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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/27/2025 and 10/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kowalski et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0180147 (hereinafter Kowalski).
Regarding Claim 1, Kowalski teaches, e.g., in Fig. 8, a method comprising:
determining, by a network node, (i) a first power of the network node for a control link from the network node to a wireless communication node, and (ii) a second power of the network node for a forwarding link from the network node to the wireless communication node (“The node transmission power manager 80 serves to manage transmission power
utilized by the IAB node by taking into consideration both transmission by the mobile-termination circuitry, e.g., Mobile-Termination (MT) 50, and transmission by the distributed
unit circuitry, e.g., Distributed Unit (DU) 52,” including “PUSCH power controller 81; PUCCH power controller 82,” i.e., power of the network node for a control link from the network node to a wireless communication node (PUCCH) and power of the network node for a forwarding link from the network node to the wireless communication node (PUSCH), whereby “Each of these power controllers includes transmission power determination or transmission power calculation functionality for determining or calculating the transmission power utilized on the respective channel by the respective unit, e.g., either Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 or Distributed Unit (DU) 52” – See [¶0096] and Fig. 5 whereby ; and
performing, by the network node, at least one of
(i) sending a first signal via the control link from the network node to the wireless communication node (“Equation 2 assumes that the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 transmits a PUCCH on active UL BWP b of carrier fin the primary cell c using PUCCH power control adjustment state with index 1. . . understood with reference to it analogous employment for PUSCH for a UE, as explained in TS38.213, (V15.5.0) section 7.2.1, which is incorporated herein by reference” – See [¶0102], i.e., a control message on a primary cell/control link), and
(ii) forwarding a second signal via the forwarding link from the network node to the wireless communication node (“the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 transmits a PUSCH on active UL BWP b of carrier f of serving cell c using parameter set configuration with index j and PUSCH power control adjustment state with index 1 . . . as explained in TS38.213, (V15.5.0) section 7.1, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety,” – See [¶0099] or “PDSCH transmissions configured by ConfiguredGrantConfig, etc., and parameters associated with Configured Grants for power control may have similar parameters similar to those of PUSCH, but which differ by reason of being for DU PDSCH instead of MT PUSCH” – See [¶0100] i.e., a data message on a serving cell/forwarding link; see also 3GPP TS 38.213 V17.4.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.213), § 7 at page 20, providing that “[u]plink power control determines a power for PUSCH, PUCCH, SRS, and PRACH transmissions” and 3GPP TS 38.331 infra for ConfiguredGrantConfig RRC Information Element (IE)).
Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when a transmission on the control link and a transmission on the forwarding link occur simultaneously (“each of the power calculators may utilize, for its associated respective channel, one or more of a configured maximum output power PCMax and configured grant information, e.g., ConfiguredGrantConfig” – See [¶0097] i.e., they may function simultaneously; see also 3GPP TS 38.331 v17.3.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), referenced by Kowalski:[¶0183] (“TS338.331 in Release 15, incorporated herein by reference”), specifying, at page 543 the RRC IE ConfiguredGrantConfig “used to configure uplink transmission without dynamic grant according to two possible schemes . . . via RRC (type1) or provided via the PDCCH (addressed to CS-RNTI) (type2),” and at page 454-457 the IE SIB2 including p-Max indicating “Value in dBm applicable for the intra-frequency neighboring NR cells. If absent the UE applies the maximum power according to TS 38.101-1 [15] in case of an FR1 cell or TS 38.101-2 [39] in case of an FR2 cell” and “The IAB-MT applies output power and emissions requirements, as specified in TS 38.174 [63]”; 3GPP TS 38.174 V17.2.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Integrated access and backhaul radio transmission and reception (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.174) specifying at page 38-39, in § 6.2, the IAB output power based on “The number of active transmitter units that are considered when calculating the conducted TX emissions limits (NTXU,counted)”and that “In normal conditions, Pmax,c,TABC shall remain within +2 dB and -2 dB of the rated carrier output power Prated,c,TABC for each TAB connector” whereby the Prated,c,TABC is specified in Table 6.2.1-1 for the access link and Table 6.2.1-2 for the backhaul link),
at least one of:
the first power is to be lower than or equal to a first maximum power configured for the control link (“the PUCCH transmission power calculator 87 determines the PUCCH transmission power PPUCCH,b,f,c(i,qu,qd,l) in PUCCH transmission occasion i using Equation 2” providing a value lower or equal to PCmax – See [¶0101] and Equation 2; see also 3GPP TS 38.213, § 7.2.1 at page 53 showing the PUCCH transmission power PPUCCH,b,f,c(i,qu,qd,l) in PUCCH transmission occasion i ) or
the second power is to be lower than or equal to a second maximum power configured for the forwarding link (the PUSCH transmission power calculator 87 determines the PUSCH transmission power PPUSCH,b,f,c(i,qu,qd,l) in PUSCH transmission occasion i using Equation 1” providing a value lower or equal to PCmax, f,c(i) – See [¶0098] and Equation 1 wherein PCmax, f,c(i) “is the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 configured maximum output power for carrier f of serving cell c in PUSCH transmission occasion i” – See [¶0099]).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when a transmission on the control link and a transmission on the forwarding link occur simultaneously (“each of the power calculators may utilize, for its associated respective channel, one or more of a configured maximum output power PCMax” – See [¶0097] i.e., they may function simultaneously as expected for a IAB node), at least one of:
a sum of a maximum value of the first power and a maximum value of the second power is less than or equal to a total maximum power, wherein the total maximum power is a capability of the network node; or
the maximum value of the first power is unrelated to the maximum value of the second power; or
at least one of the maximum value of the first power or the maximum value of the second power is configured by the wireless communication node (“a maximum transmission power allocated to the child IAB node 72, or to its Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 or to its IAB node processor(s) 54” whereby “Such maximum transmission power allocation may be stored in one or more of PUSCH configuration register 91, PUCCH configuration register 92 . . . or may be derived therefrom” and “the maximum permitted transmission power for the distributed unit circuitry may be configurable, e.g., by parent IAB node 70” – See [¶0121] and Fig. 9); or
at least one of the maximum value of the first power or the maximum value of the second power is determined based on a total maximum power minus another one of the maximum value of the first power or the maximum value of the second power, wherein the total maximum power is a capability of the network node.
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 17, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, by the network node, an indication for adjusting the second power (“the DU transmission power for . . . PDSCH at a DU in an IAB node may be configured by a CU or a parent IAB node. One purpose for such configuration may be to minimize the crosslink interference (CLI) level by setting/configuring the DU transmission power per IAB node.” – See [¶0136] and Fig. 9); and
adjusting, by the network node, the second power according to the indication (“The IAB node processor(s) 54 of child IAB node 72(9) of FIG. 9, and particularly IAB node power management controller 38(7), is shown as comprising IAB node DU transmission power governor 140, herein also referred to simply as DU power governor 140” – See [¶0137] whereby “The DU maximum transmission power control signal 152 may be used by DU power governor 140 for controlling the maximum power of Distributed Unit (DU) 52 so that transmission power of Distributed Unit (DU) 52 of the particular child IAB node 72(9) shown in FIG. 9 does not, or has less likelihood of, causing cross-link interference with transmissions of other IAB nodes” – See [¶0138]).
Therefore, Claim 17 is anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 18, Kowalski teaches a network node, comprising: at least one processor (“As shown in FIG. 4 the IAB-node 24, also known as wireless relay node 24, in an example embodiment and mode comprises the IAB node mobile termination (MT) unit 50 and IAB node distributed unit (DU) 52 . . . may be realized by, e.g., by comprised of or include, one or more processor circuits, e.g., IAB node processor(s) 54” – See [¶0077] and Fig. 4) configured to: perform the steps recited in the method of Claim 1 using the same language. Because Claim 1 is anticipated by Kowalski, Claim 18 is also anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 19, Kowalski teaches a wireless communication node, comprising:
at least one processor (“FIG. 4 shows that donor IAB node 22 comprises central unit (CU) 40 and distributed unit (DU) 42. The central unit (CU) 40 and distributed unit (DU) 42 may be realized by, e.g., be comprised of or include, one or more processor circuits, e.g., donor node processor(s) 46” and “The distributed unit (DU) 42 of donor IAB node 22 may comprise
transceiver circuitry 47, which in turn may comprise transmitter circuitry 48 and receiver circuitry 49”– See [¶0076]) configured to:
receive, via a receiver, at least one of (i) a first signal via a control link from a network node to the wireless communication node (“Arrow 122 in FIG. 6 shows transmission of the IAB node transmission power report to parent IAB node 70” whereby “The report generated by IAB node transmission power report generator 120 may include transmission power utilization and/or transmission power headroom (PHR)” – See [¶0112] whereby the power report is received, e.g., over a PUCCH) , and
(ii) a second signal via a forwarding link from the network node to the wireless communication node,
wherein the network node determines
(i) a first power of the network node for the control link from the network node to the wireless communication node (“to specify each of the following:” – See [¶0113] “power utilization by the mobile-termination circuitry for transmission on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), as determined by PUCCH power controller 82,” i.e., a control signal – See [¶0115] and “power utilization by the distributed unit circuitry for transmission on a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), as determined by PDCCH power controller 84” – See [¶0117] i.e., the signals on the control link between the network node and the wireless communication node/IAB-parent), and
(ii) a second power of the network node for the forwarding link from the network node to the wireless communication node (“power utilization by the mobile-termination circuitry for transmission on a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), as determined by PUSCH power controller 81” – See [¶0114] and “power utilization by the distributed unit circuitry for transmission on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH); as determined by PDSCH power controller 83” – See [¶0116], i.e., the signals on the forwarding (data) link between the network node and the wireless communication node/IAB-parent).
Therefore, Claim 19 is anticipated by Kowalski.
Regarding Claim 20, Kowalski teaches in Fig. 6 a method comprising the steps recited in Claim 19, using the same language. Because Kowalski teaches the system and apparatus performing the steps of this method as explained in Regarding Claim 19 supra, Claim 20 is anticipated by Kowalski.
In sum, Claims 1-3 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kowalski.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al., Korean Patent Application Publication No. KR20220054175, published 2022-05-02, (hereinafter Chung).
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when a total power of the first power and the second power exceeds a total maximum power (as shown in Fig. 8, “determining a total transmission power utilization of the IAB node taking into consideration both the transmission by the mobile-termination circuitry and the transmission by the distributed unit circuitry” and “comparing the total transmission power utilization with a maximum permitted total transmission power” and “using a prioritization rule to govern operation of at least one of the mobile-termination circuitry and the distributed unit circuitry . . . when the total transmission power utilization of the IAB node is in a predetermined neighborhood of the maximum permitted total transmission power” – See [¶0128] whereby “the maximum transmitted power permitted for child IAB node 72(7) may be configurable, e.g., for both the DU and the MT” – See [¶0129]), or
when a transmission on the control link and a transmission on the forwarding link occur simultaneously (“each of the power calculators may utilize, for its associated respective channel, one or more of a configured maximum output power PCMax and configured grant information, e.g., ConfiguredGrantConfig” – See [¶0097] i.e., the channels may function simultaneously), the method comprises one of:
determining to perform A, which comprises: allocating no power to the second power, or determining not to perform the forwarding of the second signal (e.g., “prioritize the transmissions by the mobile-termination circuitry relative to the transmissions by the distributed unit circuitry when desirable or necessary, e.g., when the total transmission power utilization of the IAB node is in a predetermined neighborhood of the maximum permitted total transmission power” and “lower downlink capacity on child-grandchildren links to ensure reliability of the parent child link” – See [¶0131] including transmission cessation when using the prioritization rule infra, e.g., “Implementation of [] a MT-favoring rule may include or cause dropping transmissions on child-grandchild links” – See [¶0131]);
determining to perform B, which comprises: allocating no power to the first power, or determining not to send the first signal; or
determining to perform A or B, according to a prioritization rule (“in one or more of its various aspects the technology disclosed herein concerns and/ or provides:” – See [¶0206] “Rules for transmission cessation on one or more entities (MT(s) and/or DU) that allow configurable prioritization of which entities are privileged for transmissions” – See [¶0209]).
Although Kowalski teaches prioritization of the traffic between the IAB-MT and a CU/DU, i.e., traffic on the control and backhaul links, versus traffic between the IAB-DU and a UE, i.e., traffic on the access links, Kowalski does not teach that the first signal (e.g., a PUCCH on the control link) may be prioritized versus the second signal (e.g., a PUSCH or PDSCH on the backhaul link1), i.e., prioritization between control and backhaul transmissions2.
Chung, like Kowalski, teaches “a method of operation of an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node in a communication system” the method here including “a step of determining a priority between a first message transmitted through the uplink and a second message transmitted through the downlink when the sum of the transmission powers exceeds the maximum power; a step of determining a priority between the uplink and the downlink based on the priority between the messages; and a step of controlling the transmission power based on the priority between the links and the maximum power” – See [¶0006].
Chung’s method specifically applies to the IAB node performing simultaneous transmissions (“efficient power control within a communication system by controlling the transmission power of an IAB node based on the priority of at least one transmission signal of a specific IAB node when the specific IAB node simultaneously transmits at least one uplink and/or downlink signal in an IAB network of a communication system” – See [¶0032] whereby “The IAB node (1110) can receive information regarding priority through control channels such as DCI (Downlink control information) or UCI (Uplink control information) and/or MAC-CE (MAC-Control Element) messages or RRC (Radio Resource Control) messages” – See [¶0074] and “the IAB node(1110) can lower the transmission power of the MT (1112) so that the sum of the transmission power of the MT (1111) and the transmission power of the DU (1112) is less than or equal to the maximum available power of the IAB node (1110) to enable efficient transmission” – See [¶0080]).
Chung teaches a case where the first signal on the control link may be prioritized versus the second signal on the backhaul link, i.e., prioritization between control and backhaul transmissions ( “when the MT (711) and DU (712) share an antenna and/or RF (Radio Frequency) path, the transmission power of the IAB node (710) can be distributed” – See [¶0064], for example “if the MT (1111) has a higher priority than the DU (1112), the IAB node(1110) can lower the transmission power of the DU (1111) so that the sum of the transmission power of the MT (1111) and the transmission power of the DU (1112) is less than or equal to the maximum available power of the IAB node (1110) to enable efficient transmission . . . as shown in Equation 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” – See [¶¶0082-83]; “Additionally, the IAB node (1110) has a transmit power ratio of the MT (1111) value and/or a constant transmit power ratio of the DU” as in the equation: “
PNG
media_image2.png
55
1067
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” – See [¶¶0086-87]).
Thus, Kowalski and Chung each teaches power control in an IAB node based on prioritization rules. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the prioritization between the MT and DU transmissions sharing the same RF antenna whereby a first signal (e.g., a PUCCH on the control link) may be prioritized versus the second signal (e.g., a PUSCH or PDSCH on the backhaul link), i.e., prioritization between control and backhaul transmissions as taught in Chung could have been added to the method prioritizing control and backhaul versus access link transmission power disclosed in Kowalski because both serve the purpose of managing the transmission power at an IAB node to not go beyond a maximum power configured to the node. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the addition through techniques known in the art. Finally, the addition achieves the predictable result of prioritizing transmission power distribution across a DU and MT when they transmit simultaneously while sharing the same RF antenna/radio path, as taught in Chung.
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 5, dependent from Claim 4, Chung further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the prioritization rule indicates to perform forwarding or sending of at least one signal having a highest priority among signals that matched candidate signals identified in the prioritization rule (“the IAB node (1110) can determine the priority of messages transmitted by the MT (1111) and/or DU (1112) based on the type of link through which the message is transmitted,” e.g., “in the case of a message transmitted over a backhaul link connecting the MT (1111) of an IAB node (1110) and the DU (1122) of a parent IAB node (1120),” e.g., a PDCCH/DCI, “if an error occurs in the backhaul link, the access link message to which the message is to be transmitted may also be impossible to transmit, so it may have a higher priority than a message transmitted over an access link connecting the DU(1111) of an IAB node (1110) and the MT (1131) of a child IAB node (1130),” e.g., a PDSCH or PUSCH – See [¶0078] whereby “the priority described above may include information regarding reference signal power, path loss, and/or power control command” – See [¶0074]).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent from Claim 5, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the prioritization rule (“using a prioritization rule to govern operation of at least one of the mobile-termination circuitry and the distributed unit circuitry” – See [¶0128] “performed when the total transmission power utilization of the IAB node is in a predetermined neighborhood of the maximum permitted total transmission power” – See [¶0130]) identifies at least one of following candidate signals for the first signal, as having higher priority than a candidate signal for the second signal (“in the event that total transmitted power is near its maximum, operation of IAB node transmission power prioritization rule(s) 130 may privilege or favor the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50,” i.e., “the parent-child link is privileged over the child grandchildren link(s); i.e., lower downlink capacity on child-grandchildren links to ensure reliability of the parent child link” including “dropping transmissions on child-grandchild links” – See [¶0131] and Figs. 7-8):
a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission,
a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission,
a PUCCH transmission with hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information, a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with HARQ-ACK information (“MT maximum power controller 146 may control maximum transmission power for one or both of PUSCH and PUCCH for the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 of child IAB node” – See [¶0137]; accord with Chung:[¶0073] (“the priority between MT (1111) and DU (1112) may refer to the priority between the uplink and/or downlink connected to the IAB node (1110)”);,
a sounding reference signal (SRS),
a PUCCH transmission with status report, or
a PUSCH transmission with status report (“In the event that the IAB node transmission power prioritization rule(s) 130 are invoked, the child IAB node 72(7) may send a report of such invocation and its consequences to a parent node such as parent IAB node 70” – See [¶0133] whereby the report is prioritized before the other transmissions so eth parent may evaluate the consequences).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Claim 5, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the prioritization rule identifies at least one of following candidate signals for the first signal, as having lower priority than a candidate signal for the second signal (“Another example of an IAB node transmission power prioritization rule is to prioritize the transmissions by the distributed unit circuitry relative to the transmissions by the mobile-termination circuitry when desirable or necessary, e.g., when the total transmission power utilization of the IAB node is in a predetermined neighborhood of the maximum permitted total transmission power” – See [¶0132]):
a signal other than a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission,
a signal other than a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission (e.g., “PDCCH resources that must be transmitted with higher reliability, as PDCCH transmissions configured via Configured Grant would be” – See [¶0103] would have then higher priority than PUCCH which is a first signal now with lower priority),
a signal other than a PUCCH transmission with hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information,
a signal other than a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with HARQ-ACK information,
a signal other than a sounding reference signal (SRS),
a signal other than a PUCCH transmission with status report, or
a signal other than a PUSCH transmission with status report.
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from Claim 5, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the prioritization rule identifies, in order of descending priority, a first candidate signal for the first signal, a second candidate signal for the second signal, and a third candidate signal for the first signal, respectively, as comprising:
{a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission, or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission or a PUCCH transmission} (when “the MT power is privileged . . . lower downlink capacity on child-grandchildren links to ensure reliability of the parent child link” – See [¶0131] the “control maximum transmission power for one or both of PUSCH and PUCCH for the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 of child IAB node 72(9),” i.e., the third and the first signal, respectively, and lower “transmission power for one or both of PDSCH and PDCCH for the Distributed Unit (DU) 52 of child IAB node 72(9),” i.e., the second type of signal – See [¶0137]) ; or
{a PRACH transmission, or a PUCCH transmission with hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission or a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information}; or
{a PRACH transmission, a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information, or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with HARQ-ACK information; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission, a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or a PUSCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information}; or
{a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information; any signal; a signal other than a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information}; or
{a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information, or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with HARQ-ACK information; any signal; a signal other than a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or a PUSCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information}; or
{a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK, or a sounding reference signal (SRS) information; any signal; a signal other than a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or a SRS}; or
{a PRACH transmission, a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information, or a SRS; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission, a PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or a SRS}; or
{a PRACH transmission, or a PUCCH transmission with status report; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission or a PUCCH transmission with status report}; or
{a PRACH transmission, a PUCCH transmission with status report, or a PUSCH transmission with status report; any signal; a signal other than a PRACH transmission or a PUCCH transmission with status report or a PUSCH transmission with status report}.
Therefore, Claim 8 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 9, dependent from Claim 4, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein when the network node determines to perform B, i.e., when the first signal, e.g., a PUCCH is dropped, the method further comprises:
transmitting, by the network node, the first signal in a frequency domain resource allocated to the first signal that was not previously transmitted – See, e.g., § 9.2, 3GPP TS 38.213 supra, at page 106, specifying that “A UE may transmit one or two PUCCHs on a serving cell in different symbols within a slot” whereby “The PUCCH resource set includes sixteen resources, each corresponding to a PUCCH format, a first symbol, a duration, a PRB offset
R
B
BWP
offset
, and a cyclic shift index set for a PUCCH transmission,” i.e., the MT of the IAB, acting as a UE would know to transmit a second PUCCH in a second time-frequency domain resource when the first PUCCH resource was missed because the signal was dropped.
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 10, dependent from Claim 9, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein when the first signal comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission, then at least one of:
the PRACH transmission is to be transmitted in a next random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO);
the PRACH transmission is to be transmitted in a next PRACH slot; or
the PRACH transmission is to be transmitted according to: a synchronization signal block (SSB) determined by the network node, and a relationship between the SSB and the PRACH transmission – See § 8, 3GPP TS 38.213 supra, at page 51-52, specifying “Prior to initiation of the physical random access procedure, Layer 1 receives from higher layers a set of SS/PBCH block indexes and provides to higher layers a corresponding set of RSRP measurements” whereby it is known in the art that the PRACH transmission would occur in a Random Access opportunity (RO) aligned with the strongest SSB index determined by the network node, e.g. because “a UE is provided a number
N
of SS/PBCH block indexes associated with one PRACH occasion and a number
R
of contention based preambles per SS/PBCH block index per valid PRACH occasion by ssb-perRACH-OccasionAndCB-PreamblesPerSSB”; see also id. at page 43, “the UE determines a transmission power for a subsequent PRACH transmission, if any, as described in [11, TS 38.321]” whereby 3GPP TS 38.321 V17.3.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.321), also referenced in Kowalski:[¶0170], specifying in § 5.1.1 the Random Access procedure initialization, indicating that prach-ConfigurationIndex RRC IE comprises “the available set of PRACH occasions for the transmission of the Random Access Preamble for Msg1” or MSGA, and prach-ConfigurationPeriodScaling-IAB indicates “the scaling factor defined in TS 38.211 [8] and applicable to IAB-MTs, extending the periodicity of the PRACH occasions baseline configuration indicated by prach-ConfigurationIndex..”
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 11, dependent from Claim 9, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein when the first signal comprises a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission, a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, or a sounding reference signal (SRS), then at least one of:
the first signal is to be transmitted in a next slot; the first signal (e.g., a PUCCH) is to be transmitted in a next uplink slot – See, e.g., §9.2.6, 3GPP TS 38.213 specifying at page 131 that “the UE determines the
N
PUCCH
repeat
slots for a PUCCH transmission starting from a slot indicated to the UE as described in clause 9.2.3 for HARQ-ACK reporting, or a slot determined as described in clause 9.2.4 for SR reporting or in clause 5.2.1.4 of [6, TS 38.214] for CSI reporting,” i.e., the UE/IAB-MT would transmit PUCCH in the next available slot following the standard resource allocation procedure;
the first signal is to be transmitted in a time domain resource according to an indication from the wireless communication node; or
the first signal is to be transmitted after a defined duration.
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining, by the network node, to prioritize the sending of the first signal (“in the event that total transmitted power is near its maximum, operation of IAB node transmission power prioritization rule(s) 130 may privilege or favor the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50. In other words, the MT power is privileged-that is, the parent-child link is privileged over the child-grandchildren link(s)” – See [¶0131]; see also § 7.5, 3GPP TS 38.213, at page 44, specifying “the UE allocates power to PUSCH/PUCCH/PRACH/SRS transmissions according to the following priority order (in descending order)” starting with “PRACH transmission on the Pcell; PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with larger priority index,” e.g., the IAB-MT determines to prioritize a PUCCH with higher priority index as a first signal); and
reducing, by the network node, the second power to be a smaller one of:
(i) a maximum total power minus the first power, (“so that the total UE transmit power for transmissions on serving cells in the frequency range is smaller than or equal to
P
^
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
for that frequency range in every symbol of transmission occasion
i
” – See id., i.e., the second power in case of simultaneous transmissions is smaller than
P
^
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
– first power; see also Kowalski:[¶¶0164-65] (“Power headroom (PHR) indicates how much power is unused and thus available for further transmission . . . transmitted by IAB node mobile termination (MT) unit 50 to donor IAB node 22(13)”)) and
(ii) an input power to the network node multiplied by a configured gain of the network node (“Resources for power may also be considered as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’” whereby “’hard’ power resources [are] under control of the parent node, e.g., donor IAB node 22” and “there may also be ‘soft’ power control in which the totality of power from MT+DU is controlled by a single power control parameter set [α and β] as per above, and it is up to the child IAB node to ‘schedule’ or ‘allocate’ power resources (i.e., assign transmit power to time/frequency/space resources) so that its PHR limit is not reached” – See [¶0188] and Fig. 20).
However, Kowalski does not specifically teach a formula showing input power to the network node multiplied by a configured gain of the network node.
Chung, like Kowalski, teaches that the IAB node may perform “soft” power control and further teaches the power of the IAB node multiplied by the gain of the IAB node on the MT and on the DU entities in the node (“the IAB node (1110) can control the transmission power of the MT (1111)and/or DU (1112) by lowering the transmission power of the MT (1111) and DU (1112) at unequal rates based on the priority of the MT (1111) and DU (1112), so that the sum of the transmission power of the MT (1111) and the transmission power of the DU (1112) is less than or equal to the maximum available power of the IAB node (1110) . . . by non-linearly lowering the transmission power of the MT (1111) and the DU (1112) based on the priority of the MT (1111) and the DU (1112) as shown in Equation 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” – See [¶¶0086-87] whereby α and β represent the gain of the network node on the MT and DU circuitry respectively). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to consider the teachings of Kowalski and Chung together when an IAB node has the “soft” power control capability, i.e., to calculate the power allocated to the second (deprioritized) signal, e.g., a forwarding DU signal, both as the result of Equation 2
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Equation 4 supra and use the minimum PDU between the two so that Pmax is not surpassed in any of the equations.
Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Claim 12, Chung further teaches the method of claim 12, comprising:
adjusting, by the network node, an actual gain of the network node (“Additionally, the IAB node (1110) has a transmit power ratio of the MT (1111) α value and/or a constant transmit power ratio of the DU β value” – See [¶0086] whereby the β value is the actual DU gain), such that: the input power multiplied by the actual gain is smaller than or equal to the maximum total power minus the first power (then, from Equation 4 supra, βPDU = Pmax - αPMT<= Pmax - PMT when the gain α is greater than 1).
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 14, dependent from Claim 1, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
determining, by the network node, to prioritize the forwarding of the second signal (“prioritize the transmissions by the distributed unit circuitry relative to the transmissions by the mobile-termination circuitry when desirable or necessary” e.g., “privilege or favor the Distributed Unit (DU) 52, ensuring reliability of the child-grandchild links” – See [¶0132]). However, Kowalski does not teach determining, by the network node, the second power to be a smaller one of: (i) a maximum total power, and (ii) an input power to the network node multiplied by a configured gain of the network node.
Chung teaches that “in the case of a message transmitted over a backhaul link connecting the MT (1111) of an IAB node (1110) and the DU (1122) of a parent IAB node (1120), if an error occurs in the backhaul link, the access link message to which the message is to be transmitted may also be impossible to transmit, so it may have a higher priority than a message transmitted over an access link connecting the DU(1111) of an IAB node (1110) and the MT (1131) of a child IAB node (1130)” – See [¶0078], i.e., like in Kowalski the downlink message from the DU of the IAB node has higher priority.
Chung further teaches this second power to be a smaller one of: (i) a maximum total power, and (ii) an input power to the network node multiplied by a configured gain of the network node based on the Equations 2 and 4 explained in Regarding Claim 12 supra only inversing the roles of PMT with PDU. Because the method in Kowalski is combinable with the method in Chung, Claim 14 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 15, dependent from Claim 14, Chung further teaches the method of claim 14, comprising:
determining, by the network node, the first power to be a smaller one of: (i) the maximum total power minus the second power ( “if the DU (1112) has a higher priority than the MT (1111), the IAB node (1110) can control the transmission power of the MT (1111) and/or the DU (1112) by determining the transmission power of the MT (1111) as the value obtained by subtracting the transmission power of the DU (1112) from the maximum available power of the IAB node (1110), as shown in Equation 1 . . .
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” – See [¶0080-81]), and (ii) a value of the first power specific to a type of the first signal (e.g., “the IAB node (1110) can control the transmission power of the MT (1111) . . . by non-linearly lowering the transmission power of the MT (1111) . . . based on the priority of the MT (1111) and the DU (1112) as shown in Equation 4 below, so that the sum of the transmission power of the MT (1111) and the transmission power of the DU (1112) matches the maximum available power of the IAB node (1110)” and
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
– See [¶¶0086-87] wherein the value of the first power specific to a type of the first signal may be αPMT , i.e., the gain on the MT transmission, corresponding to Kowalski:[¶0102](“Equation 2 assumes that the Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 transmits a PUCCH on active UL BWP b of carrier fin the primary cell c using PUCCH power control adjustment state with index 1”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to take the minimum between the two values because αPMT in Equation 4 must fulfill PMT in Equation 1 so that in neither case the sum of the transmission powers is over Pmax. Because the method in Kowalski is combinable with the method in Chung, Claim 15 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Regarding Claim 16, dependent from Claim 14, Kowalski further teaches the method of claim 14, comprising:
determining, by the network node, the first power to be: a value of the first power specific to a type of the first signal, minus a power offset (“transmission power headroom (PHR) may be a difference between a maximum transmission power allocated . . . to its Mobile-Termination (MT) 50 . . . , and actual transmission power utilization by . . . its Mobile-Termination (MT) 50” – See [¶0121], i.e., the first power is the difference between the maximum value of the first power and the PHR).
Therefore, Claim 16 is obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
In sum, Claims 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Kowalski in view of Chung.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ghanbarinejad et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080162 discloses method and apparatus for determining a downlink transmit power value based on the set of uplink power control parameters;
Ghanbarinejad et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0078181 discloses method and apparatus for calculating a first expected receive power value based on the first measurement and the power offset value;
Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0369309 discloses method and apparatus for controlling a wireless relay device and corresponding devices wherein upstream control information is used to control communication of the wireless relay device;
Liu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0029758 discloses using radio resource control (RRC) from a first node, where the RRC includes a power control parameter set configured for the second node, the power control parameter set includes a power control index, and the power control index is determined based on a transmission mode or a transmission capability of the second node;
Qi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0150959 discloses method of performing power control for transmission signals in a telecommunication system employing Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB depending on whether Frequency, Time or Spatial Division Multiplexing, FDM, TDM, SDM is used on a particular pair of links;
Hao et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication No. WO2020186401 discloses a method for configuring transmission power and an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node device;
3GPP TS 38.174 V17.2.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Integrated access and backhaul radio transmission and reception (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.213 V17.4.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 17)”;
3GPP TS 38.331 v17.3.0 (2022-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)”;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #106bis-e, R1-2110515, Title: "Final summary [106bis-e-NR-eIAB-02] on other enhancements for simultaneous operation of IAB-node’s child and parent links," Source: Moderator (Qualcomm Incorporated), published October 2021
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #106bis-e, R1-2110332, Title: “Timing, interference management and power control in enhanced IAB,” Source Ericsson; October 2021;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #107-e, R1-2112837, Title: “Final summary for [107-e-NR-eIAB-02] on other enhancements for simultaneous operation of IAB-node's child and parent links,” Source: Moderator (Qualcomm Incorporated), November 2021.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Here, Claim 1 uses the term “forwarding link” to refer to connectivity “from the network node to the wireless communication node” whereby the network note also has a “control link from the network node to the [same] wireless communication node,” i.e., with reference to Fig. 4 and [¶0044] of the present disclosure, the forward link would be construed as only F1 and F2, i.e., the backhaul link, and exclude F3 and F4, i.e., the access link, because only one wireless communication node is disclosed in Claim1 and its dependent claims.
2 To be noted the prioritization rule at a UE/IAB-MT as known in the art and specified in §7.5, 3GPP TS 38.213, at page 44: “For single cell operation with two uplink carriers or for operation with carrier aggregation, if a total UE transmit power for PUSCH or PUCCH or PRACH or SRS transmissions on serving cells in a frequency range in a respective transmission occasion
i
would exceed
P
^
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
, where
P
^
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
is the linear value of
P
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
in transmission occasion
i
as defined in [8-1, TS 38.101-1] for FR1 and [8-2, TS 38.101-2] for FR2, the UE allocates power to PUSCH/PUCCH/PRACH/SRS transmissions according to the following priority order (in descending order) so that the total UE transmit power for transmissions on serving cells in the frequency range is smaller than or equal to
P
^
C
M
A
X
(
i
)
for that frequency range in every symbol of transmission occasion
i
” (emphasis added): “PRACH transmission on the Pcell; PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with larger priority index; For PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with same priority index: PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information, and/or SR, and/or LRR, or PUSCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information of the priority index . . .etc.”
Prosecution Insights