DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are original claims to patent US 10,356,637 B2 and claims 21-23 are newly added claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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. 10,356,637 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.
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 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10-14, 16-17, and 18-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2006/0089104 A1 (herein Kaikkonen) in view of US 7,209,456 B2 (herein Kwak).
Claim 1
Kaikkonen and Kwak
A method, in a sending node, comprising:
Kaikkonen discloses a sending node as a node B or base station (Kaikkonen: figure 1, element 10).
receiving, from a user equipment, a link state report for a wireless link between the user equipment and the sending node;
Kaikkonen discloses the base station receiving a link state report from a user equipment, UE (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0028 and 0031, CQI report 28 from user terminal 12) for a wireless link between the UE and the sending node (Kaikkonen: figure 1, element 26; paragraph 0008, “… wireless communication system …”; and paragraph 0031, “… user terminal … generates a CQI report signal … containing channel quality indicator data regarding a downlink (DL) channel …”).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kaikkonen: figure 1)
estimating a current state of the wireless link;
Kaikkonen shows estimating a current state of the wireless link (Kaikkonen: figure 1, elements 14 and 22; paragraph 0032, emphasis added, “… Consequently, an adaptation and scheduling module 14 provides an HS-DSCH activity signal (or an activity signal) 22 to the CQI filter 16, wherein the signal 22 contains history of the HS-DSCH signal 26 as a function of power and time transmitted during the time interval used for generating the CQI report signal 28 to the CQI filter 16.”). Kaikkonen states the activity signal 22 contains the history (as a function of power and time) of the HS-DSCH signal used to generate the current CQI link state report signal 28, thus the activity signal shows the current state of the wireless link with regard to the current link state report.
determining that the link state report is inaccurate based on a comparison of the link state report to the estimated current state of the wireless link;
Kaikkonen shows comparing a link state report and the current state of the wireless link with CQI filter module 16 (Kaikkonen: figure 1, elements 14 and 16; paragraph 0032, emphasis added, “In response to the signal 28, the receiver 18 generates a CQI signal 24 indicative of received channel quality indicator data and provides the CQI signal 24 to a CQI filter 16 of the network element 10. Consequently, an adaptation and scheduling module 14 provides an HS-DSCH activity signal (or an activity signal) 22 to the CQI filter 16, wherein the signal 22 contains history of the HS-DSCH signal 26 as a function of power and time transmitted during the time interval used for generating the CQI report signal 28 to the CQI filter 16.”; paragraphs 0033 and 0037-0038).
Kaikkonen’s determines “the link state report is inaccurate based on a comparison of the report to the estimated current state of the wireless link” (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0033-0036, inaccuracy is shown by the evaluation returning a need for modification based on the CQI report being too optimistic or too pessimistic).
responsive to determining that the link state report is inaccurate, determining a user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter, wherein the user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter is determined for the user equipment that sent the link state report, and is based on a deviation between the link state report received from the user equipment and the estimated current state of the wireless link; and
Kaikkonen suggests determining a UE specific measurement adjusting parameter for the sending user equipment (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0036, “… the adaptation and scheduling module 14 … can facilitate adjusting of the intended HS-DSCH power allocation for the HS-DSCH signal 26 to be provided to the user terminal 12 based on said modified CQI signal 20”; paragraph 0042).
Kaikkonen discloses a UE specific parameter is determined for the user equipment that sent the link state report (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0029, “… this information can be also
used to adjust the intended HS-DSCH power allocation for a particular user …”; and paragraph 0031, “The latter approach is directly applicable only if the HS-DSCH is allocated for the particular UE.”).
Kaikkonen teaches a UE specific parameter is determined based on a deviation between a received link state report and a current state of a wireless link (Kaikkonen: figure 1, elements 14 and 16; paragraph 0032, emphasis added, “In response to the signal 28, the receiver 18 generates a CQI signal 24 indicative of received channel quality indicator data and provides the CQI signal 24 to a CQI filter 16 of the network element 10. Consequently, an adaptation and scheduling module 14 provides an HS-DSCH activity signal (or an activity signal) 22 to the CQI filter 16, wherein the signal 22 contains history of the HS-DSCH signal 26 as a function of power and time transmitted during the time interval used for generating the CQI report signal 28 to the CQI filter 16.”). Kaikkonen’s CQI filter module 16 determines “a deviation between the received link state report”, Kaikkonen’s CQI signal 24 from CQI report 28, and “a current state of a wireless link”, Kaikkonen’s HS-DSCH Activity signal 22 (which includes history information used for generating the current CQI report signal 28).
Kaikkonen uses past power allocation and CQI conditions to determine intended power allocation for current conditions using a CQI report (Kaikkonen: figure 1, elements 14 and 16, adaptation and scheduling module and CQI filter module; paragraphs 0028, 0032-0036, determining power allocation historical conditions; paragraph 0029, “Based on the observed difference, a required bias for the HS-DSCH transport format is estimated accounting for an intended HS-DSCH power allocation”; and paragraph 0038, “… as indicated above, the accuracy of the scheduling can benefit from the information contained in the modified CQI signal 20 if the power allocation for the HS-DSCH signal 26 is significantly different from the level which was used when the CQI was reported”).
sending the user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter to the user equipment;
To the extent Kaikkonen does not explicitly state “sending the user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter to the user equipment”, Kwak explicitly discloses that it was known at the time of invention for a base station to send a UE measurement adjusting parameter to a user equipment (Kwak: column 4, lines 53-55; column 16, lines 35-40; column 19, lines 21-26). Further, Kaikkonen teaches UE knowledge of power offset information for particular/specific UEs is desirable for calculation of CQI (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0029 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the adaptive HSDPA system of Kaikkonen with sending a user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter to the user equipment as suggested by the teachings of Kwak. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is an application of a known element and technique suggested by Kaikkonen yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; both references are directed to HSDPA channel quality (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0001; Kwak: column 3, lines 12-27).
receiving a subsequent link state report from the user equipment comprising one or both of a determined link quality estimation and a link parameter recommendation, which are based on signal measurements adjusted by the user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter.
Kaikkonen discloses receiving subsequent link quality state reports with a determined link quality estimation (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0028 and 0032-0036; CQI) and for which are based on signal measurements adjusted by a user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0029).
Claim 2
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 further comprising using the subsequent link state report for link adaptation of the wireless link or for packet scheduling decisions, or both.
Kaikkonen discloses using the reports for link adaptation (Kaikkonen: paragraph 00036).
Claim 3
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 further comprising sending payload data and reference symbols to the user equipment, which configures the link state reports based on signal measurements on the reference symbols, and wherein the user equipment specific
measurement adjusting parameter compensates for a difference in received power or Signal to
Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) between measured signals and data signals.
Kaikkonen in view of Kwak disclose sending payload data (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0003, HS-DSCH packet data traffic; Kwak: column 1, lines 58-60, HS-PDSCH) and reference symbols to configure the state reports (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0003, common pilot channel, CPICH; Kwak: column 1, lines 56-57, CPICH) and the UE measurement adjusting parameter compensates for a difference in received power or Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) between measured signals and data signals (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0003, 0031; column 6, lines 51-62; Kwak: column 3, lines 28-37; column 4, lines 1-14; column 19, lines 21-26).
Claim 4
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 wherein the user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter is a Power Measurement Offset (PMO) that the user equipment uses for adjusting signal power or SINR measurements upon which the subsequent link state report is based.
Kaikkonen in view of Kwak disclose the parameter as a power offset parameter used for adjusting signal power or SINR (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0036, 0042, power allocation; Kwak: column 3, lines 18-36; column 19, lines 21-26).
Claim 5
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 wherein the determined link quality estimation comprises a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI).
Kaikkonen in view of Kwak disclose the link quality estimation comprises a CQI (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0028 and 0032-0036; CQI).
Claim 7
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 wherein estimating the current state of the wireless link comprises
monitoring an amount of data errors occurring over the wireless link as compared to a predetermined target value.
Kaikkonen discloses estimating the state comprises monitoring errors compared to a target (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0002).
Claim 9
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The method of claim 1 wherein estimating the current state of the wireless link comprises monitoring a current traffic load in the network used.
Kaikkonen in view of Kwak disclose estimating the current state of a link by monitoring a current traffic load in the network (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0003-0004, monitoring quality in changing user load and data packet traffic; and Kwak: column 2, lines 26-50; column 8, lines 1-4; column 10, lines 14-18; column 18, lines 20-23; traffic load of the number of UEs and balancing their needs).
Claims 10-14, 16-17
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The limitations of claims 10-14 and 16-17 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 9.
The limitations of claims 10-14 and 16-17 are rejected in a corresponding manner as the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 9.
Claim 18-23
Kaikkonen and Kwak
The limitations of claims 18-23 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 9.
The limitations of claims 18-23 are rejected in a corresponding manner as the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 9, recognizing the cited prior art teach the method and system from both the perspective of a sending node (base station) and the perspective of a receiving node (user equipment).
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2006/0089104 A1 (herein Kaikkonen) in view of US 7,209,456 B2 (herein Kwak) in further view of US 7,688,899 B2 (herein Ketchum).
Claim 6
Kaikkonen and Kwak and Ketchum
The method of claim 1 wherein the link parameter recommendation comprises a preferred transmission rank specifying a number of parallel data streams when multiple antennas are used.
As an initial matter, it is noted that this expanded limitation is not required as the “link parameter recommendation” limitation is not required by claim 1.
Kaikkonen does not explicitly state a link parameter recommendation comprises a preferred transmission rank specifying a number of parallel data streams when multiple antennas are used. Ketchum discloses that it was known at the time of invention to rank (Ketchum: column 5, lines 26-32; column 21, lines 57-67; column 23, lines 40-46) parallel streams when multiple antennas are used (Ketchum: column 3, lines 2-9; column 4, lines 7-25, and lines 51-55; column 24, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement reports of Kaikkonen with ranking streams using multiple antennas as suggested by the teachings of Ketchum. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is a substitution and application of one known element and technique for/with another yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art (i.e. using multiple antennas); and both references are directed to channel quality (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0001, 0003, 0027-0030) and the full use of quality channels (Ketchum: column 4, lines 7-20).
Claim 15
Kaikkonen and Kwak and Ketchum
The limitations of claim 15 correspond to the limitations of claim 6.
The limitations of claim 15 are rejected in a corresponding manner as the limitations of claim 6.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2006/0089104 A1 (herein Kaikkonen) in view of US 7,209,456 B2 (herein Kwak) in further view of US 2006/0093024 A1 (herein Pietraski).
Claim 8
Kaikkonen and Kwak and Pietraski
The method of claim 7 wherein ACK/NACK messages from the user equipment are monitored to determine whether a Block Error Rate (BLER) or equivalent parameter deviates from the target value.
Kaikkonen does not explicitly state monitoring ACK/NACK messages to determine BLER deviating from a target. Pietraski discloses that it was known at the time of invention to monitor ACK/NACK messages to determine BLER (Pietraski: paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the monitoring the BLER target deviation and the user equipment ACK/NACK messages of Kaikkonen with monitoring ACK/NACK messages to determine BLER and thus target deviation as suggested by the teachings of Pietraski. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the implementation of is a substitution and application of one known element and technique for/with another yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both references are directed to channel quality indicators and analysis (Kaikkonen: paragraphs 0001, 0003, 0027-0030; Pietraski: paragraph 0001).
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner’s arguments filed 04/29/2025 (herein Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Patent Owner argues: (1) neither Kaikkonen nor Kwak show, “based on a comparison of the link state report to the estimated current state of the wireless link” (Remarks: pages 10-12).
Patent Owner argues Kaikkonen does not show the claimed “a current state of the wireless link”. Problematically, the claimed “current state” of the wireless link is not clearly defined by the claims or the supporting disclosure. For example, the specification of the patent under reissue suggests one possibility is for link parameters and CQI together to represent “current state of the link” (10,356,637: column 2, lines 31-36). The Specification gives other versions of the current link state involving monitoring the amount of errors over the link as compared to a threshold/target or the current traffic load on the network (10,356,637: column 5, lines 39-48; column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 5; column 7, lines 44-62).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is that some aspect of the link state for a current time period must be shown by the cited prior art. Kaikkonen states, “the [activity] signal 22 contains history of the HS-DSCH signal 26 as a function of power and time transmitted during the time interval used for generating the CQI report signal 28” (Kaikkonen: paragraph 0032, emphasis added). The cited history of the HS-DSCH signal is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the state of the wireless link; and since that history corresponds to “the time interval used for generating the CQI report”, it is a current state. The history (including any parameters, conditions, CQI used in the transmission of the HS-DSCH signal, which may include the history of the power/time) represents a current state that was used to generate the CQI. From a basic broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the claim limitations in question read upon Kaikkonen.
In addition, it is worth noting in Kaikkonen the history contains at least power allocation, including: active, not active, allocation amounts, and based on equipment/user (Kaikkonen: paragraphs [0028], [0034]). This is broadly consistent with the requested reissue patent’s traffic load (10,356,637: see above citations). Further, Kaikkonen teaches monitoring the HS-DSCH link for errors in relation to a threshold/target to compensate for uncertainty in the UE CQI, receiving node’s reported CQI (Kaikkonen: paragraph [0020]). This is consistent with the requested patent’s error rate tracking (10,356,637: see above citations).
The Remarks do not offer support for the argument that estimating the state of the link requires measurement (Remarks: page 11, last paragraph). However, as discussed above, the requested reissue patent’s disclosure suggests a current link state is partially determined by the CQI, which results from measurement. Kaikkonen teaches a CQI resulting from measurement (Kaikkonen: figure 1, element 28; paragraph [0031]).
For all these reasons, the arguments of the Remarks are not persuasive.
Kwak was cited to make an explicit teaching of what Kaikkonen suggests with regard to “sending a user equipment specific measurement adjusting parameter to the user equipment” (see rejections). Arguments for the other independent and dependent claims rely on the above arguments and as such they are not persuasive for the same reasons. As discussed above, Kaikkonen discloses “based on a deviation between the received link state report and a current state of a wireless link”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, CRU 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights