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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 22nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filled 05/19/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, 15, and 17
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled in on 5/19/2026 has been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to amended claims 1, 9, and 17, it is unclear what steps are necessary for this: “on a slot-by-slot basis such that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition for that same first time slot, and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition for that same second time slot) are not recited in the rejected claims.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments on page 12 (“While Sevindik does disclose reporting CQI on a per-slot basis, Sevindik does not suggest adapting MCS for a particular slot based on CQI for that same slot in a subsequent transmission. That is, Sevindik at best suggests transmitting subsequent downlink data using the modified MCS, but does not suggest that the transmitted data is on the same time slot as that for which the CQI was determined and MCS was adapted. Meanwhile, the claim specifically recites that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition for that same first time slot, and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition for that same second time slot.”) with respect to amended claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
In event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 and 7-11, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie et al. (US 20230045947 A1, hereinafter, Elshafie) in view of Sevindik et al. (US 20220140939 A1, hereinafter, Sevindik) further in view of Lee et al. (US 20240260035 A1, hereinafter, Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Elshafie discloses, a system comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions ("The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data..."[¶0062]); and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage ("The controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 that stores program codes and data..."[¶0066]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
Elshafie doesn’t explicitly disclose, determine a condition of a communication channel during each of a plurality of time slots, the plurality of time slots comprising a first time slot and a second time slot, and the determined condition comprising a first determined condition for the first time slot and a second determined condition for the second time slot; and
adapt a transmission property of data on a slot-by-slot basis such that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition.
Sevindik in analogous art discloses, determine a condition of a communication channel during each of a plurality of time slots, the plurality of time slots comprising a first time slot and a second time slot, and the determined condition comprising a first determined condition for the first time slot and a second determined condition for the second time slot ("Per step 1113, once the CBSDe receives the CQI data from the CPEe, it maps the CQI value to a configuration such as an MCS value through a lookup table stored in the CBSDe storage device (or location otherwise accessible to the CBSDe, such as cloud storage)..." [¶0189], see also, “…The CPEe may report the CQI values periodically at certain time (e.g., each time slot, frame), according to a schedule, in an event-driven manner…” [¶0188], see also “Per step 1007, the CPEe transmits the determined quality value to the BSe. For instance, the CPEe may transmit the current quality value periodically (e.g., every slot, frame, time period, etc.).” [¶0174]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
452
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie with the teaching where the system determines the condition of a communication channel during each time slots, as disclosed by Sevindik. The rationale for using this is "...In this fashion, the CPEe and CBSDe at least periodically iterate in order to determine maximal or optimized DL configuration such as MCS settings."[ ¶0192].
Lee is related art relates, adapt a transmission property of data on a slot-by-slot basis such that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition ( “Referring to FIG. 6, the link adaption method, that is, a method for transmitting data without an error by applying at least one parameter according to a change of a radio link state (e.g., SINR) may be described. A purpose of the link adaptation may be to determine at least one of an MCS level, layers, or the number of physical resource blocks (PRBs). In particular, the MCS level may be determined mainly based on the HARQ feedback (e.g., cyclic redundancy check (CRC) result). Hence, to keep up with an SINR change trend, HARQ feedback of the PDSCH transmitted in each slot may be required. For example, based on a moving window or a weight, MCS level adaptation may be performed to satisfy a target block error rate (BLER)…” [¶0093]. Here the SINR change trend, and corresponding HARQ feedback in each slot make MCS adaptation on slot basis.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie and Sevindik with the teaching where a dynamic, slot-based adaptation of communication parameters, like channel condition is used, as disclosed by Lee. The rationale for using this dynamic slot-based adaptation is to ensures that each individual time slot optimizes its parameters according to its specific channel or environmental state.
Regarding Claim 2, combination of Elshafie, Sevindik and Lee disclose, the system according to claim 1.
Elshafie doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the condition by determining an error rate of the each of the plurality of time slots.
Sevindik, in related art relates, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the condition by determining an error rate of the each of the plurality of time slots (“Returning to FIG. 11, per step 1111, the CPEe transmits the determined CQI value(s) to the CBSDe via an UL channel. The CPEe may report the CQI values periodically at certain time (e.g., each time slot, frame), according to a schedule, in an event-driven manner, or otherwise. Moreover, as noted above, depending on mode, the CPEe may transmit multiple CQI values associated with different modes, whether simultaneously or at different times.” [¶0188]). Here, a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) value implies a targeted maximum error rate. It tells the base station the highest data speed a device can handle while keeping data block errors under a set limit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie with the teaching where the channel condition is determined by using the bler of each time slot, as disclosed by Sevindik. The rationale for using this is to ensure that the bit error rate (or implied cqi) happening in individual, divided segments of time (time slots) within a communication channel.
Regarding Claim 3, combination of Elshafie, Sevindik and Lee disclose, the system according to claim 2.
Elshafie further discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to adapt the transmission property by:
in response to determining that the error rate is greater than or equal to a first error threshold and to determining that the transmission property is greater than a first transmission threshold, decreasing the transmission property ("In another example, a weak acknowledgment may refer to an acknowledgment of a data transmission having an SNR associated with a BLER above a BLER threshold. For instance, if the base station schedules a transport block with a configured MCS, the configured MCS may be associated with a spectral efficiency (SPEF), which in turn may be associated with a nominal SNR for that transmission..."[¶0079], see also, "... For example, if the CSI report 402 includes CQI indicating that the UE determined the channel to have poor SINR, the base station may determine to decrease the MCS to improve the likelihood of successful reception of the downlink data 412." [¶0071]); Here the “transmission property of data” is the “MCS”. and
in response to determining that the error rate is less than or equal to a second error threshold and to determining that the transmission property is less than a second transmission threshold, increasing the transmission property ("...In outer loop behavior, the base station may select a MCS for subsequent data transmissions based on an average performance of previous data transmissions to achieve the target BLER. For instance, the base station may update the MCS corresponding to the target BLER (originally selected during inner loop behavior) for subsequent data transmissions in response to an average CSI for multiple previous data transmissions, a number of non-acknowledgments or acknowledgments for the previous data transmissions, or other factors over time..." [¶0080], see also, "...The UE may also provide the HARQ-ACK feedback 508, 558 to the base station in response to the downlink data 506, 556 after a slot offset 514, 564 following receipt of the downlink data (e.g. K1). After receiving the CSI report, the base station may modify, MCS, rank, RB allocation, precoder, transmission power, or other parameters for subsequent downlink data transmissions accordingly." [¶0074], see also, "...the base station may provide DCI including a CSI trigger field, and the UE may measure CSI and transmit the aperiodic CSI report in response to the DCI. The UE may provide the aperiodic CSI feedback on PUCCH in response to the DCI, as well as HARQ-ACK feedback on PUCCH in response to downlink data scheduled by the DCI. In response to the CSI report, the base station may adjust MCS or other parameters to result in more reliable or faster, subsequent downlink transmissions. Thus, downlink grant-triggered, aperiodic CSI reporting may support reduced latency and increased reliability in communications." [¶0030]). Here HARK-ACK/ NACK will provide the bit error rate, and for a faster data transmission MCS has to be increased.
Regarding Claim 7, combination of Elshafie, Sevindik and Lee disclose, the system according to claim 1.
Elshafie also teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: transmit a reference signal to a user equipment ("...the base station may transmit one or more channel state information (CSI) reference signals (CSI-RS) to the UE..."[¶0029]);
estimate the transmission property based on a first feedback received from the user equipment ("... In response to the CSI report, the base station may adjust MCS or other parameters to result in more reliable or faster, subsequent downlink transmissions..." [¶0030]); Here first feedback is the csi report and transmission property is the MCS.
at least one of transmit the data having the estimated transmission property to the user equipment during the plurality of time slots, and transmit an instruction to the user equipment to transmit the data having the estimated transmission property during the plurality of time slots slot ("...The base station may also determine various parameters for the downlink data transmission on PDSCH based on the aperiodic CSI report 402 (e.g. MCS, rank, resource block allocation, precoder, and transmission power), and the base station may transmit the downlink data accordingly to the UE. For example, if the CSI report 402 includes CQI indicating that the UE determined the channel to have poor SINR, the base station may determine to decrease the MCS to improve the likelihood of successful reception of the downlink data 412."[¶0071]);
determine the condition of the communication channel during the each of the plurality of time slots based on a second feedback received from the user equipment ("...The downlink grant 504, 554 may also indicate a slot offset index 512, 562 (e.g. K0), which may indicate the slot at which the base station transmits the PDSCH. The downlink grant may further indicate to the UE whether to transmit the aperiodic CSI report 502, 552 and the HARQ-ACK feedback 508, 558 in the same PUCCH resource or in different PUCCH resources..."[ ¶0074], see also, "...However, if an observed SNR of the transport block at the UE (e.g., measured based on RSRP) is less than the nominal SNR due to poor channel conditions, the observed SNR may correspond to a higher BLER than the target BLER (e.g., 20% BLER or some other number larger than 10%) ..."[¶0079]); and
at least one of transmit the data having the adapted transmission property to the user equipment during the each of the plurality of time slots ("...After receiving the CSI report, the base station may modify, MCS, rank, RB allocation, precoder, transmission power, or other parameters for subsequent downlink data transmissions accordingly." [¶0074]), and
transmit an instruction to the user equipment to transmit the data having the adapted transmission property during the each of the plurality of time slots ("...the UE may successfully decode data transmission 1326 but determine that the data transmission 1326 includes either a LLR quality 1328 below a quality threshold 1330 or a SINR 1332 associated with a BLER 1334 above a BLER threshold 1336, and thus the UE may observe that it is to feedback a “weak” ACK in response to data transmission 1326. The UE may determine which of the aforementioned CSI report trigger events to observe from the trigger event configuration 1309. Moreover, at 1338, the UE may optionally determine M′ CSIs of the M CSIs for a latest N obtained data transmissions to include in the CSI report." [¶0103]).
Regarding Claim 8, combination of Elshafie, Sevindik and Lee disclose, the system according to claim 7.
Elshafie in related art also relates, wherein: the reference signal comprises a Channel Status Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) ("...the base station may transmit one or more channel state information (CSI) reference signals (CSI-RS) to the UE..." [¶0029]);
the first feedback comprises a Channel Status Information Report (CSI Report) ("...The UE may then identify CSI based on the measured RSRP/RSSI/SINR and provide a CSI report to the base station including one or more reporting parameters indicating the channel quality measurement results...." [¶0029]);
the transmission property comprises a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS); the condition comprises a Block Error Rate (BLER) ("In another example, a weak acknowledgment may refer to an acknowledgment of a data transmission having an SNR associated with a BLER above a BLER threshold. For instance, if the base station schedules a transport block with a configured MCS, the configured MCS may be associated with a spectral efficiency (SPEF), which in turn may be associated with a nominal SNR for that transmission..." [¶0079]; and
the second feedback comprises at least one of a HARQ ACK signal and a HARQ NACK signal ("Additionally, after receiving the CSI stored in the UE's CSI buffer, the base station may compute statistics to improve the CSI-RS configurations as well as the PDSCH transmission parameters, thereby improving reliability of new transmissions (e.g., in response to HARQ-ACKs) as well as retransmissions (e.g., in response to HARQ-NACKs) ..." [¶0082]).
Regarding Claim 17, Elshafie discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (“The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data. The memory 360 may be referred to as a computer-readable medium…” [¶0062]) having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising ("...memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor..."[¶0164]):
Elshafie doesn’t explicitly disclose, determining a condition of a communication channel during each of a plurality of time slots, the plurality of time slots comprising a first time slot and a second time slot, and the determined condition comprising a first determined condition for the first time slot and a second determined condition for the second time slot; and
adapting a transmission property of data on a slot-by-slot basis such that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition.
Sevindik in analogous art discloses, determining a condition of a communication channel during each of a plurality of time slots, the plurality of time slots comprising a first time slot and a second time slot, and the determined condition comprising a first determined condition for the first time slot and a second determined condition for the second time slot ("Per step 1113, once the CBSDe receives the CQI data from the CPEe, it maps the CQI value to a configuration such as an MCS value through a lookup table stored in the CBSDe storage device (or location otherwise accessible to the CBSDe, such as cloud storage)..." [¶0189], see also, “…The CPEe may report the CQI values periodically at certain time (e.g., each time slot, frame), according to a schedule, in an event-driven manner…” [¶0188], see also “Per step 1007, the CPEe transmits the determined quality value to the BSe. For instance, the CPEe may transmit the current quality value periodically (e.g., every slot, frame, time period, etc.).” [¶0174]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
452
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie with the teaching where the system determines the condition of a communication channel during each time slots, as disclosed by Sevindik. The rationale for using this is "...In this fashion, the CPEe and CBSDe at least periodically iterate in order to determine maximal or optimized DL configuration such as MCS settings."[ ¶0192].
Lee is related art relates, adapting a transmission property of data on a slot-by-slot basis such that a first transmission property for the first time slot is adapted based on the first determined condition and the second transmission property for the second time slot is adapted based on the second determined condition ( “Referring to FIG. 6, the link adaption method, that is, a method for transmitting data without an error by applying at least one parameter according to a change of a radio link state (e.g., SINR) may be described. A purpose of the link adaptation may be to determine at least one of an MCS level, layers, or the number of physical resource blocks (PRBs). In particular, the MCS level may be determined mainly based on the HARQ feedback (e.g., cyclic redundancy check (CRC) result). Hence, to keep up with an SINR change trend, HARQ feedback of the PDSCH transmitted in each slot may be required. For example, based on a moving window or a weight, MCS level adaptation may be performed to satisfy a target block error rate (BLER)…” [¶0093]. Here the SINR change trend, and corresponding HARQ feedback in each slot make MCS adaptation on slot basis.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie and Sevindik with the teaching where a dynamic, slot-based adaptation of communication parameters, like channel condition is used, as disclosed by Lee. The rationale for using this dynamic slot-based adaptation is to ensures that each individual time slot optimizes its parameters according to its specific channel or environmental state.
Regarding claims [9-11] and [17-19], “Method” and “CRM”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-3] “System”, where Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee teach Method/CRM/System.
Regarding claims [15-16] “Method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [7-8] “System”, where Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee teach Method/CRM/System.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee further in view of Pfadler et al. (US 20230345265 A1), hereinafter, Pfadler.
Regarding Claim 4, Combination of Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee disclose the system according to claim 3.
Elshafie does not explicitly disclose, wherein: the transmission property comprises a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS); the memory comprises a look up table specifying a correspondence between the MCS and a modulation and code rate for transmission of the data;
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to decrease the transmission property by decreasing the modulation and code rate for transmission of the data based on the look up table; and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to increase the transmission property by increasing the modulation and code rate for transmission of the data based on the look up table.
Pfadler in related art relates, wherein: the transmission property comprises a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS);
the memory comprises a look up table specifying a correspondence between the MCS and a modulation and code rate for transmission of the data (45 P.sub.1 chosen from LUT [¶0113], see also "...In operation at 42 a timer t=1 is set and a legacy parameter set P0 is selected. In operation at 44 it is checked if P0 is still valid. If so, transmission is carried out in operation at 46. If not, another parameter set P1 is chosen from a look-up table (LUT) in operation at 45..."[¶0083]);
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to decrease the transmission property by decreasing the modulation and code rate for transmission of the data based on the look up table ("...If BER is above the threshold 37 (too many errors) the timer is increased t=t+1 and the next MCS1+t is set to MCSt−1 (more robust MCS) in operation at 36..."[¶0081], see also, "...In operation at 48 BER is evaluated against a threshold. If BER is above the threshold 48 (too many errors) the timer is increased t=t+1 and the next P1+t is set to P1−1 (more robust MCS) in operation at 47..."[¶0083]); Here the MCS is being decreased. and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to increase the transmission property by increasing the modulation and code rate for transmission of the data based on the look up table ("...If BER is below the threshold 37 (more errors affordable) the timer is increased t=t+1 and the next MCS1+t is set to MCSt+1 (higher spectral efficiency) in operation at 38." [¶0081], see also, "...If BER is below the threshold 48 (more errors affordable) the timer is increased t=t+1 and the next P1+t is set to P1+1 (higher spectral efficiency) in operation at 49."[¶0083]). See also, (Fig. 3 (below), (36 MCS decrease 37 [¶0106] BER<threshold[¶0107] 38 MCS increase [¶0108])).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee with the teaching of using a look-up table to increase or decrease the MCS based on the channel condition as disclosed by Pfadler. The rationale for using the look-up table for MCS is to allows a transmitter to adjust its transmission properties in real-time, thereby, making the system more efficient.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, “Method and CRM” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 “System”, where Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee, and Pfadler teaches Method/CRM/System.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee and Pfadler, further in view of Axmon et al. (US 20160127971 A1), hereinafter, Axmon.
Regarding Claim 5, combination of Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee and Pfadler disclose the system according to claim 4.
Elshafie doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the error rate specifies a number of erroneous transport blocks against a total number of transport blocks over time, and wherein the modulation specifies a number of bits that is carried by a single resource element; and wherein the code rate specifies a number of used bits against a total number of bits.
Afterall, these are not any claim features but just definition of terms “error rate”, “modulation” and “code rate” which is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Axmon in related art relates, wherein the error rate specifies a number of erroneous transport blocks against a total number of transport blocks over time ("The UE monitors the block error rate for transport blocks received on PDSCH for the applicable C-RNTI, and estimates the BLER before and after an autonomous gap..."[¶0160]); and
wherein the modulation specifies a number of bits that is carried by a single resource element ("...The total number of transmitted bits may be calculated by considering all resource elements over the allocated bandwidth not reserved for reference signals, synchronization signals, or the physical broadcast channel, and taking the modulation order into account (QPSK: 2 bits, 16QAM: 4 bits, and 64QAM: 6 bits per resource element). The modulation index, Q.sub.m, is given by the transmitted IMCS..." [¶0153]); and
wherein the code rate specifies a number of used bits against a total number of bits ("...The code rate may be derived by the UE as the transport block size divided by the total number of transmitted bits. The actual allocation to the UE may be different in different sub frames. Hence, the code rate may fluctuate slightly over the received transport blocks. To suppress the fluctuations the code rate for the most recently received transport blocks may be subjected to filtering, e.g. a median filter over say a sliding window over 20 transport blocks." [¶0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee and Pfadler with idea of defining the terms as presented by Axmon. The rationale for doing so would have been to make the publication more understandable.
Regarding claim 13 “Method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 5 “System”, where Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee, Pfadler, and Axmon teaches Method/CRM/System.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee further in view of Meylan et al. (US 20220191730 A1), hereinafter, Meylan.
Regarding Claim 6, Combination of Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee disclose the system according to claim 3.
Elshafie doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the first error threshold, the second error threshold, the first transmission threshold, and the second transmission threshold are predetermined.
Meylan in analogous art relates, wherein the first error threshold, the second error threshold, the first transmission threshold, and the second transmission threshold are predetermined ("In some aspects, the UE 120 may determine the amount of energy for the second communication based at least in part on a target MCS. The target MCS may represent a desired minimum MCS that the UE 120 intends to sustain in a time window. Additionally, or alternatively, the UE 120 may determine the amount of energy for the second communication based at least in part on a target BLER. The target BLER may represent a desired minimum BLER that the UE 120 intends to sustain in a time window. For example, the target MCS and/or the target BLER may be selected such that the second communication is expected to be successful with a threshold probability if the target MCS and/or the target BLER are satisfied." [¶0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Elshafie, Sevindik, and Lee with the teaching of using four specific thresholds that are predetermined as disclosed by Meylan. The rationale for using specific thresholds that are "predetermined", meaning they are set in advance rather than being calculated or adapted during operation is to make the system more efficient. This is a common practice in communication protocols and signal processing to define rules for error handling and data transmission.
Regarding claim 14 “Method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 6 “System”, where Elshafie, Sevindik, Lee, and Meylan teaches Method/CRM/System.
Conclusion
References cited but not used: Schlicht et al. (US 20100142447 A1 - ¶1270 could be used
for “adapt a transmission property” of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 in addition to the one used.
References cited but not used: Shibutani, Akira (US 20030002518 A1- ¶0006 could be used for “adapt a transmission property” of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 in addition to the one used.
References cited but not used: Elshafie et al. (US 20220399952 A1- ¶0082-¶0083 could be used for “adapt a transmission property” of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 in addition to the one used.
References cited but not used: Schlicht et al. (US 20090252134 A1- ¶0185 could be used for “adapt a transmission property” of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 in addition to the one used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD AINUL HUDA whose telephone number is (703)756-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 6:30 ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MUHAMMAD AINUL HUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 4126
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights