DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The instant office action is in response to communication filed on 07/27/2023.
The IDS(s) submitted on 07/27/2023 is considered.
Claims 1-7, 11-14, 23, 24, 29, 31-35, and 48 are pending of which claims 1, 29, 31, and 48 are independent.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11-14 ,31-34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levy et al (US 20210344399 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Levy discloses a method (i.e. Figs. 1-12) performed by a network node (i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8) of a telecommunications network (i.e. network 200 in Fig. 2 , Network 600 in Fig. 6, network in Fig. 8) for optimizing selection of radio resources and transmission format for a communication session with a user device (UE 115 in Fig. 8. See paragraph 125 indicating “…The BS may also change the RI (e.g., utilizing a different number of spatial layers) and/or PMI to provide an optimal performance for the UE 115. In some instances, the BS 105 may analyze the CQI history per RI or per PMI to determine a channel variation. In some instances, if the link is undergoing jitter at the time BS 105 performs link adaptation, the BS may rely on older CQIs transmitted as part of the feedback history to determine more accurate PMI, RI, and/or MCS values for the link.”), the method comprising:
receiving, by the network node (i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8), a link adaptation report message from the user device (UE 115 in Fig. 8), wherein the link adaptation report message (i.e. the link adaptation report is Channel State Report 812 and is generated at block 810 ) comprises a link adaptation report (i.e. Channel State Report 812 is a channel state feedback and contains CQI and MCS recommended by the UE per paragraph 39) ;
determining a scheduling grant (i.e. in Fig. 8 block 814 the BS determines link adaptation by determining link adaptation by updating scheduling/grant parameters) comprising an allocation of radio resources for the user device (See paragraphs 50 and 56 indicating the BS 105 may schedule the UE 115 for UL and/or DL communications. The BS 105 may transmit UL and/or DL scheduling grants to the UE 115 via a PDCCH. Scheduling grants may be transmitted in the form of DL control information (DCI). The BS 105 may transmit a DL communication signal (e.g., carrying data) to the UE 115 via a PDSCH according to a DL scheduling grant. ) based on the link adaptation report (See paragraph 90 indicating the channel state module 508 of UE 115 configured to receive, from the BS 105, scheduling information including a PMI, RI, and/or MCS based on the received channel state report 812/link adaptation report) and transmitting the scheduling grant to the user device.(See paragraphs 56, 90, 138, and 150 where in the UE 115 receive scheduling information and scheduling grant (e.g., determined by the BS 105) based on the channel state report 812/ link adaptation report. The scheduling information may include a PMI, an RI, and/or an MCS.)
Regarding claim 31, Levy discloses a method performed by a user device (UE 115 in Fig. 8) of a telecommunications network(i.e. network 200 in Fig. 2 , Network 600 in Fig. 6, network in Fig. 8) for optimizing selection of radio resources and transmission format for a communication session with ( See paragraph 125 indicating “…The BS may also change the RI (e.g., utilizing a different number of spatial layers) and/or PMI to provide an optimal performance for the UE 115. In some instances, the BS 105 may analyze the CQI history per RI or per PMI to determine a channel variation. In some instances, if the link is undergoing jitter at the time BS 105 performs link adaptation, the BS may rely on older CQIs transmitted as part of the feedback history to determine more accurate PMI, RI, and/or MCS values for the link.”), a network node (i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8) the method comprising: determining a link adaptation report for communicating with the network node (i.e. Fig. 8 shows UE 115 to generate the link adaptation report/Channel state report 812 does a series of determinations 807a-807n to identify expected CQI at different times.); and transmitting a link adaptation report message to the network node (See Fig. 8 UE 115 transmitting to BS 105 link adaptation report/channel state report 812 in Fig. 8), wherein the link adaptation report message comprises the link adaptation report. (i.e. the link adaptation report is Channel State Report 812 and is generated at block 810. i.e. Channel State Report 812 is a channel state feedback and contains CQI and MCS recommended by the UE per paragraph 39)
Regarding claim 48, Levy discloses a user device (UE 115 in Fig. 8 detailed in Fig.5 User Equipment 500), comprising: one or more transmitters (i.e. Fig. 5 transceiver 510 and RF unit 514) ; one or more receivers(i.e. Fig. 5 transceiver 510 and RF unit 514); and processing circuitry associated with the one or more transmitters and the one or more receivers, the processing circuitry configured to cause the user device (i.e. UE 500 in Fig. 5 and UE 115 in Fig. 8) to:
determine a link adaptation report for communicating with a network node (i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8) of a telecommunications network(i.e. Fig. 8 shows UE 115 to generate the link adaptation report/Channel state report 812 does a series of determinations 807a-807n to identify expected CQI at different times.); and
transmit a link adaptation report message to the network nod(See Fig. 8 UE 115 transmitting to the network node BS 105 link adaptation report/channel state report 812 in Fig. 8), wherein the link adaptation report message comprises the link adaptation report. (i.e. the link adaptation report is Channel State Report 812 and is generated at block 810. i.e. Channel State Report 812 is a channel state feedback and contains CQI and MCS recommended by the UE per paragraph 39)
Regarding claim 2, Levy discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Levy further discloses wherein the link adaptation report(i.e. Transmit Channel State Report 812) further comprises an indicator indicating whether the one or more link adaptation parameters is associated with uplink or downlink transmission. (Levy’s Transmit Channel State Report 812 has to indicate the determined CQI and MCS parameters are for uplink or downlink and in the case of Fig. 8 the CSI-RS are received from the network and the CQI and MCS parameters are strictly for downlink communication)
Regarding claim 3, Levy discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, Levy further discloses wherein the link adaptation report comprises a set of one or more link adaptation parameters estimated or preferred by the user device for link adaptation in a communication session with the network node.(Levy teaches the limitation in paragraph 32 by stating the Channel State Feedback report which is the channel state report corresponding to the link adaptation report and include channel quality information (CQI), a rank indicator (RI), and a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) for the preferred CSI-RS resource indicated by the CRI and end user).
Regarding claim 11, Levy discloses the method of claim 1, Levy further discloses wherein the link adaptation report comprises link adaptation parameters reported for one or more frequency bands.(i.e. per paragraphs 28 and 45 the link adaptation parameters are for broadband, wideband and narrowband)
Regarding claim 12, Levy discloses the method of claim 11, Levy further discloses , wherein the link adaptation report further comprises link adaptation information reported according to one or more of wideband (paragraph 28); per sub-band (sub band paragraph 49); per physical resource block, PRB (frequency time resource block – paragraph 50); per resource block group, RBG; per bandwidth part; and per bandwidth segment in a frequency domain.(Frequency domain/bands – paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 13, Levy discloses the method of claim 11, Levy further discloses wherein the link adaptation report comprises link adaptation information reported according to a granularity in a time domain(See Figure 8 wherein the report is prepared on time granularity basis from box 807a to 807 n); and the granularity is per transmission time interval and/or per transmission time window. (Levy indicates in paragraph 39 that a BS may configure a UE to report expected CQIs at certain time intervals over a period of time based on predicted interference.)
Regarding claim 14, Levy discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a link adaptation report request to the user device (See Fig.8 BS transmitting to the UE a request to configure link adaptation report/CSF configuring 802), wherein the link adaptation report request comprises one or more information elements for configuring reporting of assistance information associated with link adaptation from the user device.(The BS requests the UE assistance in measuring CSI RS and reporting link adaptation parameters per Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 32, Levy discloses the method of claim 31. Levy further discloses, further comprising receiving, from the network node, a scheduling grant (i.e. in Fig. 8 block 814 the BS determines link adaptation by determining link adaptation by updating scheduling/grant parameters) comprising an allocation of radio resources for the user device(See paragraphs 50 and 56 indicating the BS 105 may schedule the UE 115 for UL and/or DL communications. The BS 105 may transmit UL and/or DL scheduling grants to the UE 115 via a PDCCH. Scheduling grants may be transmitted in the form of DL control information (DCI). The BS 105 may transmit a DL communication signal (e.g., carrying data) to the UE 115 via a PDSCH according to a DL scheduling grant. ) based on the link adaptation report. (See paragraph 90 indicating the channel state module 508 of UE 115 configured to receive, from the BS 105, scheduling information including a PMI, RI, and/or MCS based on the received channel state report 812/link adaptation report)
Regarding claim 33, Levy discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising receiving, from the network node, a link adaptation report request to configure link adaptation reporting for the user device(See Fig.8 BS transmitting to the UE a request to configure link adaptation report/CSF configuring 802); wherein determining the link adaptation report for communicating with the network node is based on the link adaptation report request. .(The BS requests the UE assistance in measuring CSI RS and reporting link adaptation parameters per Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 34, Levy discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the link adaptation report request comprises one or more information elements for configuring reporting of assistance information associated with link adaptation and reporting.(See Paragraph 115 detailing the information elements to generate the link adaptation report/channel state report 812 such as quantity of expected channel state feedbacks)
Regarding claim 35, Levy discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the one or more information element comprise: one or more indications of a type and frequency of reporting; or a type of link adaptation information reported; or a granularity of reported link adaptation information in one or more of a time domain, a frequency domain, or a spatial domain; or a type of reference signals that the user device can use for determining link adaptation information (at the minimum per paragraph 115 in Figure 8 step 802 the type of reference signal is identified as CSI-RS) ; or one or more indications to start, stop, pause, resume and/or modify link adaptation reporting; or a list of time-frequency resources that the user device can use to transmit the link adaptation report.
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.
Claim(s) 29, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Larson et al (US 20160337150 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Levy discloses a network node (i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8 as detailed in BS 400 of Fig 4 ), comprising: one or more transmitters (i.e. Fig. 4 Transceiver 410 and RF units 414); one or more receivers; (i.e. Fig. 4 Transceiver 410 and RF units 414) and processing circuitry (i.e. processor 402 in Fig. 4) associated with the one or more transmitters and the one or more receivers, the processing circuitry configured to cause the network node (i.e. BS 105) to:
receive, by the network node(i.e. BS 105 in Fig. 8), a link adaptation report message from a user device (UE 115 in Fig. 8), wherein the link adaptation report message (i.e. the link adaptation report is Channel State Report 812 and is generated at block 810 ) comprises a link adaptation report (i.e. Channel State Report 812 is a channel state feedback and contains CQI and MCS recommended by the UE per paragraph 39) ;
determine a scheduling grant (i.e. in Fig. 8 block 814 the BS determines link adaptation by determining link adaptation by updating scheduling/grant parameters) comprising an allocation of radio resources for the user device (See paragraphs 50 and 56 indicating the BS 105 may schedule the UE 115 for UL and/or DL communications. The BS 105 may transmit UL and/or DL scheduling grants to the UE 115 via a PDCCH. Scheduling grants may be transmitted in the form of DL control information (DCI). The BS 105 may transmit a DL communication signal (e.g., carrying data) to the UE 115 via a PDSCH according to a DL scheduling grant. ) based on a reported modulation and coding scheme (See paragraphs 6, 34, and 39 indicating the UE 115 sends channel state feedback/report with MCS as part of the link adaptation report/CS/Channel State Report 812) , MCS (See paragraph 90 indicating the channel state module 508 of UE 115 configured to receive, from the BS 105, scheduling information including a PMI, RI, and/or MCS based on the received channel state report 812/link adaptation report); and transmit the scheduling grant to the user device. (See paragraphs 56, 90, 138, and 150 where in the UE 115 receive scheduling information and scheduling grant (e.g., determined by the BS 105) based on the channel state report 812/ link adaptation report. The scheduling information may include a PMI, an RI, and/or an MCS.)
Levy fails to expressly disclose reported modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index. Levy in paragraphs 34 and 125 discloses the UE reporting MCS levels where the level is an offset from a previous MCS suggesting potential MCS index.
Larsson in the same endeavor discloses CQI and MCS table. Larsson further discloses reported modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index. (In Fig 13B block 1350 MCS index is received and a table is keyed to generate a new MCS. See also Fig.14 receiving a reserved MCS index and determining a modulation coding scheme based on the received MCS index )
In view of the above, having Levy’s link adaptation scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Larsson ’s techniques of using MCS index, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Levy’s link adaptation scheme as taught by Larsson ’s techniques of using MCS index, since Larsson states in paragraph 17 that the modification results in efficiently supporting 256QAM without increasing the size of CQI/MCS tables.
Regarding claim 4, Levy discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more link adaptation parameters comprises one or more of a modulation order or a Modulation and Coding Scheme, MCS index.
Larsson in the same endeavor discloses CQI and MCS table. Larsson further discloses wherein the one or more link adaptation parameters comprises one or more of a modulation order or a Modulation and Coding Scheme, MCS index. (See paragraphs 14 and 16 and Figs 13 a, b and 14 on MCS index being used as a link adaptation parameter and paragraph 63 for modulation order)
In view of the above, having Levy’s link adaptation scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Larsson ’s techniques of using MCS index, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Levy’s link adaptation scheme as taught by Larsson ’s techniques of using MCS index, since Larsson states in paragraph 17 that the modification results in efficiently supporting 256QAM without increasing the size of CQI/MCS tables.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Kalyani et al (US 20150229435 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Levy discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to disclose
wherein the link adaptation report further comprises, for one or more of the one or more link adaptation parameters, one or more indicators of an associated estimated probability of success, an associated uncertainty in the associated estimated
probability of success, or an associated confidence interval for the associated estimated
probability of success.
Kalyani in the same endeavor discloses wherein the link adaptation report further comprises, for one or more of the one or more link adaptation parameters, one or more indicators of an associated estimated probability of success, an associated uncertainty in the associated estimated probability of success, or an associated confidence interval for the associated estimated probability of success.(Per paragraph 56 for the MCS index a transition probability matrix is defined to determine success or failure per paragraph 67. The matrix is shown in Fig. 4 and use of the probability matrix to determine a success for MCS index is shown in Fig. 5)
In view of the above, having Levy’s link adaptation scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Kalyani ’s techniques of using MCS index transition probability, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Levy’s link adaptation scheme as taught by Kalyani ’s techniques of using MCS index transition probability, since Kalyani states in the abstract and paragraph 37 that the modification results in using transition probabilities between one MCS index to another and associating a cost function with each MCS. The modification allows transition probability matrix with plurality of MCS indices for selecting the MCS index for transmission based on the highest probability of transition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Lee et al (US 20200163155 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Levy discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to disclose, wherein the link adaptation report further comprises a set of the one or more link adaptation parameters to be prioritized with an associated priority value.
Lee in the same endeavor discloses wherein the link adaptation report further comprises a set of the one or more link adaptation parameters to be prioritized with an associated priority value.(Lee in paragraph 198 discloses applying a different modulation and coding scheme (MCS) value according to the priority, and the relay UE may apply a relatively high MCS value to the transmission of the low priority information.)
In view of the above, having Levy’s link adaptation scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Lee ’s techniques of using MCS value according to priority, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Levy’s link adaptation scheme as taught by Lee ’s techniques of using MCS value according to priority, since Lee states in paragraph 198 that the modification results in apply a relatively high MCS value to the transmission of the low priority information.
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Yum et al (US 20200163155 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Levy discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose
the link adaptation report comprises one or more sets of at least one Modulation and
Coding Scheme, MCS, index value; and each set is being associated with a different
transmission rank value; or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more ranges of Modulation and Coding
Scheme, MCS, index values, each being associated with a different transmission rank value; or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more sets of at least one modulation order
value and/or one or more sets of at least one coding rate value, each being associated with a different transmission rank value; or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more ranges of modulation order values
and/or one or more ranges of coding rate values, each being associated with a different
transmission rank value.
Yum in the same endeavor discloses the link adaptation report comprises one or more sets of at least one Modulation and
Coding Scheme, MCS, index value; and each set is being associated with a different
transmission rank value; or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more ranges of Modulation and Coding
Scheme, MCS, index values, each being associated with a different transmission rank value; or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more sets of at least one modulation order
value and/or one or more sets of at least one coding rate value, each being associated with a different transmission rank value (See paragraphs 108 and 109 wherein the parameter of modulation order is associated with a transmission rank); or
the link adaptation report comprises one or more ranges of modulation order values
and/or one or more ranges of coding rate values, each being associated with a different
transmission rank value.
In view of the above, having Levy’s link adaptation scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Yum ’s techniques of associating parameters with transmission rank, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Levy’s link adaptation scheme as taught by Yum ’s techniques of associating parameters with transmission rank, since Yum states in paragraph 92 that the modification results in spectral efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474