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, see pages 4-6, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is made.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717).
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), but does not specifically teach a control unit that searches for and presents a value of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) that satisfies a predetermined condition according to a parameter set to simulate the base station.
However, in related art, Sung teaches a control unit that searches for and presents a value of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) that satisfies a predetermined condition according to a parameter set to simulate the base station (Paragraph [0071]…… in the method according to the embodiment of the present invention if the base station transmits the group based MCS level in the step S602, a method of selecting a communication resource which satisfies an effective transmission bit corresponding to the group based MCS level received in the step S601 from all communication resources and allocating the communication resource to the UEs of a corresponding group may be used. That is, in the allocation of the frequency band to the UEs of the group according to the present embodiment, the MCS value based on the frequency band is searched for using channel information fed back from the grouped UEs and the UEs of the group are scheduled to the frequency band which satisfies the effective transmission bit). 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 Sung’s teaching about a control unit that searches for and presents a value of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) that satisfies a predetermined condition according to a parameter set to simulate the base station with Admitted Prior art in order to establish connection with the network system.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0314817), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0289237).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of admitted prior art and Sung fail 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 value defined by a predetermined wireless standard and having a maximum transport block size (TBS).
However, in related art, Sun 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 value defined by a predetermined wireless standard (Paragraph [0025]…. the MCS index in the MCS table corresponding to the average code rate corresponding to all the preset transmission(s) may comprise searching, in the MCS table, for the MCS index corresponding to the spectral efficiency closest to the average spectral efficiency corresponding to all the preset transmission(s), and/or searching, in the MCS table, for the MCS index corresponding to the code rate closest (equal) to the average code rate (predetermined wireless standard) corresponding to all the preset transmission(s)). 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 Sun’s teaching about wherein the control unit searches for the MCS having a code rate of equal to or less than a value defined by a predetermined wireless standard with Admitted Prior art’s and Sung’s invention in order to increase link robustness and achieve high throughput.
The combination of admitted prior art, Sung, and Sun fail to teach MCS having a code rate having a maximum transport block size (TBS).
However, in related art, Kim teaches MCS having a code rate having a maximum transport block size (TBS) (Paragraph [0223]…. In order to support the largest transport block size, transport block size may be determined assuming the minimum resources used for downlink control channel transmission. The largest transport block size may be determined using the MCS level corresponding to the highest coding rate and the 256 QAM modulation scheme). 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 Kim’s teaching about MCS having a code rate having a maximum transport block size (TBS) with Admitted Prior art’s, Sung’s, and Sun’s invention in order to increase link robustness and achieve high throughput.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim teach all the claimed elements in claim 2. In addition, Sun teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined wireless standard is Long-Term Evolution (LTE) or 5G New Radio (5GNR) (See Paragraph [0113]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0314817) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0289237), and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2013/0003598).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim fail to teach the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, further comprising: a pseudo base station unit that transmits and receives a radio frequency (RF) signal to and from the mobile terminal; 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; an operation unit that outputs, to the control unit, information required to generate the scenario in which an operation is input; and a display unit that displays the set value of the MCS.
However, in related art, Tanaka teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, further comprising: a pseudo base station unit that transmits and receives a radio frequency (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).
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 the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, further comprising: a pseudo base station unit that transmits and receives a radio frequency (RF) signal to and from the mobile terminal; 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; an operation unit that outputs, to the control unit, information required to generate the scenario in which an operation is input; and a display unit that displays the set value of the MCS with Admitted Prior art’s, Sung’s, Sun’s, and Kim’s invention in order to perform data/voice communications between a base station and a terminal in a radio communication system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0314817) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0289237) in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0223953), and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2020/0374163).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim fail 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, Sung, Sun, and Kim 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, Sung, Sun, Kim, 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, Sung, Sun, Kim, and Lee’s teaching so as to obtain a transport block size allocated by the base station to the MTC UE.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0314817) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0289237), and further in view of He et al. (US 2023/0217450).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim fail to teach the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit updates the presented MCS or subtracts 1 from the MCS value based on whether or not the value of the MCS is the minimum value in a search range.
However, in related art, He teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit updates the presented MCS or subtracts 1 from the MCS value based on whether or not the value of the MCS is the minimum value in a search range (Paragraph [0061]). 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, Sung, Sun, and Kim in order for the system be more efficient by allowing for a more temporally close setting or confirmation of the MCS level to use (See He, Paragraph 0061).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Sung et al. (US 2010/0177717) in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0314817) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0289237), and further in view of Onuma (US 2021/0302500).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim fail to teach the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter is set by a user.
However, in related art, Onuma teaches the mobile terminal testing device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter is set by a user (Paragraphs [0023, 0072, and 0116]). 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 Onuma’s teaching about wherein the parameter is set by a user with Admitted prior art, Sung, Sun, and Kim in order to calibrate the test and measurement system appropriately.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights