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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, 24, 31, 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 16, 24, 31, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1) in view of Zewail (US-20220225346).
As to claim 1, 16, 24, 31, 36: Visoz teaches a method of wireless communication by a wireless node, comprising: … ; receiving the wireless signal (The receiver RE1 comprises an iterative receiver REIC which performs one or more iterations of a soft detection DET and a soft decoding DECOD with interference subtraction IC of one or more data packets TBs transmitted by an access point through a transmission channel; According to an embodiment of the invention, the data packets are received via a PDSCH channel of a 5G access network.); filtering the wireless signal via an iterative interference cancelation process, the filtering is performed within the first time window (FIG. 2 represents a diagram illustrating the principle of an iterative receiver with interference subtraction. The received signal S r is detected by a detector DET then decoded by a decoder DECOD. A feedback loop sends decoding information back to the detector to perform IC interference subtraction. The possibly multi-user detector can be a soft IC (Minimum Mean-Square Error based soft Interference Cancellation) MMSE detector); and decoding the filtered wireless signal, wherein the decoding is performed within the first time window (claim 1, claim 2, claim 11The latency budget corresponds to the time between the reception of the PDSCH by the terminal and the time ordered by the indicator indic to transmit the acknowledgment of receipt ACK/NACK).
Visoz may not explicitly teach receiving an indication of a non-legacy signal processing requirement that indicates a first time window, wherein the first time window is based on a modulation scheme associated with a wireless signal. However, Zewail teaches receiving an indication of a non-legacy signal processing requirement that indicates a first time window ([0075-82] the DL grant 508 may also include an offset K1 514 (e.g., a feedback gap indicator) that may correspond to a time gap between the UE 502′s reception of the PDSCH 512), wherein the first time window is based on a modulation scheme associated with a wireless signal ([0075-82] K1 offset Table 616 may be defined (or modified from an existing table) for the UE 602, which may indicate or specify the K1 offset threshold 614 the UE 602 may use for different SCSs and/or MCSs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement first time window, taught by Zewail, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and more relaxed ICI compensation ([0081]). In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zewail and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 17, 18, 32, 33, 37, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346) in view of Li (WO-2019154347-A1).
As to claim 2, 17, 32, 37: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1.
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the first time window is further based on a first subcarrier spacing (SCS) associated with the wireless signal. However, Li teaches wherein the first time window is further based on a first subcarrier spacing (SCS) associated with the wireless signal ([0029, 30] UE processing time for HARQ-ACK under different SCS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement non-legacy signal processing requirements, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable dynamic and flexible timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Li and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 3, 18, 33, 38: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1.
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the non-legacy signal processing requirement is indicative of a plurality of time windows including the first time window, and wherein each of the plurality of time windows is mapped to at least one of: one of a plurality of modulation schemes or one of a plurality of subcarrier spacings (SCSs). However, Li teaches wherein the non-legacy signal processing requirement is indicative of a plurality of time windows including the first time window ([0029, 30] plurality of UE processing times and SCS symbols), and wherein each of the plurality of time windows is mapped to at least one of: one of a plurality of modulation schemes or one of a plurality of subcarrier spacings (SCSs) ([0029, 30] UE processing time for HARQ-ACK under different SCS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement non-legacy signal processing requirements, taught by Li, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable dynamic and flexible timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Li and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 19, 20, 34, 35, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346), Li (WO-2019154347-A1) in view of Medithe (US-20230091638), Yin (US-20220070900).
As to claim 4, 19, 34, 39: Visoz teaches the method of claim 3.
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of modulation schemes comprise a first modulation range and a second modulation range. However, Medithe teaches wherein the plurality of modulation schemes comprise a first modulation range and a second modulation range ([0058, 129] multiple MCS range).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple MCS ranges, taught by Medithe, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve link adaptation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yin and Medithe in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Visoz may not explicitly teach and wherein the plurality of time windows comprise at least a first subset of time windows associated with the first modulation range and a second subset of time windows associated with the second modulation range. However, Yin teaches and wherein the plurality of time windows comprise at least a first subset of time windows associated with the first modulation range and a second subset of time windows associated with the second modulation range ([0035] Timing in the HARQ-ACK timing table may correspond to modulation and coding scheme (MCS) settings or transport block (TB) sizes.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of time windows associated with modulation ranges, taught by Yin, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve timing reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yin and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 5, 20, 35, 40: Visoz teaches the method of claim 3,
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of modulation schemes comprise a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) range and a second MCS range. However, Medithe teaches wherein the plurality of modulation schemes comprise a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) range and a second MCS range ([0058, 129] multiple MCS range).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple MCS ranges, taught by Medithe, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve link adaptation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yin and Medithe in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Visoz may not explicitly teach and wherein the plurality of time windows comprise at least a first subset of time windows associated with the first MCS range and a second subset of time windows associated with the second MCS range. However, Yin teaches and wherein the plurality of time windows comprise at least a first subset of time windows associated with the first MCS range and a second subset of time windows associated with the second MCS range ([0035] Timing in the HARQ-ACK timing table may correspond to modulation and coding scheme (MCS) settings or transport block (TB) sizes.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement plurality of time windows associated with modulation ranges, taught by Yin, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve timing reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yin and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346), Li (WO-2019154347-A1) in view of 3GPP, "Physical layer procedures for data," 3GPP TS 38.214 version 17.6.0 Release 17, June 2023.
As to claim 6, 21: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an indication of scheduled resources (claim 12 receiver for receiving a time indicator of an allotted time by the access point to the terminal); and transmitting an acknowledgment of the wireless signal for transmission (claim 12 acknowledgment of receipt; the access point transmits to the terminal the time Indic during which the terminal must have transmitted its message of good reception ACK or bad reception NACK. Knowing this time Indic at its disposal, the terminal adapts the number N” of iterations that it performs before having to send back its message of good reception ACK or bad reception NACK).
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the scheduled resources are outside of the first time window indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement. However, 3GPP teaches wherein the scheduled resources are outside of the first time window indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement (section 5.3 If the first uplink symbol of the PUCCH which carries the HARQ-ACK information, as defined by the assigned HARQ-ACK timing K1 and Koffset, if configured, and the PUCCH resource to be used and including the effect of the timing advance, starts no earlier than at symbol L1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement schedule outside time window, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and prevent resource conflicts. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Visoz and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346), Li (WO-2019154347-A1) in view of Lightstone (US-20230300819).
As to claim 7, 22: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1.
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the first time window indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement is greater than a corresponding second time window of a legacy signal processing requirement. However, Lightstone teaches wherein the first time window indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement is greater than a corresponding second time window of a legacy signal processing requirement ([0015]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement flexible timing, taught by Lightstone, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and support different UE capabilities. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lightstone and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346), Li (WO-2019154347-A1) in view of Klemes (US-20160049973).
As to claim 8, 23: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1.
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the iterative interference cancelation process comprises one or more of a phase noise interference cancelation algorithm, an in-phase and quadrature (IQ) imbalance interference cancelation algorithm, and a non-linearity interference cancelation algorithm. However, Klemes teaches wherein the iterative interference cancelation process comprises one or more of a phase noise interference cancelation algorithm, an in-phase and quadrature (IQ) imbalance interference cancelation algorithm, and a non-linearity interference cancelation algorithm (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement phase noise cancellation, taught by Klemes, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce noise and improve demodulation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Visoz and Klemes in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visoz (WO-2022117963-A1), Zewail (US-20220225346), Li (WO-2019154347-A1) in view of Chatterjee (WO-2020072847-A1), Huang (US-20190222357).
As to claim 9: Visoz teaches the method of claim 1,
Visoz may not explicitly teach wherein the wireless signal comprises one or more demodulation reference signals (DMRSs), and wherein the first time window is indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement in terms of … symbols starting at a symbol via which a last DMRS of the one or more DMRSs is received by the wireless node. However, Chatterjee teaches wherein the wireless signal comprises one or more demodulation reference signals (DMRSs), and wherein the first time window is indicated by the non-legacy signal processing requirement ([0046, 47] UE processing time value in OFDM symbols) in terms of … symbols starting at a symbol via which a last DMRS of the one or more DMRSs is received by the wireless node ([0006] However, such shifting of the last DMRS implies that the UE may need to wait until the reception of the last DMRS symbol before performing channel estimation and demodulation for PDSCH reception; [0037, 46] To address the impact on UE minimum processing time for PDSCH processing due to the shift of the last DMRS symbol within the PDSCH duration, in an aspect, the minimum UE processing time value (N1) (in OFDM symbols) is increased by one symbol when the last single-symbol DMRS location within the PDSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement window beginning after last DMRS, taught by Chatterjee, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve timing reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chatterjee and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Visoz may not explicitly teach contiguous. However, Huang teaches contiguous ([0162] contiguous symbols).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement contiguous symbols, taught by Huang, into the communication system, taught by Visoz, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve HARQ timing. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Huang and Visoz in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights