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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3,5,8,and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping).
For claims 1-3,5,8,and 19, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) discloses a method, comprising:
- receiving, by a user equipment, a resource allocation from a wireless network
node, for transmission of at least one signal, wherein the resource allocation
comprises at least a frequency domain resource allocation (page 2- lines 21-24,
"Over the allocated frequency block - which may comprise, for example, the
bandwidth of Resource Blocks (RBs) allocated to the signal transmission - the
single varies in power only between the limits S1 and S2. The distance S1-S2
thus reflects the spectrum flatness of the signal transmission");
- determining, by the user equipment, at least one spectrum flatness
requirement based at least on the frequency domain resource allocation (page
2- lines 26-35, "the EVM equalizer spectrum flatness, or simply spectrum
flatness, is defined in terms of the maximum peak-to-peak ripple of the
equalizer coefficients (dB).. applied by the measurement equipment for any
ripple in the transmitter chain due to baseband processing (e.g., by pulse
shaping) and RF processing. The basic measurement interval is the same as
for EVM, e.g., 10 subframes etc. Pulse shaping of the modulated signal can be
made to a degree set by the EVM requirement subject to the maximum ripple
compensation allowed by EVM spectral flatness requirement, the in-band
emissions requirement for non-allocated RBs and the unwanted emissions
requirements", from page 3- line 24 to page 4- line 6, "the first radio node may
receive information regarding a spectrum flatness configuration from another
node, adapt its transmitter accordingly, and transmit a signal to the second radio
node using the received spectrum flatness configuration spectrum flatness
configuration(s) may be determined in response to a variety of factors, including
a receiver configuration of the second radio node, a density of transmission of
reference signals by the first radio node, a coverage level of the first radio node
with respect to the second radio nodes, a spectrum flatness recommendation
from the first radio node, and a modulation format recommendation from a
scheduler", page 10- lines 24-32, "The term “spectrum flatness" as used herein
refers to the maximum variation in power of a transmitted signal in frequency
domain within a transmitted bandwidth. In one specific example spectrum
flatness is defined as the maximum peak-to-peak ripple of the equalizer
coefficients expressed in dB across the allocated frequency block over which
signal is transmitted. The term allocated frequency block may also be called as
transmitted frequency block. Examples of allocated frequency block are carrier
frequency, bandwidth, etc., over which the signal is transmitted. The allocated
frequency block can be expressed in terms of part or range of carrier frequency,
bandwidth or part of bandwidth, number of resource blocks, number of
subcarriers etc. "); and transmitting, by the user equipment, the at least one signal to the wireless network node according to the at least one spectrum flatness requirement .
For claims 1-3,5,8,and 19, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) also discloses (see previous citations, page 10- lines 24-32, "In one specific example spectrum flatness is defined as the maximum peak-to-peak ripple of the equalizer coefficients expressed in dB across the allocated frequency block over which signal is transmitted. The term allocated frequency block may also be called as transmitted frequency block. Examples of allocated frequency block are carrier frequency, bandwidth, etc., over which the signal is transmitted. The allocated frequency block can be expressed in terms of part or range of carrier frequency, bandwidth or part of bandwidth, number of resource blocks, number of subcarriers etc.", page 12- lines 5-14, "The different spectrum flatness
configurations differ in terms of the maximum peak-to- peak ripple, or variation
(X). of a signal transmitted within the allocated frequency block (e.g. allocated or
assigned resource blocks, RB). The spectrum flatness requirement is illustrated
with an example in Figure 3. In this example, to meet the spectrum flatness, the
signal can be transmitted such that within the allocated frequency block the
maximum peak-to-peak ripple remains within X dB, i.e., 151 - 5<,>2/ < X db.
Different spectrum flatness configurations will differ in terms of at least the
values of X, as described with several examples in Tables 1-4. The spectrum
flatness configuration can also be expressed in terms of a mask by which the
maximum allowed signal variability (ripple) depends on the frequency of the
allocated resource block(s)", tables 1-4 show different adaptive spectrum
flatness configurations, page 19- lines 19-22, "One or more coefficients of a
transmission filter is adapted such that a transmission to the second radio
node will be in accordance with the determined spectrum flatness configuration.
A signal is transmitted to the second radio node using the transmission filter
with the adapted coefficients (block 308)", page 10- lines 28-32, "The allocated
frequency block can be expressed in terms of part or range of carrier frequency,
bandwidth or part of bandwidth, number of resource blocks, number of
subcarriers etc.") .
For independent claim 1, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) discloses all the claimed invention with the exception of determining, by the user equipment, at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on the frequency domain resource allocation in a communications network. Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of determining, by the user equipment, at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on the frequency domain resource allocation in a communications network( See sections 1-3, "EVM spectral flatness requirement for both 1.3 shaped and unshaped transmissions. Proposed values for the maximum correction (equalizer ripple) ranges from 12 dB in view of the impact on the BS receiver performance [3] to a tentative 20 dB for maximum UE power increase
[4]. In [5] it is proposed to adopt the latter value also for FR1", "spectral flatness
requirement for LTE is based on estimated ripple across the allocated PRBs
mainly due that of the duplex filter: a ±2 dB ripple across test channels assigned
in the interior of the operating band with a large ripple allowed for channels
assigned at the band edge, see Figure 1. For extreme conditions, a larger ripple
is allowed at the band edge to account for a larger frequency shift of the
acoustic filter (and resulting filter attenuation) at the larger temperature range")
also discloses the subject-matter of claims 1, 3-7 and 13-14; which are also
considered not new (Article 54(1) and (2) EPC).
1.3.1 it is pointed out that discloses: (section 1, "The spectral flatness
requirement (and the maximum correction thus allowed) for modulations with
spectrum shaping should represent a compromise between achievable UE
power gains and the impact of spectrum shaping on the uplink receiver
performance in accordance with the way forward in [2]", "Proposed values for
the maximum correction (equalizer ripple) ranges from 12 dB in view of the
impact on the BS receiver performance [3] to a tentative 20 dB for maximum
UE power increase [4]''). From these passages, it is clear that the spectrum
flatness correction is performed by the UE, and applies to the uplink
communications. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use of determining, by the user equipment, at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on the frequency domain resource allocation in a communications network as taught by Ericson in the communication network of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) for the purpose of determining, by the user equipment, at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on the frequency domain resource allocation.
For independent claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
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.
Claims 4,6,7,11,12,and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) and further in view of Rohde & Schwarz Discussion on test point selection for EVM equalizer spectrum flatness for Pi/2 BPSK in FR1).
For claims 4,6,7,11,12,and 13, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of further comprising: determining, by the user equipment, the at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on a location of the frequency domain resource allocation in frequency within a channel bandwidth and/or transmission bandwidth; wherein the at least one spectrum flatness requirement comprises a maximum allowed ripple; wherein the maximum allowed ripple is smaller for frequency domain allocations below a threshold and larger for frequency domain allocations above the threshold; further comprising:- transmitting, by the user equipment, capability information on the user equipment to the wireless network node, wherein said capability information comprises an indication indicating that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements;
wherein the indication indicates that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements for at least one modulation scheme; and wherein the at least one modulation scheme comprises 7r/2 binary phase shift keying in a communications network. Rohde & Schwarz Discussion on test point selection for EVM equalizer spectrum flatness for Pi/2 BPSK in FR1) from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of determining, by the user equipment, the at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on a location of the frequency domain resource allocation in frequency within a channel bandwidth and/or transmission bandwidth; wherein the at least one spectrum flatness requirement comprises a maximum allowed ripple; wherein the maximum allowed ripple is smaller for frequency domain allocations below a threshold and larger for frequency domain allocations above the threshold; further comprising:- transmitting, by the user equipment, capability information on the user equipment to the wireless network node, wherein said capability information comprises an indication indicating that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements;
wherein the indication indicates that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements for at least one modulation scheme; and wherein the at least one modulation scheme comprises 7r/2 binary phase shift keying as taught by Rohde & Schwarz Discussion on test point selection for EVM equalizer spectrum flatness for Pi/2 BPSK in FR1 (See sections 1-4, "The EVM equalizer spectrum flatness is a 1.4 measure for the ripple inside the transmission bandwidth of an UE", "Mask for EVM equalizer coefficients for pi/2 BPSK, normal conditions", "Figure
6.4.2.4.1-1: The limits for EVM equalizer spectral flatness with the maximum
allowed variation. F center denotes the center frequency of the allocated block
of PRBs. F allow denotes the bandwidth of the PRB allocation", "Maximum
ripple [dB]", "employ spectral shaping and the shaping filter", "Due to the
presence of filters in the FR1 UEs it is reasonable to follow the LTE approach
for NR", "Test EVM equalizer spectrum flatness for Pi/2 BPSK with DFT-s-
OFDM Pi/2 BPSK for UEs indicating support for UE capability power Boosting-
pi2BPSK.. Pi/2 BPSK with DFT-s-OFDM Pi/2 BPSK W Pi/2 BPSK DMRS for
EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use determining, by the user equipment, the at least one spectrum flatness requirement based at least on a location of the frequency domain resource allocation in frequency within a channel bandwidth and/or transmission bandwidth; wherein the at least one spectrum flatness requirement comprises a maximum allowed ripple; wherein the maximum allowed ripple is smaller for frequency domain allocations below a threshold and larger for frequency domain allocations above the threshold; further comprising:- transmitting, by the user equipment, capability information on the user equipment to the wireless network node, wherein said capability information comprises an indication indicating that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements;
wherein the indication indicates that the user equipment supports frequency domain resource allocation -based spectrum flatness requirements for at least one modulation scheme; and
wherein the at least one modulation scheme comprises 7r/2 binary phase shift keying as taught by Rohde & Schwarz Discussion on test point selection for EVM equalizer spectrum flatness for Pi/2 BPSK in FR1) in the communications network of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping)
for the put pose of supporting the frequency domain resources.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) and further in view of Nam (2016/0157218).
For independent claims 22 and 24, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes in a communications network. Nam et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of the memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes ( See paragraphs 0014 and 0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes as taught by Nam et al. in the communication network of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( WO 2019/182502) in view of Ericson ( Spectral flatness for FR2 accommodating pi/2-BPSK spectrum shaping) for purpose of storing codes in the memory to execute the process by the processor.
Claims 9,10,14,and 17 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al. (2023/0362905) and Hao et al. (2023/02764414) are all cited to show systems which are considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476