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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to amendment filed on 5/14/2026. Claims 1-32 are pending. Claims 3-24 and 26-27 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 25 and 28-32 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 25, 29, and 30 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 25, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “resource element” in claim 25 is used by the claim to mean “resource grid/box/area,” while the accepted meaning is “the smallest unit of radio resource, defined as a single subcarrier in the frequency domain for a single OFDM symbol in the time domain, in 5G or LTE network.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The specification discloses the invention in a 5G or LTE network (figures 1-5), yet figure 12 and its corresponding paragraphs shows the “resource element” (the smallest radio unit) contains plural resource blocks (RB) which is another well-known term in 5G/LTE. In 5G/LTE, a resource block is a block of 12 subcarriers and at least one OFDM symbol. Thus, a resource block (LTE/5G) contains multiple resource elements and not the other way around as disclosed in the specification. Note the term “resource element” is not defined in the specification to be the smallest unit (one OFDM symbol and one subcarrier), and it is not defined/disclosed to be smaller than a resource block.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected for their dependency of claim 25 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0246429) in view of Chaddha (US Pat. No. 7,082,164) in view of Elkotby et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0225402).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a base station (see figure 1) configured for operating at least one (paragraph 11) of a plurality of cells of a wireless communication network using an antenna arrangement (see figure 7),
the base station comprising a signal generator configured for generating a plurality of multicast signals for a group of apparatus based on a deduction from a content (figure 1, figure 2 steps 210 and 260, figure 6 common MC channel 130; paragraphs 5, 44, 47, 51, and 119: base station transmits multicast signals for video/audio streams)
wherein the base station comprises a calculation unit that is configured for adapting a transmission characteristic of the plurality of multicast signals based on a statistical distribution function of connectivity information, each piece of connectivity information indicating a connectivity between the base station and an apparatus of the group of apparatus (figure 2 steps S230 to S260; figure 6 estimate CQI, decode CQI, determine data rate or power, transmit MC data; paragraphs 25-27, 48-52, 114-120: base station determines data rate/transmission power for multicasting signals based on CQI feedback from terminals in multicasting group. Thus, CQI feedback information is variable, and data rate/transmission power is varied based on the CQI feedback information (statistical distribution)).
Hwang does not teach such that different deductions to be transmitted with the multicast signal and are acquired from the same content.
In the same field of multicasting endeavor, Chaddha discloses such that different deductions to be transmitted with the multicast signal and are acquired from the same content (figure 5; col. 4 lines 11-18; col. 11 lines 1-30; col. 14 lines 50-60: same content are deducted to multiple resolution layers (base layer, enhanced layer). Base layer (lowest/min resolution) is transmitted to a multicasting group based on (lowest) bandwidth/CQI; enhanced/higher resolution layers are used for another multicasting group with better transmission rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Hwang such that different deductions to be transmitted with the multicast signal and are acquired from the same content.
The motivation would have been for scalability based on available/supported bandwidth/channel quality.
Hwang and Chaddha do not teach a superimposed connectivity information being a superposition of pieces of connectivity information.
In the same field of endeavor, Elkotby discloses a superimposed connectivity information being a superposition of pieces of connectivity information (see figure 11 and paragraphs 172-177: as shown in figure 11, NID=0-15 with CQI reporting information are superimposed with each other within resource grid of figure 11. Each CQI reporting indicates connectivity between base station and mobile stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Hwang and Chaddha a superimposed connectivity information being a superposition of pieces of connectivity information.
The motivation would have been for preconfigured mapping from base station (paragraph 176).
Regarding claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Hwang further teaches the base station is configured for receiving, using the antenna arrangement and from the plurality of apparatus of the group of apparatus a feedback information indicating the connectivity information indicating the connectivity as a reception quality of a first multicast signal of the plurality of multicast signals and for adapting a transmission characteristic for transmitting with a wireless interface a second multicast signal of the plurality of multicast signals based on the plurality of feedback information; wherein the calculation unit is configured for deriving the statistical distribution function from the connectivity information (figures 2 and 6; paragraphs 47-52; 113-127).
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0246429) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0223176).
Regarding claim 25, Hwang discloses an apparatus (figure 1 UE 121-123) using antenna arrangement (see figure 8) configured for listening to communication in a wireless communication network, the apparatus comprising:
a wireless interface (figure 8 antenna/RF) configured for receiving a multicast signal for the at least one cell, the multicast signal comprising a deduction from a content (figure 1, figure 2 steps 210 and 260, figure 6 common MC channel 130; paragraphs 5, 44, 47, 51, and 119: UE receives multicast signals from base station);
wherein the apparatus comprises an evaluation unit configured for determining determined a channel quality level of a channel quality between the apparatus and a transmitter of the multicast signal and for deriving a connectivity information indicating the channel quality (figure 2 steps S220 and S230; figure 6 estimate CQI & transmit CQI; paragraphs 25-27, 48-52, 114-120: terminal estimates CQI and transmit CQI report to base station);
wherein the apparatus is configured for using the wireless interface for transmitting a feedback signal comprising the connectivity information (paragraphs 25-27, 48-52, 114-120: terminal estimates CQI and transmit CQI report to base station) using an element of the wireless communication network, the element being one of a set of elements associated with reporting connectivity information; wherein each element of the set of resource elements is associated with a predetermined channel quality level (see figures 3B, 4A, and 5; paragraphs 65-71, 77, 78, 82, 89, 91-102, 104-108: terminal transmits CQI according to CQI level in common CQI feedback channel as shown figures 3B, 4A and 5 (level 1, level 2, level M), the element is of a symbol and subcarrier as illustrated in figure 3B. As shown in figure 3B, due to OFDM symbols and subcarriers are part of common CQI feedback channel, each element is associated with a channel quality level. With regards to predetermined channel quality level, paragraphs 68, 70, 78, 89 and especially paragraphs 70 and 73 discloses waveform sm(t) can be designed with a predetermined symbol/subcarrier, and the smk(t) signal waveform is transmitted by terminal based on the CQI of mk);
wherein the apparatus is configured for transmitting the feedback signal using a resource element associated with a channel quality level being the determined channel quality level (paragraphs 68, 70, 78, 89 and especially paragraphs 70 and 73: terminal transmits waveform corresponds to predetermined symbol/subcarrier according to the determined CQI level).
Hwang’s figure 3B and paragraph 73 disclose CQI reporting on one symbol and at least one subcarriers in OFDM.
Hwang does not explicitly teach resource element and base station being operated so as to comprise a plurality of cells.
However, Liu discloses resource element including one symbol and one subcarrier in OFDM (paragraph 203) and base station being operated so as to comprise a plurality of cells (paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to substitute a known element (base station managing multiple cells) in Liu for another (base station) in Hwang with predictable result of multicasting transmission.
Regarding claim 29, all limitations of claim 25 are disclosed above. Hwang does not teach but Liu discloses resource element is a smallest time-frequency resource over one subcarrier of a single OFDM symbol (paragraph 203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to substitute a known element (base station managing multiple cells) in Liu for another (base station) in Hwang with predictable result of multicasting transmission.
Claim(s) 28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0246429) in view of Fukunaga et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245155).
Regarding claim 28, Hwang discloses an apparatus (figure 1 terminal) configured for communicating in a wireless communication network (see figure 1) using an antenna arrangement, the wireless communication network being operated, wherein the apparatus is configured for using the antenna arrangement receiving a report signal indicating a report of a later adaptation of a transmission characteristic of a multicast signal prior to transmitting the multicast signal; wherein the apparatus is configured for using a uplink for replying to the report signal (figure 2 steps S210 to S260; figure 6 estimate CQI, decode CQI, determine data rate or power, transmit MC data; paragraphs 25-27, 48-52, 114-120: terminal receives signal from base station, estimates and transmits CQI which is used to adapt for multicast signal from base station).
Hwang does not explicitly teach wireless network so as to comprise a plurality of cells and antenna arrangement for unicast signal from terminal to base station.
Fukunaga discloses wireless network so as to comprise a plurality of cells (figure 3 cell #1 and cell #3) and antenna arrangement for unicast signal from terminal to base station (paragraph 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement in Hwang wireless network so as to comprise a plurality of cells and unicast signal from terminal to base station.
The motivation would have been for responding to base station’s query.
Regarding claim 31, all limitations of claim 28 are disclosed above. Hwang further teaches the apparatus adapted to provide the unicast uplink for replying to the report signal and to provide for a feedback to report whether to agree with the adaptation of the transmission characteristic (figure 2 steps S210 to S260; figure 6 estimate CQI, decode CQI, determine data rate or power, transmit MC data; paragraphs 25-27, 48-52, 114-120: terminal receives signal from base station, estimates and transmits CQI which is used to adapt MCS for multicast signal from base station).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0246429) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0223176) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0026743).
Regarding claim 30, all limitations of claim 25 are disclosed above, Hwang and Liu d0 not teach but Zhang discloses adapted to use the resources as non-orthogonal resources in a pseudo-orthogonal way according to non- orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) (abstract, paragraphs 13-19: CQI feedback with NOMA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement in Hwang and Liu adapted to use the resources as non-orthogonal resources in a pseudo-orthogonal way according to non- orthogonal multiple access (NOMA).
The motivation would have been for enhancing accuracy of selection of an MCS (paragraph 13).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0246429) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0223176) in view of Elkotby et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0225402).
Regarding claim 32, all limitations of claim 25 are disclosed above, Hwang and Liu do not teach but Elkotby discloses transmitting the feedback signal to form a superposition with other feedback signals of other devices in the resource element (see figure 11 and paragraphs 172-177: as shown in figure 11, NID=0-15 with CQI reporting information are superimposed with each other within resource grid of figure 11. Each CQI reporting indicates connectivity between base station and mobile stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Hwang and Liu transmitting the feedback signal to form a superposition with other feedback signals of other devices in the resource element.
The motivation would have been for preconfigured mapping from base station (paragraph 176).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 12 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 25, 29, and 30, the Applicant argues that amending page 28 of the specification is enough to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant does not address the issue which states “the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term.” The written description still does not redefine the claimed term “resource element” and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonable skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 25, 29, and 30 stands.
In pages 14-15 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 25, the Applicant argues that “Elkotby is related to the field of energy harvesting allowing to harvest energy from the receiver RF waveforms, see, e.g. paragraph [0084] of Elkotby. The specific needs arising therefrom are not a part of the subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and distributing the content by way of different deductions as well as possible is, as a recognition of the underlying invention, not required to identify the respective receiver.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Elkotby is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Elkotby teaches CQI feedback reports from multiple mobile stations to a base station which is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
In page 15 of Remark, regarding teaching away argument, the Applicant does not provide a specific citation in Elkotby that supports the teach away argument. Thus, the argument is moot.
In page 15 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that Hwang is silent about adapting a transmission characteristic of the plurality of multicast signals based on said statistical distribution function of superimposed connectivity information. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In pages 15-16 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that Chaddha concerns scalable multimedia layers but does not relate to feedback processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In pages 16-17 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 28, in response to applicant's argument that Fukunaga is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fukunaga teaches wireless network so as to comprise a plurality of cells (and antenna arrangement for unicast signal from terminal to base station which is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights