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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 were previously examined
Claims 3-20 are added on March 9, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending on this examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see under 101 abstract rejection” filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
On page 7 of the remark, Applicant argued that the amended claim 1 has included a special equipment such as “a system communication with a user equipment (UE)”. Therefore, the abstract rejection under 101 should be removed.
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed because claim 1 recites a generic computer processor such as “a system communication with a user equipment (UE)” (see claim 1) for (1) providing a configuration information based on the service type requirement, where in the configuration including (a) MCS margin size data, (b) step size data and (c) BLER data; then (2) adding a parameter information data. Claim 1 does not improve a user equipment at all or transmission of data at all.
Examiner disagreed because independent claim 8 also recites a generic processor such as “a base station, including a memory coupled to a processor” for providing configuration and a parameter code. Claim does not improve a user equipment at all.
Examiner disagreed because independent claim 16 also recites a generic processor such as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing outer-loop link adaptation, which, when executed, cause a system to perform steps comprising:” for providing configuration and a parameter code. Claim does not improve a user equipment at all.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see under 103 rejection” filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
On page 9 of the remark, Applicant indicated that claim 1 has been amended to recite "adding, by the system communicating with the UE, to a transmission of a each Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process a parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process". (Emphasis added).Then Applicant submits Ishii and/or Arvidson, either alone or in combination, do not appear to disclose or suggest such feature. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance.
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed because Applicant fails to provide a clearly explanation why the prior arts of record do not disclose that limitation.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1, 8 and 16 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “…providing… respective transmission configurations based on service types, each configuration including a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) margin size, a step size and a target Block Error Rate (BLER) for a service type; and adding… a parameter per code word that indicates a MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “a system communication with a user equipment (UE)” (see claim 1), “a base station, including a memory coupled to a processor” (see claim 8) and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing outer-loop link adaptation, which, when executed, cause a system to perform steps comprising:” (claim 16).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mental processes, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The mental processes can provide a service configuration data wherein the service configuration data including Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) margin size configuration data, step size configuration data and a target Block Error Rate (BLER) configuration data and adding a parameter information per code words that used to indicated the MCS value.
The limitation such as “wherein each BLER includes an adjusted step size according to a transmission type sensitivity” is a description of BLER configuration information.
The claim(s) 2 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “..checking … if an MCS value currently used … is equal to the MCS value used for sending …” is based on mathematical comparison between two MCS values.
The claim 3 recites the abstract limitation such as “based on the checking…reducing the MCS margin…” because the mental process can reduce the step size based on checking.
The claim 4 recites the abstract limitation such as “based on the checking…increasing the MCS margin…” because the mental process can reduce the step size based on checking.
The claim 5 recites the abstract limitation such as “based on the checking…not taking the feedback into account…” because the mental process does not need to take the feedback and/or skip into outer adaptions into the decision based on checking. Claim 5 does not perform any adaption at all.
The claim 6 recites the abstract limitation such as “ignoring one or more HARQ responses…” because the mental process can ignore the HARQ result.
The claim 7 recites the abstract limitation such as “counting, by the system, a number of times the MCS was changed to the current value and resulted in a NACK for the transmission; determining the count has reached a predetermined value” is based mathematical algorithm before adjusting the MCS level.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical processes, then it falls within the “mathematical Processes” and/or “mathematical processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing code generation. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor for providing configuration information and for comparing MCS values.
Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing code generation
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 12 recite a limitation such as “based on the checking, not taking HARQ feedback into account for link adaptation and skipping outer loop link adaptation”
The recited limitation such as “not taking HARQ feedback into account for link adaptation and skipping outer loop link adaptation” renders this limitation indefinite because it appears nothing is performed after checking.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 recite a limitation such as “ignoring one or more HARQ responses received by the system for a cool off period after a new transmission by the system using a new MCS compared to the MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process”
The recited limitation such as “ignoring one or more HARQ responses received by the system for a cool off period” renders this limitation indefinite because it appears nothing is performed during a cool off period after comparing. It is unclear what is a cool off period is and how long is the cool off period (forever?)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 14-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishi et al. (US 2012/0,147,778), further in view of Arvidson et al. (US 2016/0,323,899), in view of Song et al. (US 2012/0,039,260)
As per claim 1:
Ishi discloses:
A method of providing outer-loop link adaptation, comprising
(Ishii, Figs 1-16)
providing a service having a configuration including Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) margin size, step size and a target
(Ishii, [0069] When the CRC result is the ACK, SIR offset is slightly increased based on this equation. In other words, throughput can be increased by raising the MCS level. On the other hand, when the CRC result is the NACK, SIR offset is decreased based on this equation. In other words, the error rate can be reduced by lowering the MCS level and reducing the required SIR…MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
wherein each BLER includes an adjusted step size according to a transmission type sensitivity;
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
adding, by the system communication with the UE, to a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process a parameter per code word that indicates an MCS
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Ishii’s discloses a method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the error rate.
However, Ishii’s does not clearly disclose for targeting the block error rate.
Arvidson discloses for targeting the block error rate such as adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Arvidson’s method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate into the targeting the error rate of Ishi in order to improve the specify block error rate of the system.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
Ishi-Arvidson does not clearly disclose:
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Song’s method of identifying the currently MCS parameter used during transmission in order to provide information to the receiver device.
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
As per claim 6:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
further comprising ignoring one or more HARQ responses received by the system for a cool off period after a new transmission by the system using a new MCS compared to the MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 7:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
counting, by the system, a number of times the MCS was changed to the current value and resulted in a NACK for the transmission; determining the count has reached a predetermined value; and decreasing a step down of the MCS for a next predetermined number of transmissions.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 8:
Ishi discloses:
A system for providing outer-loop link adaptation, comprising: a base station, including a memory coupled to a processor, configured to communicate with a user equipment, wherein the base station is configured to
(Ishii, Figs 1-16)
provide respective transmission configurations based on service types, each configuration including a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) margin size, a step size and a target Block Error Rate (BLER) for a service type; and
(Ishii, [0069] When the CRC result is the ACK, SIR offset is slightly increased based on this equation. In other words, throughput can be increased by raising the MCS level. On the other hand, when the CRC result is the NACK, SIR offset is decreased based on this equation. In other words, the error rate can be reduced by lowering the MCS level and reducing the required SIR…MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
add to a transmission of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process a parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Ishii’s discloses a method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the error rate.
However, Ishii’s does not clearly disclose for targeting the block error rate.
Arvidson discloses for targeting the block error rate such as adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Arvidson’s method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate into the targeting the error rate of Ishi in order to improve the specify block error rate of the system.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
Ishi-Arvidson does not clearly disclose:
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Song’s method of identifying the currently MCS parameter used during transmission in order to provide information to the receiver device.
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
wherein the base station is further configured to ignore a HARQ response for the HARQ process if the MCS used for the transmission does not match an MCS currently used by the system.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
As per claim 14:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
wherein the base station is further configured to ignore one or more HARQ responses received by the system for a cool off period after a new transmission by the system using a new MCS compared to the MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 15:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
wherein the base station is further configured to:
count, by the system, a number of times the MCS was changed to the current value and resulted in a NACK for the transmission; determine the count has reached a predetermined value; and decrease a step down of the MCS for a next predetermined number of transmissions.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 16:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for providing outer-loop link adaptation, which, when executed, cause a system to perform steps comprising:
(Ishii, Figs 1-16)
providing, by the system communicating with a user equipment (UE), respective transmission configurations based on service types, each configuration including a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) margin size, a step size and a target
(Ishii, [0069] When the CRC result is the ACK, SIR offset is slightly increased based on this equation. In other words, throughput can be increased by raising the MCS level. On the other hand, when the CRC result is the NACK, SIR offset is decreased based on this equation. In other words, the error rate can be reduced by lowering the MCS level and reducing the required SIR…MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
adding, by the system communicating with the UE, to a transmission of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process a parameter per code word that indicates a MCS
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Ishii’s discloses a method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the error rate.
However, Ishii’s does not clearly disclose for targeting the block error rate.
Arvidson discloses for targeting the block error rate such as adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Arvidson’s method of adjusting MCS level based on the ACK or NACK for targeting the block error rate into the targeting the error rate of Ishi in order to improve the specify block error rate of the system.
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
Ishi-Arvidson does not clearly disclose:
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
…parameter per code word that indicates an MCS used …
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Song’s method of identifying the currently MCS parameter used during transmission in order to provide information to the receiver device.
(Song, [0079]…related information being received in the HARQ process, for example, a process identifier, current transmission times, currently used MCS, modulation coding mode, scheduling information, a time sequence relation and starting time of an RTT in the current HARQ, an RV, and information about an allocated time frequency RB_)
As per claim 19:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
ignoring one or more HARQ responses received by the system for a cool off period after a new transmission by the system using a new MCS compared to the MCS used for the transmission of the HARQ process.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 20:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
counting, by the system, a number of times the MCS was changed to the current value and resulted in a NACK for the transmission; determining the count has reached a predetermined value; and decreasing a step down of the MCS for a next predetermined number of transmissions.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-13, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishi et al. (US 2012/0,147,778), further in view of Arvidson et al. (US 2016/0,323,899), in view of Song et al. (US 2012/0,039,260), Moon et al. (US 2017/0,055,248)
As per claim 2:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song does not disclose:
Checking by the system communication with the UE, if an MCS value currently used by the system for new sent messages is equal to the MCS value used for sending the checked message via the additional parameter added per code word.
Moon discloses:
Checking by the system communication with the UE, if an MCS value currently used by the system for new sent messages is equal to the MCS value used for sending the checked message via the additional parameter added per code word.
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Moon’s method of comparing MCS during the transmitting and receiving in order to identify mismatch MCS.
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
As per claim 3:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
based on the checking, reducing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size when an ACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 4:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
based on the checking, increasing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size when a NACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 5:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
based on the checking, not taking HARQ feedback into account for link adaptation and skipping outer loop link adaptation.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
As per claim 9:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song does not disclose:
check if an MCS currently used by the system for a new sent message is equal to the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process.
Moon discloses:
check if an MCS currently used by the system for a new sent message is equal to the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Moon’s method of comparing MCS during the transmitting and receiving in order to identify mismatch MCS.
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
As per claim 10:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
if the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message equals the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process and if the number of code words received during the HARQ process is one:
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
at least one of reduce, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if an ACK is received for the transmission, or increase, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if a NACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
As per claim 11:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
if the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message equals the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process and if the number of code words received during the HARQ process is greater than one, for the code words with the parameter indicating an MCS matching the MCS currently used by the system:
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
at least one of reduce, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if an ACK is received for the transmission or increase, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if a NACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
As per claim 12:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
if the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message does not equal the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for any of the at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
not take HARQ feedback into account for link adaptation and skipping outer loop link adaptation.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
As per claim 13:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
wherein the base station is further configured to ignore a HARQ response for the HARQ process if the MCS used for the transmission does not match an MCS currently used by the system.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
(Arvidson, [0027] an outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) is used to increase or decrease the chosen MCS based on Hybrid Automatic-Repeat-Request (HARQ) feedback. More specifically, the target of the OLLA is to adapt the MCS selection to provide a certain block error rate (BLER))
(Arvidson, [0031] Generally, increasing BLER is countered by the existing link adaptation outer loop by backing off to a more conservative choice of MCS based on the HARQ feedback until the BLER is back at a target level)
As per claim 17:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song further discloses:
at least one of reducing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if an ACK is received for the transmission or increasing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if a NACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song does not disclose:
checking if an MCS currently used by the system for a new sent message is equal to the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process; and if the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message equals the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process and if the number of code words received during the HARQ process is one:
Moon discloses:
checking if an MCS currently used by the system for a new sent message is equal to the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process; and if the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message equals the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process and if the number of code words received during the HARQ process is one:
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Moon’s method of comparing MCS during the transmitting and receiving in order to identify mismatch MCS.
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
As per claim 18:
Ishii’s-Arvidson-Song-Moon further discloses:
checking if an MCS currently used by the system for a new sent message is equal to the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process; andif the MCS currently used by the system for the new sent message equals the MCS indicated by the parameter added per code word for at least one code word of the transmission of the HARQ process and if the number of code words received during the HARQ process is greater than one, for the code words with the parameter indicating an MCS matching the MCS currently used by the system:
(Moon, [0026]…method includes feeding channel state information back to a transmitter, receiving data from the transmitter according to the channel state information, comparing a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) corresponding to the channel state information with a second MCS identified based on a reference signal received along with the data, transmitting, when the first MCS mismatches the second MCS)
at least one of reducing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if an ACK is received for the transmission, or increasing, by the system, the MCS margin by the step size if a NACK is received for the transmission.
(Ishii, [0069] …MCS level is adjusted based on the ACK or the NACK and the range of increase or decrease for setting the MCS level is determined according to the target error rate, and thereby the error rate of the UL-SCH can be brought close to the target error rate)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights