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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ assertion that Miranda does not teach the feature-the subset of uplink resource blocks determined based on a simultaneous consideration of both of the quality of the wireless uplink connection and a power spectrum distribution of a total power budget across the uplink resource blocks-for the same reasons detailed in the Office Action dated October 7, 2025. Section 0042 of Miranda teaches power is distributed across subcarriers. Section 0046 of Miranda teaches that said power is indicated via the SINR, which is a quality of the link connection. This further renders a scenario wherein the subset of subcarriers is determined based on the consideration of the power distributed across subcarriers and the quality, which is measured via the SINR which is a metric of said distributed power. Miranda therefore teaches the limitations in question.
Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ assertion-Claim 1 requires the power spectrum distribution to be non-uniform across the uplink resource blocks. The Office Action acknowledges that Miranda fails to disclose or suggest such features and relies on Chen for teaching the features that are lacking from Miranda. However, modifying the technology of Miranda to provide a non-uniform power spectrum distribution would render Miranda unsuitable for its intended purpose- The modification of Miranda with the features of Chen to the contrary, maximizes the SINR and increases uplink and downlink capacity.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 13, 14, 19 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375).
Regarding Claim 1, Miranda teaches an apparatus comprising: communication circuitry configured to receive information indicative of a quality of a wireless uplink connection (Section 0040, ground station unit, SINR of the wireless signals is continuously and dynamically maximized (Section 0026) which means that the ground station unit needs to continuously be provided with or acquire knowledge of the current SINR); and scheduling circuitry configured to determine an uplink transmission configuration defining a subset of uplink resource blocks of a plurality of uplink resource blocks allocated to the wireless uplink connection (Section 0042, subcarriers are the resource blocks), the subset of uplink resource blocks being determined based on a simultaneous consideration of both (i) the quality of the wireless uplink connection for each of the plurality of uplink resource blocks and (ii) a power spectrum distribution of a total power budget across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (power is distributed across subcarriers (Section 0042) and the SINR is monitored such that said SINR can be maximized (Section 0046)).
Miranda does not teach wherein the power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks.
Chen teaches power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (Section 0059, subcarriers are the resource blocks).
Miranda and Chen disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention power distribution across subcarriers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the power distribution technique of Chen for power distribution technique of Miranda according to known methods to yield the predictable result of maximizing SINR and increasing uplink and downlink capacity.
Regarding Claim 21, Miranda teaches a method of operating an apparatus, the method comprising: receiving information indicative of a quality of a wireless uplink connection (Section 0040, ground station unit, SINR of the wireless signals is continuously and dynamically maximized (Section 0026) which means that the ground station unit needs to continuously be provided with or acquire knowledge of the current SINR); and determining an uplink transmission configuration defining a subset of uplink resource blocks of a plurality of uplink resource blocks allocated to the wireless uplink connection (Section 0042, subcarriers are the resource blocks), the subset of uplink resource blocks being determined based on a simultaneous consideration of both (i) the quality of the wireless uplink connection for each of the plurality of uplink resource blocks and (ii) a power spectrum distribution of a total power budget across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (power is distributed across subcarriers (Section 0042) and the SINR is monitored such that said SINR can be maximized (Section 0046)).
Miranda does not teach wherein the power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks.
Chen teaches power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (Section 0059, subcarriers are the resource blocks).
Miranda and Chen disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention power distribution across subcarriers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the power distribution technique of Chen for power distribution technique of Miranda according to known methods to yield the predictable result of maximizing SINR and increasing uplink and downlink capacity.
Regarding Claim 22, Miranda teaches an apparatus comprising: means for receiving information indicative of a quality of a wireless uplink connection (Section 0040, ground station unit, SINR of the wireless signals is continuously and dynamically maximized (Section 0026) which means that the ground station unit needs to continuously be provided with or acquire knowledge of the current SINR); and means for determining an uplink transmission configuration defining a subset of uplink resource blocks of a plurality of uplink resource blocks allocated to the wireless uplink connection (Section 0042, subcarriers are the resource blocks), the subset of uplink resource blocks being determined based on a simultaneous consideration of both (i) the quality of the wireless uplink connection for each of the plurality of uplink resources and (ii) a power spectrum distribution of a total power budget across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (Section 0042) and the SINR is monitored such that said SINR can be maximized (Section 0046)).
Miranda does not teach wherein the power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks.
Chen teaches power spectrum distribution is non-uniform across the plurality of uplink resource blocks (Section 0059, subcarriers are the resource blocks).
Miranda and Chen disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention power distribution across subcarriers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the power distribution technique of Chen for power distribution technique of Miranda according to known methods to yield the predictable result of maximizing SINR and increasing uplink and downlink capacity.
Regarding Claim 2, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Miranda further teaches wherein the subset of uplink resource blocks is a contiguous subset of the plurality of uplink resource blocks (Figure 4A, Section 0041, subcarriers 0-7 are adjacent or contiguous).
Regarding Claim 3, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 2. Miranda further teaches wherein the uplink resource blocks of the contiguous subset of the uplink resource blocks are contiguously allocated frequency ranges in a frequency domain (Section 0040, three-carrier partitioned frequency band leads to a subcarrier-partitioned frequency band wherein the subcarriers will be allocated or associated with frequency ranges).
Regarding Claim 4, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Miranda further teaches wherein: the scheduling circuitry is configured to determine, as part of the uplink transmission configuration, modulation coding scheme information associated with the subset of uplink resource blocks (a set of one or more subcarriers and a set of one or more modulation symbols (Section 0026), encoding also occurs (Section 0028)); and the modulation coding scheme information is determined based on the simultaneous consideration of both of the quality of the wireless uplink connection and the power spectrum distribution of the total power budget across the uplink resource blocks (modulation to maximize the SINR (Section 0027), power per modulation symbol/per subcarrier (Section 0043)).
Regarding Claim 5, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 4. Miranda further teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry is configured to determine the subset of uplink resource blocks based on the modulation coding scheme information (a set of one or more subcarriers and a set of one or more modulation symbols (Section 0026), encoding also occurs (Section 0028)).
Regarding Claim 6, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 4. Miranda further teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry is configured to select the uplink transmission configuration from a plurality of potential uplink transmission configurations each defining a corresponding contiguous subset of uplink resource blocks (Section 0040, Figure 4A, Beam 1 with its set of contiguous subcarriers, Beam 2 with its set of contiguous subcarriers, Beam 3 with its set of contiguous subcarriers).
Regarding Claim 13, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Miranda further teaches wherein the communication circuitry is configured to receive information indicative of an uplink communication event (Section 0025, higher level of interference is the communication event), and wherein the apparatus further comprises correction circuitry configured to modify the information indicative of the quality of the wireless uplink connection by a correction factor based on the information indicative of the uplink communication event (Section 0026, continuously and dynamically maximize the SINR, which comprises corrections to combat the higher level of interference).
Regarding Claim 14, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 13. Miranda further teaches wherein the information indicative of the quality of the wireless uplink connection is a signal to interference and noise ratio and the correction factor is added to the signal to interference and noise ratio (Section 0026, continuously and dynamically maximize the SINR, which comprises corrections to combat the higher level of interference).
Regarding Claim 19, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Miranda further teaches wherein the power spectrum distribution comprises a non-zero power allocated to the subset of uplink resource blocks and zero power allocated to a further subset of the uplink resource blocks, and the further subset of the uplink resource blocks and the subset of the uplink resource blocks are mutually exclusive subsets (Figure 4B, Section 0042, when a first beam is active the subcarriers associated with said beam are allocated power whereas that are associated with an inactive beam have zero power which would make the subcarriers associated with the active beam and the subcarriers associated with the inactive beam mutually exclusive).
Regarding Claim 20, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 19. Miranda further teaches wherein the non-zero power is dependent on a size of the subset of the uplink resource blocks (Section 0042, size 9 subcarriers has an average power per resource element of 1/9).
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375), as applied to Claim 6 set forth above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0160713)
Regarding Claim 7, The Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 6. Miranda further teaches the scheduling circuitry is configured to estimate, for each of the plurality of potential uplink transmission configurations, an uplink communication quality based on a corresponding power spectrum distribution of the total power budget across the corresponding contiguous subset of uplink resource blocks (maximizing SINR (Section 0026), power distribution across subcarrier (Figure 4B, Section 0042)); and the uplink transmission configuration is selected as one of the plurality of potential uplink transmission configurations having a highest estimated uplink communication quality (maximizing SINR (Section 0026)).
Miranda combination does not teach uplink communication throughput and highest estimated uplink communication throughput.
Yang, which also teaches use of SINR, teaches uplink communication throughput and highest estimated uplink communication throughput (Section 0084, SINR leads to highest throughput).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miranda combination with the above features of Yang for the purpose of selecting optimal MCS that supports the highest throughput as taught by Yang
Regarding Claim 8, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 7. Miranda further teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry is further configured to estimate, for each of the plurality of potential uplink transmission configurations, the uplink communication quality based on the modulation coding scheme information associated with the corresponding contiguous subset of uplink resource blocks (a set of one or more subcarriers and a set of one or more modulation symbols (Section 0026), maximizing SINR (Section 0027), encoding occurs (Section 0028)).
Miranda combination does not teach uplink communication throughput.
Yang, which also teaches use of SINR, teaches uplink communication throughput (Section 0084, SINR leads to highest throughput).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miranda combination with the above features of Yang for the purpose of selecting optimal MCS that supports the highest throughput as taught by Yang
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375), as applied to Claim 5 set forth above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0351902)
Regarding Claim 9, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 5. Miranda combination does not teach wherein the information indicative of the quality of the wireless uplink connection comprises a plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios, each indicative of a reference signal associated with one of the uplink resource blocks of a wireless uplink signal received from a communication device by the wireless communication circuitry.
Zhang, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches wherein the information indicative of the quality of the wireless uplink connection comprises a plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios, each indicative of a reference signal associated with one of the uplink resource blocks of a wireless uplink signal received from a communication device by the wireless communication circuitry (Section 0093, CSI-RS and SRS are reference signals, typical wireless RF systems like the one of Zhang make use of carriers and/or frequencies which are also resource blocks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miranda combination with the above features of Zhang for the purpose of providing channel measurement and interference measurement so as to optimize performance as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 10, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 9. Miranda further teaches wherein the communication circuitry is configured to transmit the uplink transmission configuration to the communication device (Section 0042, the subcarriers are the uplink transmission configuration).
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0351902), as applied to Claim 9 set forth above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0135009)
Regarding Claim 11, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 9. Miranda further teaches wherein: the modulating coding scheme information is calculated based signal to interference and noise ratio associated with the subset of uplink resource blocks (a set of one or more subcarriers and a set of one or more modulation symbols (Section 0026), maximizing SINR (Section 0027), encoding occurs (Section 0028)).
Miranda combination does not teach the modulating coding scheme information is calculated based on a non-linear combination of the plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios associated with the subset of uplink resource blocks.
Liu, which also teaches the use of SINR, teaches a non-linear combination of the plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios (Section 0025, average SINR of converted SINRs is the non-linear combination of SINRs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miranda combination with the above features of Liu for the purpose of assessing and optimizing performance as taught by Liu.
Regarding Claim 12, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 11. Miranda combination does not teach wherein the non-linear combination is obtained by converting each of the plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios to a resulting value on a linear scale and averaging the resulting values.
Liu, which also teaches the use of SINR, teaches wherein the non-linear combination is obtained by converting each of the plurality of signal to interference and noise ratios to a resulting value on a linear scale and averaging the resulting values (Section 0025, average SINR of converted SINRs is the non-linear combination of SINRs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miranda combination with the above features of Liu for the purpose of assessing and optimizing performance as taught by Liu.
Claim(s) 15 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375), as applied to Claim 13 set forth above, and further in view of Tabet et al. (US 2013/0310092)
Regarding Claim 15, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 13. Miranda combination does not wherein the correction factor is dynamically selected in order to achieve a predetermined block error rate.
Tabet, which also teaches a wireless communication system, teaches wherein the correction factor is dynamically selected in order to achieve a predetermined block error rate (Sections 0096, 0097, correction factor is the SINR offset).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Miranda combination with the above features of Tabet for the purpose of lessening the throughput penalty due to the BLER that occurs due to fade as taught by Tabet.
Regarding Claim 16, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 15. Miranda combination does not teach wherein: the correction factor is decreased by a downward correction factor in response to the information indicative of the uplink communication event indicating a communication success; and the correction factor is increased by an upwards correction factor in response to the information indicative of the uplink communication event indicating a communication failure.
Tabet, which also teaches a wireless communication system, teaches the correction factor is decreased by a downward correction factor in response to the information indicative of the uplink communication event indicating a communication success (Section 0097, BLER is oscillating around target SINR offset is small (downward)); and the correction factor is increased by an upwards correction factor in response to the information indicative of the uplink communication event indicating a communication failure (Section 0097, BLER is deteriorating then a large SINR offset adjustment (upward)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Miranda combination with the above features of Tabet for the purpose of lessening the throughput penalty due to the BLER that occurs due to fade as taught by Tabet.
Regarding Claim 17, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Miranda combination does not teach wherein the upwards correction factor is greater than the downwards correction factor.
Tabet, which also teaches a wireless communication system, teaches wherein the upwards correction factor is greater than the downwards correction factor (Section 0097, BLER is oscillating around target SINR offset is small (downward), BLER is deteriorating then a large SINR offset adjustment (upward)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Miranda combination with the above features of Tabet for the purpose of lessening the throughput penalty due to the BLER that occurs due to fade as taught by Tabet.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda et al. (US 2018/0014261) in view of Chen (US 2013/0005375) in view of Tabet et al. (US 2013/0310092), as applied to Claim 16 set forth above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2014/0126467)
Regarding Claim 18, Miranda combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Miranda combination does not teach wherein a ratio of the upwards correction factor and the downwards correction factor is selected in order to achieve the predetermined block error rate.
Lu, which also teaches use of SINR, teaches wherein a ratio of the upwards correction factor and the downwards correction factor is selected in order to achieve the predetermined block error rate (Section 0061, target BLER is 10% ratio of SINR offset step down size to SINR offset step up size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Miranda combination with the above features of Lu for the purpose of improving downlink throughput as taught by Lu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
March 14, 2026