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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues, see REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, pg. 11, “Applicant respectfully submits that Einhaus's indication of an RV value cited by the Office is not same thing as "a first MCS parameter description that indicates that the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit are associated with the first defined MCS table, and wherein the first MCS parameter description specifies that the first defined MCS table is defined for a first particular release of a wireless communication standard" as claimed in amended claim 1. (Emphasis added.)
For example, as indicated in the above quotation from the Office Action, Einhaus relies on "interpretation of the signaling" not "a first MCS parameter description that indicates that the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit are associated with the first defined MCS table" and that "specifies that the first defined MCS table is defined for a first particular release of a wireless communication standard" as claimed.
The Office respectfully disagrees with applicants statement “that Einhaus's indication of an RV value … is not same thing as "a first MCS parameter description. Applicants describes (see REMARKS/ARGUMENTS - Support for Claim Amendments”) “Table 5 includes the MCS parameter description "In relation to R-14 MCS table" associated with "minMCS-PSSCH-r14" and "maxMCS-PSSCH-r14," as well as the MCS parameter description "In relation to R-15 MCS table" associated with "minMCS- PSSCH-r15" and "maxMCS-PSSCH-r15.” As understood from Table 5, the coding/RRC configuration require sending/receiving an integer value ranging from (0….31) corresponding to “a first MCS parameter description.” That is, the “first MCS parameter description” represents an a integer value indicating a corresponding “the single first minimum limit [minMCS-PSSCH-r14] and the single first maximum limit [maxMCS-PSSCH-r14] that is associated with the first defined MCS table [R-14 MCS table]” that would need to be interpretation by the coding/software. The Office asserts Einhaus et al. fairly teaches the same functionality of the claimed “first MCS parameter description.” For instances, Einhaus et al. teaches (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 19, Para. [0070], [0045], [0158]-[0161]) “the following interpretation of the signaling could be enabled or disabled by means of a semi-static configuration, for instance by a higher layer protocol such as RRC or MAC.” That is, the signaling sent via the RRC configuration to the UE where the signaled values are interpretated by coding/software run on a processor (see Para. [0185]-[0186]) for what the signaled values represent/specify or describe. As Einhaus et al. teaches (Para. [0160]) “Upon detection of RV=1/2/3, apply the Release 11 MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.” That is the RRC signaling can include “RV” values indicating a version of the MCS table that is applied to a particular “Release” of a wireless communication standard and a “5-bit MCS field” indicating MCS index associated with the MCS table for that “Release.” Further, as Einhaus et al. depict in, e.g. Fig. 10A, 13A, 16A, the first minimum limit and the first maximum limit values/index that can be sent in the RRC signaling as the “5-bit MCS field” indicating first minimum and first maximum MCS index associated with an RV value 1/2/3 indicating a first QPSK/16-QAM/64-QAM MCS table MCS table defined for a first particular release of a wireless communication standard.
Further as previously stated, Yun et al. teaches “single” minimum MCS limit and “single” maximum MCS limit (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0091]: a first UE using “allowable range (e.g., maximum value, minimum value, etc.) of necessary parameter (e.g.….MCS, etc.)”), That is, sending the first and second MCS table/sets and the values therein used by terminal 1810 and 1820 in the communication system or network (e.g. Fig. 18) in Einhaus et al.’s invention can include sending “single” minimum MCS limit and “single” maximum MCS limit from each of the MCS tables/sets. In view of the combined teaching of at least Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al., a person of ordinary skill in the art can interpret the above teaches of Einhaus et al. as follows:
Signaling via RRC configuration:
RV = 1 with 5-bit MCS index filed indicating a value = 2 (00010) corresponding to a single first minimum MCS limit of a first 256-QAM MCS table (e.g. Fig. 6) defined for a first particular Release 11 of a wireless communication standard;
RV = 1 with 5-bit MCS index filed indication a value = 5 (00101) corresponding to a single first maximum MCS limit of a first 256-QAM MCS table (e.g. Fig. 6) defined for a first particular Release 11 of a wireless communication standard.
Therefore, the Office asserts that Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all the limitations of the amended independent claims and further the newly added claims as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einhaus et al. (US 2016/0036618 A1 previously cited) in view of Yun et al. (US 20170048905 A1 previously cited) further in view of Khoryaev et al. (US 20220022150 A1 priority claimed to us-provisional-application US 62476083 20170324 and us-provisional-application US 62476417 filed 03/24/2017 previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1 and 11, Einhaus et al. discloses;
An apparatus (Fig. 18: device 1892) and a method (Fig. 19) for communication comprising:
a memory (Para. [0186]: various types of memory); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Para. [0186]: “implemented or performed using computing devices (processors)”), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the apparatus to:
select a single first minimum limit and a single first maximum limit to be used by a first sidelink device and a second sidelink device with a first defined modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table (Figs. 6, 10A, 10B, 13A , 13B, 16A, and 16B, 17, 18, Para. [0041], [0052] [0098, [0158]-[0161]]: base station 1892 defines a first MCS table that “supports modulation order 2, 4 and 6 which corresponds to QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM” (e.g. Fig. 6) to be used by first sidelink device 1810 and a second sidelink device 1820; Para. [0059]: “a control information reception unit for receiving scheduling information specifying resources on which data are to be transmitted and including a modulation and coding indicator; a modulation and coding selection unit capable of selecting modulation and coding from a set of predefined modulation and coding schemes according to the modulation and coding indicator”; “Upon detection of RV=1/2/3, apply the Release 11 MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.”; As suggested, selecting the set of predefined modulation and coding schemes from a first defined MCS table (e.g. RV=1/2/3 corresponding QPSK/16-QAM/64-QAM MCS table) includes the first set where the first set may correspond to MCS index ranging from 2 to 5 as depicted in Fig. 6),… the first defined MCS table to include a minimum MCS value that is lower than the single first minimum limit or include a maximum MCS value that is higher than the single first maximum limit (Fig. 13A: MCS Table/first set includes at least one MCS Index value 0 that is lower than the MCS Index limit 2) or a maximum MCS value that is higher than the first maximum limit (Fig. 13A: MCS Table/first set includes at least one MCS Index value 31 that is higher than the selected MCS Index limit 5);
select a single second minimum limit and a single second maximum limit to be used by the first sidelink device and the second sidelink device with a second defined MCS table (Fig. 13B, Para. [0041], [0052], [0098], [0113], [0158], [0161]: base station 1892 defines a second MCS table that supports modulation order 8 which corresponds to 256-QAM to be used by first sidelink device 1810 and a second sidelink device 1820 “invention is not limited to two alternative sets of modulation and coding schemes. A plurality of sets may be employed”; Para. [0059]: “a control information reception unit for receiving scheduling information specifying resources on which data are to be transmitted and including a modulation and coding indicator…a set selection unit for selecting the set of predefined modulation and coding schemes from at least two predefined sets”’; “Upon detection of RV=0, apply the 256-QAM version of the MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.” As suggested, selecting the set of predefined modulation and coding schemes from a second defined MCS table (e.g. RV=0 corresponding 256-QAM MCS table) includes the second set where the second set may correspond to MCS index ranging from 2 to 17 as depicted in Fig. 13B where in the second set there exist a minimum MCS index (e.g. MCS Index limit 2) and a maximum MCS index (e.g. MCS Index limit 17), … the second defined MCS table to include another minimum MCS value that is lower than the single second minimum limit or include another maximum MCS value that is higher than the single second maximum limit (Fig. 13B: 256-QAM MCS Table includes a second set of MCS limits that includes at least one MCS Index value 0 that is lower than the MCS Index limit 2) or another maximum MCS value that is higher than the second maximum limit (Fig. 13B: MCS Table/second set in Fig. 13B includes at least one MCS Index value 31 that is higher than the selected MCS Index limit 17); and
send, to the first sidelink device, at least one radio resource control (RRC) configuration that includes the single first minimum limit, the single first maximum limit, the single second minimum limit, and the single second maximum limit (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 19, Para. [0070], [0045]: “the set selection indicator may be signaled by means of a higher-layer signaling…the set selection indicator is signaled on the…RRC (radio resource control) layer”; “The indication of the set (MCS table) is carried out by either MAC or RRC messages.” As Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B depict single first minimum limit, the single first maximum limit, the single second minimum limit, and the single second maximum limit are selected from respective defined MCS tables and indicated to the first sidelink device via at least one higher-layer signaling as such RRC message/configuration),
wherein the at least one RRC configuration further includes a first MCS parameter description that indicates that the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit are associated with the first defined MCS table (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 19, Para. [0070], [0045], [0158]-[0161]: “the following interpretation of the signaling could be enabled or disabled by means of a semi-static configuration, for instance by a higher layer protocol such as RRC or MAC: Para. [0160]) “Upon detection of RV=1/2/3 [a first MCS parameter description], apply the Release 11 MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.” In other words, the at least one RRC signaling/message/configuration can further indicate the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit as depicted in, e.g. Fig. 10A, 13A, 16A, via “5-bit MCS field” and corresponding/associated defined MCS table via “redundancy version (RV)” values. For example, at least one RRC message/signaling/configuration may indicate “5-bit MCS field” indicating minimum, maximum MCS index associated with an RV value 1 indicating a first QPSK/16-QAM/64-QAM MCS table defined for a Release 11 of a wireless communication standard) and wherein the first MCS parameter description specifies that the first defined MCS table is defined for a first particular release of a wireless communication standard (Para. [0159]-[0161]: an RV value of 1, e.g. “detection of RV=1/2/3,” specifies that first QPSK/16-QAM/64-QAM MCS table” applies to “Release 11” of a wireless communication standard.
Although Einhaus et al. teaches (as above) selecting and sending first and second minimum and maximum MCS Index limits, in the two MCS tables/first and second sets, to the first device 1810, they does not teach sending from the first MCS table/first set and the second MCS table/second set:
“single” minimum MCS limit and “single” maximum MCS limit; and these limits/values are used:
“for the peer-to-peer communication.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0091]: a first UE using “allowable range (e.g., maximum value, minimum value, etc.) of necessary parameter (e.g.….MCS, etc.)”), Yun et al. teaches
“single” minimum MCS limit and “single” maximum MCS limit (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0091]: a first UE using “allowable range (e.g., maximum value, minimum value, etc.) of necessary parameter (e.g.….MCS, etc.)”); and these limits/values are used:
“for the peer-to-peer communication” (Fig. 3, 6-7, [0006], [0010]) “a UE directly communicates with other UE” can be implemented as a “a device-to-device (D2D), peer-to-peer (P2P)” network communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sending the first and second MCS table/sets and the values therein used by terminal 1810 and 1820 in the communication system or network (e.g. Fig. 18) in Einhaus et al.’s invention can include sending “single” minimum MCS limit and “single” maximum MCS limit from each of the MCS tables/sets for use in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network communication as taught by Yun et al., so that (Yun et al., Abstract, Para. [0009]) “a performance of the network can be enhanced” “for transmitting and receiving efficiently control information and data based on direct communications.”
Although Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. teaches (as above) using MCS limits/values for sidelink communication between first and second devices, they do not state that the MCS tables, i.e. first and second defined MCS tables are:
“being defined for peer-to-peer communication between the first sidelink device and the second sidelink device.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor (Abstract: sidelink communication/transmission), Khoryaev et al. teaches MCS table:
“being defined for peer-to-peer communication between the first sidelink device and the second sidelink device (Para. [0176], [0179]: “a new TBS/MCS table entries may be introduced specifically for sidelink V2V [peer-to-peer] communication” creating new MCS tables such as “64QAM modulation in some MCS tables” ).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sending the at least first and second MCS tables defined in Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al.’s invention can be used in V2V [peer-to-peer, between mobile devices] communication between two devices as taught by Khoryaev et al., where doing so would (Khoryaev et al., Para. [0003]) “enable sidelink communication” allowing for “mobile devices” to “exchange data.”
Regarding Claim 2, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches;
determine at least one other minimum limit and at least one other maximum limit for at least one other MCS table defined for the peer-to-peer communication (Fig. 13A, 13 B, 16A, 16B, 17, Para. [0113]: “invention is not limited to two alternative sets of modulation and coding schemes. A plurality of sets may be employed” As suggested, another MCS table (e.g. QPSK or 16-QAM) including at least one other minimum limit and at least one other maximum limit can be determined for communication where such communication can be for a peer-to-peer communication as taught by Yun et al.); and
send the at least one other minimum value and the at least one other maximum value to the first device (Fig. 17, 18, Para. [0059]-[0060][0164]-[0165], [0181]: “a control information reception unit for receiving scheduling information specifying resources on which data are to be transmitted and including a modulation and coding indicator…a control information transmission unit for transmitting scheduling information specifying resources on which the data are to be transmitted and including a modulation and coding indicator”…“examples rely on explicit signaling of a set selection indicator”. That is, the determined other selected minimum and maximum MCS Index limit from the other MCS table/set, e.g. Fig. 10A/10B, 16A/16B, are sent to the first device 1810).
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 and 11 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches;
the first MCS table supports up to a first modulation order (Fig. 6, Para. [0040]: first MCS table supports either one of QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM modulation order); and
the second MCS table supports up to a second modulation order that is different from the first modulation order (Fig. 13A, 13B, 17, Para. [0113]: “invention is not limited to two alternative sets of modulation and coding schemes. A plurality of sets may be employed”. That is, the second MCS table corresponding to 256-QAM modulation order).
Regarding Claim 5, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches;
wherein:
the first MCS table supports up to 16 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) (Fig. 6, Para. [0040]: first MCS table supports up to 16-QAM); and
the second MCS table supports up to 64 QAM (Fig. 16a, 16b, 17, Para. [0113]: “invention is not limited to two alternative sets of modulation and coding schemes. A plurality of sets may be employed.” That is, the second MCS table can support up to 64-QAM).
Regarding Claim 6 and 14, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 and 11 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches wherein the selection of the first minimum limit, the first maximum limit, the second minimum limit, and the second maximum limit comprises;
a determination of a condition of a channel to be used for the peer-to-peer communication (Fig. 8, 9, 12, 15, Para. [0072]: “the selection of the set of modulation and coding schemes is performed by both receiver and transmitter of the data based on the channel conditions of their communication channel”. As suggested from Fig. 8, 9, 12, 15, the selection of MCS tables are based on [a determination of] SNR of the channel); and
a selection of the first minimum limit, the first maximum limit, the second minimum limit, and the second maximum limit based on the determined condition of the channel (Fig. 6, 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 17, Para. [0072]: “the selection of the set of modulation and coding schemes is performed by both receiver and transmitter of the data based on the channel conditions of their communication channel”. As suggested from Fig. 6, 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, the first and second minimum and maximum limits are based on the SNR of the channel used between the devices).
Regarding Claim 7, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 6 above where Yun et al. further teaches:
wherein the channel is a sidelink data channel (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0006], [0010]: “device to device (D2D) communications may indicate that a UE directly communicates with other UE” “through a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH)” and/or “through a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)”).
Regarding Claim 8, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 6 above where Yun et al. further teaches:
wherein the channel is a vehicle-to-anything data channel (Fig. 3, Para. [0006]: “transmit data to the second UE through a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)”; Para. 0031]: “a transmitting UE supporting the D2D communications (or, vehicle communications) can inform the receiving UE of information on the number of repeated transmissions of the data and repeatedly transmit the data to the receiving UE”; As suggested the UE’s can represent vehicles and/or user equipment’s (device) where, as depicted in Fig. 3, the channel for communicating “DATA” between the vehicles and/or user equipment’s (device) can be implemented using “a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)” and hence considered as vehicle-to-anything data channel).
Regarding Claim 9 and 16, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 and 11 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches:
wherein the selection of the first minimum limit, the first maximum limit, the second minimum limit, and the second maximum limit is based on a condition associated with at least one of the first device or the second device (Fig. 8, 9, 12, 15, Para. [0072]: “the selection of the set of modulation and coding schemes is performed by both receiver and transmitter of the data based on the channel conditions of their communication channel”. As suggested from Fig. 8, 9, 12, 15, the selection of MCS tables/sets and the minimum and maximum limits associated therewith are based on SNR condition associated with at least one of the first device 1892 or the second device 1810/1820).
Regarding Claim 10 and 17, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 9 and 16, where Yun et al. further teaches:
wherein the condition comprises at least one rate of motion of at least one of the first device or the second device (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0091], [00092]: “allowable range (e.g., maximum value, minimum value, etc.) of necessary parameter (e.g., … MCS, etc.)”… “in the case that the environment of the area in which UE is located, the movement speed of UE [a rate of motion], the recovery rate of data, the density of UE, and so on are obtained from UEs, the base station may update the allowable range [e.g., single maximum value, single minimum value, etc.)] based on the information obtained from the UEs and transmit the updated allowable range information [e.g., single maximum value, single minimum value, etc.)]).
Regarding Claim 15, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 14 above where Yun et al. further teaches:
wherein the channel is a peer-to-peer data channel, a sidelink data channel, a vehicle-to-anything data channel, or any combination thereof (Fig. 3, 6-7, Para. [0006], [0010]: “device to device (D2D) communications may indicate that a UE directly communicates with other UE” “through a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH)” and/or “through a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH)”).
Regarding Claim 18, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches:
the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit are sent to the first sidelink device with instructions for the first sidelink device to apply the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit to the first defined MCS table (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 19, Para. [0070], [0045], [0158]-[0161]: the following interpretation of the signaling could be enabled or disabled by means of a semi-static configuration, for instance by a higher layer protocol such as RRC or MAC…[0160] Upon detection of RV=1/2/3, apply the Release 11 MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.” In other words, the RRC signaling/message/configuration can further instruct the first device 1810 to apply the single first minimum limit and the single first maximum limit as depicted in, e.g. Fig. 10A, 13A, 16A, via “5-bit MCS field”, to the second defined MCS table via “redundancy version (RV)” value 1/2/3. For example, at least one RRC message/signaling/configuration may instruct the first device to apply the “5-bit MCS field” indicating signal first minimum, maximum MCS limits belonging to the first QPSK/16-QAM/64-QAM MCS table by indicating “RV=1/2/3” through RRC messaging); and
the single second minimum limit and the single second maximum limit are sent to the first sidelink device with instructions for the first sidelink device to apply the single second minimum limit and the single second maximum limit to the second defined MCS table (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, 19, Para. [0070], [0045], [0158]-[0161]: the following interpretation of the signaling could be enabled or disabled by means of a semi-static configuration, for instance by a higher layer protocol such as RRC or MAC: [0159] Upon detection of RV=0, apply the 256-QAM version of the MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field.” In other words, the RRC signaling/message/configuration can further instruct the first device 1810 to apply the single second minimum limit and the single second maximum limit as depicted in, e.g. Fig. 10A, 13A, 16A, via “5-bit MCS field”, to the second defined MCS table via “redundancy version (RV)” value 0. For example, at least one RRC message/signaling/configuration may instruct the first device to apply the “5-bit MCS field” indicating second minimum, maximum MCS limits belonging to the second 256-QAM MCS table by indicating “RV=0” through RRC messaging).
Regarding Claim 20, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches:
20. (New) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one RRC configuration further includes a second MCS parameter description (Para. [0159]: “Upon detection of RV=0, apply the 256-QAM version of the MCS table to the interpretation of the 5-bit MCS field”) that indicates that the single second minimum limit and the single second maximum limit are associated with the second defined MCS table (Fig. 13B, Para. [0041], [0052], [0098], [0113], [0158]-[0161]:a second defined MCS table (e.g. RV=0 corresponding 256-QAM MCS table) includes the second set where the second set may correspond to MCS index ranging from 2 to 17 as depicted in Fig. 13B where in the second set there exist a minimum MCS index (e.g. MCS Index limit 2) and a maximum MCS index (e.g. MCS Index limit 17)).
Although Einhaus et al. teaches that an RV value of 1 or 2 or 3, e.g. “detection of RV=1/2/3,” specifies that an MCS table applies to “the Release 11 MCS table [a wireless communication standard]” which appear to be the same “Release” as the “256-QAM MCS table”, they do not expressly state the RV = 0 specifies that the second defined MCS table is defined for:
“a second particular release of the wireless communication standard.”
However, Einhaus et al. further teaches (Para. [0097]) “the embodiments are outlined in relation to radio access schemes according to 3GPP LTE (Release 8/9) and LTE-A (Release 10/11) mobile communication systems…but the invention is not limited to its use in these particular exemplary communication networks” which fairly suggesting that an indication of “a particular release of a wireless communication standard [i.e. which of 3GPP LTE (Release 8/9) and/or “LTE-A (Release 10/11)]” is required when indicating one or more “MCS table” for using during communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sending the an RV value Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al.’s invention can specify that the second defined MCS table is defined for “a second particular release of the wireless communication standard” such as for 3GPP LTE (Release 8/9) as suggested by Einhaus et al. where doing as (Para. [0155]) “provides an advantage of backward compatibility.”
Regarding Claim 21, Einhaus et al. in view of Yun et al. further in view of Khoryaev et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 above where Einhaus et al. further teaches:
wherein the at least one RRC configuration, that includes the single first minimum limit, the single first maximum limit, the single second minimum limit, and the single second maximum limit, does not include the first defined MCS table or the second defined MCS table (Fig. 10A, 10B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 16B, Para .[0159]-[0160]: the RRC configuration of RV=0 and RV=1/2/3 including the respective 5-bit MCS field values indicating the single first minimum limit, the single first maximum limit, the single second minimum limit, and the single second maximum limit does not include the corresponding first and second defined MCS table. That is, the RRC configuration only sends respective 5-bit MCS field of first and second minimum and maximum MCS values and not all 32 entries of the first and second defined MCS table).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 20150282203 A1) teaches (Fig. 2, 4A, 4B, Para. [0039]-[0040], [0042]) signaling in a “Minimum MCS” index and a “Maximum MCS” index for use in communication between a wireless station (STA) and another wireless station (STA).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMNEET SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2414. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
/AMNEET SINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2633
/SAM K AHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights