NON-FINAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 1/30/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Interpretation under 35 USC 112(f)
6. Examiner notes that no limitations in instant claims invoke 35 USC 112(f) and that same claims are examined accordingly.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites " when voice traffic service are not enabled---.” The word “service” is missing “s” in the end, the claim needs to be written as “when voice traffic services are not enabled ---.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, claim 1 recites the limitations of “when voice traffic services are enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a predetermined value; and when voice traffic service are not enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value.” The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the limitations above. The applicant’s specification in paragraph [0122] describes that " If (QCI 1 and 2 is satisfied) // QCI 1 and 2 means voice traffic services enabled.” Nowhere in the specification or in the drawings does the applicant teach the features of “when voice traffic services are enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a predetermined value; and when voice traffic service are not enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value.”
Dependent claims 2-6 and 16are depend from the base claim 1 and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph as well.
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.
9. Claims 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the claims recite “when voice traffic services are enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a predetermined value; and when voice traffic service are not enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value.” (Emphasis added). The specification does not provide any more clarification than the abstract and claim 1 and it is unclear in the claim how setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a predetermined value based on enablement of voice traffic services, and setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to target threshold value based on disbarment of voice traffic services. Please clarify.
Dependent claims 2-6 depend from the base claim 1 and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph as well.
In regards to claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the target threshold value is set to a value based on the upper bound of the function
PNG
media_image1.png
41
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The characters of (f), (ˆmopt) ,(x), (γ), (γe), (αβ), (r), and (e) are not defined.
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.
10. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sungwoo Park et al. (NPL of Optimizing the Target Error Rate for Link Adaptation; Published date: 06-10 December 2015; Publisher: IEEE) "herein after as Park" in view of Swaminathan et al. (U.S. PN: 2014/0273866 A1) "herein after as Swaminathan."
As per claim 1:
Park substantially teaches or discloses a method for improving user equipment (UE) throughput in a wireless system by performing outer loop link adaptation, comprising (see abstract, see page 1, 2nd paragraph, herein Current wireless cellular networks require that base stations (BSs) perform link adaptation, in part, through adaptive modulation and coding (AMC). Typical AMC implementations exploit signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements to select the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) that maximizes link data rate under target block error rate (BLER) reliability constraints): at a base station scheduler, defining a target block error rate (BLER) threshold (see page 1, 2nd paragraph, herein this prior work has led to substantial improvement in the performance of AMC in practice, however, it has assumed a fixed BLER target for the link. For example, research has determined that 10% BLER targets in AMC exhibit near optimal throughput performance, and Figs. 3-5); at the base station scheduler, defining an adaptive target BLER threshold (see page 1, 3rd paragraph, herein we derive an expression for an optimum BLER target using AMC in LTE links with OLLA, and Figs. 3-5); when voice traffic services are enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a predetermined value (see page 3, herein Given that BLER of each transmission is IID, (16) indicates that the optimal rate can be represented by the initial BLER regardless of the number of retransmissions, and Figs. 3-5).
Park does not explicitly teach when voice traffic service are not enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value.
However, Swaminathan in the same the field of endeavor teaches when voice traffic service are not enabled, then setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value (see paragraph [0071], herein a unit 430 may receive the threshold value from unit 420 and the SINR improvement from unit 410. Unit 430 may compare the SINR improvement against the threshold value and may determine whether or not to enable receive diversity based on the comparison result. In particular, unit 430 may provide (i) a decision to enable receive diversity if the SINR improvement is greater than the threshold value or (ii) a decision to disable receive diversity if the SINR improvement is less than the threshold value. Unit 430 may also decide to enable or disable receive diversity based on the SINR improvement and the threshold value in other manners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Park with the teachings of Swaminathan by setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value, when voice traffic service are not enabled.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the setting the adaptive target BLER threshold to a target threshold value according to a current Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) value, when voice traffic service are not enabled would have improved the received signal quality at the wireless device (see paragraph [0005] of Swaminathan).
As per claim 2:
Swaminathan teaches that wherein the base station scheduler is a gNodeB scheduler (see paragraph [0018], herein a base station may be an entity that communicates with wireless devices and may also be referred to as a Node B, an evolved Node B (eNode B), an access point, etc, and Fig. 1 [as those skilled in the art will readily know gNodeB is an entity that communicates with wireless devices as ben taught in this paragraph]).
As per claim 3:
Park teaches that wherein the target threshold value is set to a high value when the current SINR is low (see page 1, 3rd paragraph, herein the key discovery from these results is that the optimum target BLER is negatively correlated with the channel quality, i.e., if the target BLER increases in a low SINR region).
As per claim 4:
Park teaches that wherein the target threshold value is set to a low value when the current SINR is high (see page 1, 3rd paragraph, the target BLER decreases in a high SINR region, throughput gains are obtained. In low SINR conditions our simulations show that these gains can yield up to 30% increase in throughput).
As per claim 5:
Park teaches that wherein the target threshold value is set to a value that is inversely related to the current SINR (see page 4, last paragraph, the optimum BLER has a negative correlation with the optimum rate when the optimum MCS is selected. This implies that the best policy is to set the target BLER low for a high SINR region and high at a low SINR region).
As per claim 6:
Park teaches that wherein the target threshold value is set to a value based on the upper bound of the function
PNG
media_image1.png
41
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see page 5, equations 29 &30) we can get an upper bound of the optimum BLER from (29)
PNG
media_image2.png
41
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior Art
11. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
12. When amending the claims, Applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069.
The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN ALSHACK/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/Guy J Lamarre/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights