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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action, 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. See MPEP 2304.01(c).
In particular, the Examiner is unable to find subject matter support in the following foreign application(s): JP2022-197193. With regard to foreign application, JP2022-197193, the Examiner is unable to locate a suitable English translation of the document. An English translation of JP2022-197193 is required to obtain the priority date associated with said application number.
Thus, the current benefit accords to the instant applicant’s filing date 09/18/2023 because the instant application provides adequate support or enablement for the subject matter of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 recite “the decoding error probability” but it should be “a decoding error probability.” Claim 4 recites “MCS.” Acronyms must be specified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a controller which determines, acquires, calculates, performs, and/or adds in claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, the claims recite “the transmitter transmits the data by using the modulation and channel coding scheme which is determined by communication quality corrected with the correction value.” It is not clear if “the modulation and channel coding scheme” which is “determined by communication quality corrected with the correction value” is the same as or different from “a/the value of a/the modulation and channel coding scheme” which is determined by the controller in previous limitations. For example, are both recitations of “modulation and channel coding scheme” determined by the communication quality and the controller referring to the same MCS or different MCSs. Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1 because they do not alleviate the issue in claim 1.
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 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) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oved et al. (US 2022/0353010 A1) in view of Doi et al. (US 2024/0106550 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7, Oved discloses A base station apparatus comprising (claim 1), A communication control method in a base station apparatus which transmits data to a terminal apparatus, the communication control method comprising (claim 6), and A wireless communication system comprising: a terminal apparatus; and a base station apparatus, wherein the base station apparatus includes (claim 7) (Fig. 2, [0199]-[0201]: base station 110 transmits data to UE 120. The base station includes a controller/processor 240 and antennas 234):
a controller which determines a value of a modulation and channel coding scheme to be applied at a transmission timing of a data packet required to have the decoding error probability below a target error rate (Fig. 4, [0227]: The transmitter device 405 may be a base station 110. [0230]: the transmitter device may select an overestimated code rate for a communication (for an initial transmission or an initial message of the communication). [0232]: the transmitter device 405 may select the code rate (and/or an MCS) for the communication based at least in part on a CQI (e.g., for downlink communications) or an estimated SINR (e.g., for uplink communications) and a target BLER … the transmitter device 405 may perform the OLLA using a high target BLER (such as 95 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent, and/or 75 percent, among other examples) to ensure that the selected code rate (and/or the selected MCS) for initial transmissions of communications remains overestimated. [0225]: a high target BLER may be used for OLLA (such as 95 percent, 90 percent, and/or 80 percent, among other examples) to ensure that the selected code rate (or MCS) for initial transmissions remains overestimated as channel conditions change over time. Therefore, for a communication, the transmitter device may be enabled to dynamically adapt the code rate of a communication (based at least in part on the ACK or NACK feedback from the receiver device) to approach an optimal or achievable code rate for the channel (e.g., based on current channel conditions experienced by the receiver device)); and
a transmitter which transmits data to a terminal apparatus (Fig. 4, [0227]: the receiver device may be a UE 120. [0236]: the transmitter device 405 may transmit, and the receiver device 410 may receive, the initial message (e.g., the initial transmission) of the communication), wherein
the controller acquires a distribution of variations between first communication quality used when the value of the modulation and channel coding scheme is determined ([0230]: the transmitter device may select an overestimated code rate for a communication (for an initial transmission or an initial message of the communication). “Overestimated code rate” may refer to a code rate that is greater than an acceptable or determined code rate that is based at least in part on the CSI for the channel. [0232]: the transmitter device 405 may perform OLLA after receiving the CSI report (and before receiving a next CSI report from the receiver device 410). For example, the transmitter device 405 may select the code rate (and/or an MCS) for the communication based at least in part on a CQI (e.g., for downlink communications) or an estimated SINR (e.g., for uplink communications) and a target BLER. Further, the transmitter device 405 may apply a correction factor for selecting the code rate and/or MCS based at least in part on tracking previous decoding results, based at least in part on calculating observed long-term BLER based on previous ACKs or NACKs, and based on adjusting the correction factor to achieve the target BLER.), and
Oved does not disclose, but discloses Doi discloses the controller acquires a distribution of variations between first communication quality used when the value of the modulation and channel coding scheme is determined and second communication quality at a time of data transmission and determines a correction value of the first communication quality according to the distribution of the variations and the target error rate ([0004]: the actual reception SINR significantly differs from the roughly-estimated reception SINR… In the OLLA, an OLLA correction value is added to a roughly-estimated reception SINR. This OLLA correction value is determined based on the successful and failed receptions of transmitted data signals. Therefore, it can help to keep an error rate R at or near a predetermined value. [0005]: correcting, in single-user transmission, a reception SINR threshold used in MCS selection by using a correction value. Correcting a reception SINR threshold by a correction value is equivalent to the above-described correction of a reception SINR by a correction value. Each radio terminal has one correction value. Then, when a transmission data signal has been successfully received, the correction value is increased by a value α.sub.Up, whereas when the reception of a transmission data signal has failed, the correction value is decreased by a value α.sub.Down. Here, a target error rate in the scheduling is represented by R.sub.Target. Then, by setting α.sub.Up and α.sub.Down so that a relation α.sub.Up:α.sub.Down=R.sub.Target:(1−R.sub.Target) holds, it is possible to help to keep the error rate at or near R.sub.Target), and
the transmitter transmits the data by using the modulation and channel coding scheme which is determined by communication quality corrected with the correction value ([0004]: In the OLLA, an OLLA correction value is added to a roughly-estimated reception SINR. This OLLA correction value is determined based on the successful and failed receptions of transmitted data signals. Therefore, it can help to keep an error rate R at or near a predetermined value. It is possible to improve the spectrum efficiency of the communication system by appropriately selecting … a modulation and coding scheme (MCS: Modulation and Coding Scheme) by using the OLLA-corrected reception SINR. [0005]: This is because when transmission is performed N times with the error rate being at or near R.sub.Target, on average, transmission succeeds N×(1−R.sub.Target) times and fails N×R.sub.Target times, so that the amount of adjustment obtained by the success and the amount of adjustment obtained by the failure become equal to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Oved, to determine actual reception SINR and roughly-estimated reception SINR, perform OLLA correction on the roughly-estimated reception SINR by using a correction value to help keep an error rate R, and select a MCS by using the OLLA-corrected reception SINR, and perform transmission, as taught by Doi.
Doing so improves the spectrum efficiency of the communication system by appropriately selecting radio terminals for which spatial multiplexing is performed and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS: Modulation and Coding Scheme) by using the OLLA-corrected reception SINR (Doi: [0004]).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Oved in view of Doi discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Oved does not disclose, but Doi discloses wherein
the controller determines the correction value according to a value of a quantile value of the distribution of the variations at the target error rate ([0004]: an OLLA correction value is added to a roughly-estimated reception SINR. This OLLA correction value is determined based on the successful and failed receptions of transmitted data signals. Therefore, it can help to keep an error rate R at or near a predetermined value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Oved, to determine the OLLA correction value based on successful and failed receptions of transmitted data signals to keep an error rate at or near a predetermined value, as taught by Doi.
Doing so improves the spectrum efficiency of the communication system by appropriately selecting radio terminals for which spatial multiplexing is performed and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS: Modulation and Coding Scheme) by using the OLLA-corrected reception SINR (Doi: [0004]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oved et al. (US 2022/0353010 A1) in view of Doi et al. (US 2024/0106550 A1) and Kalyanasundaram et al. (US 2023/0254074 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Oved in view of Doi discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Oved does not disclose, but Kalyanasundaram discloses wherein
the distribution of the variations includes a conditional distribution by the value of the modulation and channel coding scheme ([0076] FIG. 5 illustrates an example of optimal throughput for a range of SINR values with BLER constraints 5% and 20%. Discontinuities in the throughput correspond to different MCS indices, e.g. a switch from MCS i to MCS i+1. As noted above, MCS selection may be performed by gNB 120 based on an estimated SINR value. For downlink, the CQI value received from UE 100, or an equivalent wideband SINR value mapping to the CQI value, may be utilized for MCS selection. For uplink, gNB 120 may use for example received PUSCH SINR for MCS selection. For both downlink and uplink, this received SINR value along with the additional OLLA offset (Δ.sub.OLLA) may be used for MCS selection), and
the correction value is determined by using the conditional distribution corresponding to the value of the modulation and channel coding scheme before application of the correction value ([0066]: The OLLA offset may be for example increased for each ACK and decreased for each NACK. The OLLA offset may be added to the inner loop SINR value to obtain an outer loop SINR value: SINR.sub.OLLA=SINR.sub.ILLA+Δ.sub.OLLA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Oved, to adjust the OLLA offset based on ACK/NACK and add the OLLA offset to the inner loop SINR value to obtain an outer loop SINR value, wherein the SINR is estimated and used for MCS selection, as taught by Kalyanasundaram.
Doing so achieves the objective of maximizing throughput, optimal MCS and optimal BLER operating point may be determined based on the estimated SINR (Kalyanasundaram: [0077]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oved et al. (US 2022/0353010 A1) in view of Doi et al. (US 2024/0106550 A1) and Luo et al. (WO 2021047456 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Oved in view of Doi discloses all features of claim(s) 1 as outlined above.
Oved does not disclose, but Luo discloses wherein
the controller adds a second correction amount determined by using presence/absence information of an error after data re-transmission to the correction value (pg. 5 last two paragraphs until pg. 6 first paragraph: according to the relationship between the probability of the feedback information and the preset range, the initial correction value of the MCS index value is corrected to obtain the correction value of the MCS index value. … If the probability of retransmitting information NACK is less than the minimum value of the preset range, the current MCS index value is considered to be lower than the current channel quality, and the MCS index value should be raised to improve the data transmission rate of the terminal, and the initial correction value of the MCS index value is increased according to the preset correction value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Oved, to correct (i.e., increase) the initial correction value according to a preset correction value based on a probability of retransmitting information NACK, as taught by Luo.
Doing so provides a link adaptive adjustment method … trained by logistic regression data (Luo: pg. 6 paragraph 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al. (US 2024/0106508 A1) teaches “At 316, BS 170, according to the received CQI index, PMI and RI, performs frequency-selective scheduling in order to schedule downlink transmission of a transport block to the UE, and chooses a MCS index corresponding to a combination of modulation order, target code rate, and time-frequency resources for transmission of the transport block” ([0119]), “BS 170 receives the ACK/NACK feedback from UE 110 at 322. If it is ACK, this transmission is finished. If it is NACK, BS 170 performs open loop link adaptation (OLLA) to adjust the MCS index and time-frequency resources, as indicated at 324, and starts a retransmission procedure as indicated at 326” ([0124]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights