 0097 and 0128].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a parameter related to a closed power control loop. The Examiner finds that both Kim and Falcon are based on the same field of endeavor and both disclose the transmission of a power control parameter. As explained by Falconetti, a closed power control loop allows a wireless device to set its transmit output power to a certain value based on a transmit power control command received from a network node. See also paragraph [0008] of Falconetti that the power control loop specifies a transmission power base on transmission time interval lengths. Falconetti explains that TTIs is used to reduce latency. See paragraph [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a parameter related to a closed power control loop that is configurable as disclosed by Falconetti.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsuboi et al. US Patent Pub. 2019/0356460
Regarding claims 3 and 12:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS is determined based on a timing advance value related to the group ID.
12. The UE of claim 10, wherein the uplink timing for the PUCCH, the PUSCH and the SRS is determined based on a timing advance value related to the group ID.
Kim, as set forth above, does not specifically disclose that the uplink timing is determined based on a timing advance value related to the group ID.
Nonetheless, Tsuboi at paragraph [0141] discloses that a RAR may indicate a timing advance value. See also paragraph [0154]. paragraph [0067] and [0120] which discloses that the UE transmit using PUCCH, SRS and PUSCH uplink transmissions and where configuration information specifying the PUSCH, PUCCH and SRS configuration information that are used for transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to base the uplink timing on a timing advance value. As set forth above, Kim already discloses of uplinks related to a group ID. In addition, Kim at paragraph [0082] discloses that timing is considered by the base station. See also paragraph [0119-0120] which discloses the transmission of UE based on timing. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine the timing based on a timing advance signal. As explained by Tsuboi, sending a timing advance command value was well known and can be used to correct a deviation in the timing for the terminal apparatus. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kim, which discloses of the importance of uplink timing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using a timing advance value related to the group IDs of the UEs of Kim in order to provide timing information for uplinks and in order to correct any timing issues as disclosed by Tsuboi.
Regarding claims 8 and 19:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein groups based on the group IDs are related to Transmission and Reception Points (TRPs).
19. The UE of claim 10, wherein groups based on the group IDs are related to Transmission and Reception Points (TRPs).
Kim, as set forth above, does not specifically disclose that the group IDs are related to TRPs.
Nonetheless, Tsuboi at paragraph [0035] discloses that base stations include transmission reception points (TRPs). As disclosed by Kim the group IDs are related to the base stations. Thus, since base stations include TRPs as disclosed by Tsuboi, then the group IDs are related to TRPs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have group IDs be related to TRPs. Both Kim and Tsuboi discloses of base stations and Tsuobi discloses that it was known for base stations to include TRPs. Thus, since group IDs are configured by the base station as disclosed by Kim, then it would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art to base the group IDs on TRPs which are associated with the base station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights