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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by the admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Admitted prior art teaches a mobile terminal testing device for testing a mobile terminal by simulating a base station of a mobile communication (Paragraph 0002, When a mobile terminal for performing communication while moving, such as a mobile phone or a data communication terminal, is developed, the developed mobile terminal needs to be tested whether or not communication can be normally performed. Therefore, a mobile terminal to be tested is connected to a testing device operated as a pseudo base station that simulates functions of an actual base station to perform communication between the testing device and the mobile terminal, and a test to confirm contents of the communication is performed), the mobile terminal testing device comprising:
a control unit (inherent in the testing device) that searches for and presents a set value of an MCS that satisfies a predetermined condition according to a parameter set to simulate the base station (Paragraph 0005….. that a transport block size (TBS), which represents the number of bits (set value) of information that can be transmitted while satisfying a predetermined packet error rate over the entire bandwidth of a radio signal, is obtained from the MCS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0003598).
Regarding claim 2, Admitted prior art fails to teach the mobile terminal testing device according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit searches for the MCS having a code rate of equal to or less than a standard value and having a maximum TBS.
However, in related art, Tanaka teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit searches for the MCS having a code rate of equal to or less than a standard value and having a maximum TBS (Paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Tanaka’s teaching about wherein the control unit searches for the MCS having a code rate of equal to or less than a standard value and having a maximum TBS with Admitted Prior art in order to perform data/voice communications between a base station and a terminal in a radio communication system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Admitted prior art and Tanaka teach all the claimed elements in claim 2. In addition, Tanaka teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to Claim 2, further comprising: a pseudo base station unit that transmits and receives an RF signal to and from the mobile terminal (Paragraph 0042);
a scenario processing unit that reads a stored scenario according to an instruction from the control unit and causes the pseudo base station unit to execute a communication sequence with the mobile terminal based on the scenario (Claims 3 and 5; Paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0022, 0025, and 0059);
an operation unit (Fig. 1, item 91) that outputs, to the control unit, information required to generate the scenario in which an operation is input (Paragraphs 0040, 0056, and 0061); and
a display unit that displays the set value of the MCS (See abstract; Paragraphs 0069 and 0096).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0223953), and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2020/0374163).
Regarding claim 4, Admitted prior art fails to teach the mobile terminal testing device according to Claim 2, wherein the parameter includes at least a frame configuration, an antenna configuration, and a modulation scheme, and the MCS is searched for based on a table showing a relationship between the MCS and the TBS, which correspond to setting contents of the parameter stored in advance.
However, in related art, Lee teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to Claim 2, wherein the parameter includes at least a frame configuration, an antenna configuration, and a modulation scheme (Paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Lee’s teaching about wherein the parameter includes at least a frame configuration, an antenna configuration, and a modulation scheme with Admitted Prior art so that control information can be exchanged between a base station and a mobile station in the course of a direct communication between mobile stations.
The combination of Admitted prior art and Lee fail to teach the MCS is searched for based on a table showing a relationship between the MCS and the TBS, which correspond to setting contents of the parameter stored in advance.
However, in related art, Zhao teaches the MCS is searched for based on a table showing a relationship between the MCS and the TBS, which correspond to setting contents of the parameter stored in advance (Paragraphs 0210 and 0225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Zhao’s teaching about wherein the parameter includes at least a frame configuration, an antenna configuration, and a modulation scheme with Admitted Prior art and Lee’s teaching so as to obtain a transport block size allocated by the base station to the MTC UE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akiyama (US 2022/0349779), Mu (US 2021/0235469), Takiguchi et al. (US 2021/0227408), Wu et al. (US 2021/0153141), Park et al. (US 2020/0296701), Chinbe (US 2020/0205018), Chae et al. (US 2020/0154372), Wang et al. (US 2020/0112948), Wu et al. (US 2020/0068546), Inokuchi et al. (US 2020/0007558), Li et al. (US 2019/0349779), Xue (US 2019/0305875), Ke et al. (US 2019/0208537), Vadodaria (US Patent #10,332297), Cheng et al. (US 2019/0173711), Aoki et al. (US Patent #10,263,714), Xu et al. (US 2019/0036640), Shirasaki (US 2019/0037424), Ogawa et al. (US 2018/0343575), Tanaka et al. (US Patent #9,775,062), Byun et al. (US 2016/0183319), Xue et al. (US 2016/0157217), Ren et al. (US 2013/0343290), Fantaye et al. (US 2013/0322241), and Choi et al. (US 2013/0003694).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132