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 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “First, the Examiner maps the claimed "system performance metric characterizing an average performance" to Levy's disclosure of a "target BLER threshold". Levy's target BLER is a static, predefined error-rate threshold for an individual radio link. A static threshold for a single link does not characterize an "average performance" calculated across a "network system." Furthermore, as Applicant claims, a system performance metric is characterized as an average performance to meet QoS requirements of data rate and BLER rather than only one requirement of "target BLER threshold" as per Levy's art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “not characterize an "average performance" calculated across a "network system”” and “a system performance metric is characterized as an average performance to meet QoS requirements of data rate and BLER”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, the Examiner maps the claimed conditional logic to Levy's disclosure of keeping the recommended MCS for another transmission if the BLER on the link is lower than the target BLER threshold. This is a mischaracterization. Levy merely describes standard Outer-Loop Link Adaptation (OLLA). Levy does not disclose shifting the computational burden of calculating optimal link parameters between the STA and the AP. Specifically, Levy fails to teach comparing a local STA processing metric to a system-wide average metric to determine whether the STA or the AP calculates the Optimal Link (OL) parameters, as explicitly required by Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “shifting of any computational burden of calculating optimal link parameters between the STA and the AP”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims were given a broad and a very reasonable interpretation; and the limitations as recited in the claims have been met.
Applicant further summarizes their arguments that “Because Levy fails to disclose an STA utility metric based on a data processing parameter, a system performance metric characterizing an average performance, and the conditional logic for collaborative offloading, Levy cannot anticipate independent claim 1. Independent claim 20 contains corresponding system limitations and is allowable for the same reasons. Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 13, 14, and 18-19 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the responses above and the rejection of the claims to see how Levy teaches the claimed limitations. Thus all the claimed and argued limitations have been met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 13, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210345399 A1 herein Levy.
Claim 1, Levy discloses A method for link adaption (LA) (Abstract) in a network system including an access point (AP) coupled to one or more stations (STAs) through a respective one or more links (Fig. 1: 105, 115, base stations and user equipment), (0034, target BLER threshold), by the AP:
obtaining, from each STA, a respective set of LA parameters, the respective set of LA parameters including, when the respective STA utility metric is greater than the system performance metric, the respective set of OL parameters (0039, recommended MCS even when the current communications is using the best RI, “In convention, best RI means best BLER, i.e. low BLER”; 0034, BLER on the link is lower than target BLER threshold at a first time instance, where the recommended MCS is kept for another transmission if the if the channel conditions remain the same); and
determining, for each STA from which the respective set of LA parameters lacks the respective set of OL parameters, the respective set of OL parameters (Fig. 9: 902-906; 0131-0132, providing group configurations with MCSs and RIs for multiple UEs in response to receiving a report from only one UE as oppose to other UEs in the group that do not send OL parameters); and
wherein each STA having: a respective STA transmission performance metric characterizing at least one data transmission parameter of the respective STA for the respective link (0034, target block error rate for the link), and a respective STA utility metric characterizing at least one data processing parameter of the respective STA (0006, reports with modulation and coding scheme (MCS) recommendations and RI, i.e. an indication of BLER; 0034, BLER on the link)
Claim 2, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising, by the AP, for at least one STA of the one or more STAs, in accordance with the respective set of OL parameters, at least one of: sending data thereto through the respective link, and receiving data therefrom through the respective link (0007, link adaptation for the UE; 0039).
Claim 3, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 wherein: each STA further has, for determining the respective set of OL parameters, a respective processing time and a respective time limit (0039, expected channel state reports at certain intervals over a certain period of time); and the respective set of LA parameters obtained from each STA by the AP includes the respective set of OL parameters when the respective STA utility metric is greater than the system performance metric and when the respective processing time is less than the respective time limit (0039, utilizing the best recommended RI to perform communications based on channel state reports that are sent at certain intervals over a period of time) .
Claim 4, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising, by the AP, determining the system performance metric (0034, target BLER).
Claim 5, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 wherein the respective STA transmission performance metric for each STA is defined by a respective STA transmission performance function (Fig. 5: 508; 0119, Channel State Module calculates all the parameters for the channel state report, i.e. CSI/CQI, MCS, RI and PMI).
Claim 9, Levy discloses The method of claim 5 wherein each STA is configured to determine the respective set of OL parameters by maximizing the respective STA transmission performance function (0006, recommending MCS for the best RI; 0034, selecting am MCS to improve a BLER).
Claim 13, Levy discloses The method of claim 5 wherein the respective STA utility function of each STA is defined by the respective STA transmission performance function and a respective STA cost transformation (0034, change in MCS levels based on reaching target BLER, thus cost transformation).
Claim 14, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 wherein obtaining, from each STA, the respective set of LA parameters includes obtaining, from each STA of which the LA parameters lacks the respective set of OL parameters, a respective signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio and one or more respective quality-of-service requirements (0032-0034, interference and channel response, CQI, MCS; 0038, channel/interference measurements reported to the base station; 0071. CQI based on interference measurements, thus SINR; 0032-0036, expected CQI understood to be expected QoS).
Claim 18, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising: by the AP of the network: applying, for the at least one STA of the one or more STAs, the set of OL parameters to the respective link (0034-0036, adjusting MCS for communications with different stations).
Claim 19, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 wherein at least one set of OL parameters includes one of: a plurality of parameters for a modulation and coding scheme, and a plurality of parameters for a resource unit allocation (0034, CQI with MCS).
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of US 20190223033 A1 herein Nam.
Claim 6, Levy discloses The method of claim 5 wherein the system performance metric is defined by a system performance function (Fig. 4: 408, Channel State Module at base station).
Levy may not explicitly disclose the system performance function depending from an average of the respective STA transmission performance function for all STAs of the one or more STAs.
Nam discloses disclose the system performance function depending from an average of the respective STA transmission performance function for all STAs of the one or more STAs (0006, averaging the BLER for UEs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include offsets as taught by Nam so as to minimize initial performance impact (0007).
Claim 7, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Claim 8, Levy in view of Nam disclose The method of any one of claims 6 or 7. Levy discloses wherein determining, for each STA from which the respective set of LA parameters lacks the respective set of OL parameters, the respective set of OL parameters includes maximizing the system performance function (0034, keeping a target BLER to be below a threshold, thus maximizing).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of US 20200092822 A1 herein Kang.
Claim 10, Levy discloses The method of claim 5. Levy discloses MCS (which affects data rate) and BLER (error rate of packets/blocks of packets/bits).
Levy may not explicitly disclose wherein the respective STA transmission performance function of each STA depends from a respective weighted sum of a respective data rate provisioning index and a respective packet error rate provisioning index.
Kang discloses wherein the respective STA transmission performance function of each STA depends from a respective weighted sum of a respective data rate provisioning index and a respective packet error rate provisioning index (Equations 00003 and 00006, current data rate of users based on packet error rate (BLER)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include adjusting power of terminals as taught by Kang so as to improve the spectral efficiency of the cell (0006).
Claim 11, Levy in view of Kang discloses The method of claim 10. Levy may not explicitly disclose wherein the respective data rate provisioning index and the respective packet error rate provisioning index each depend from a respective transmission power allocation.
Kang discloses wherein the respective data rate provisioning index and the respective packet error rate provisioning index each depend from a respective transmission power allocation (Equations 00003 and 00006, current data rate of users based on packet error rate (BLER)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include adjusting power of terminals as taught by Kang so as to improve the spectral efficiency of the cell (0006).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of US 20060084460 A1 herein Matsuo.
Claim 12, Levy discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising, by the AP: sending, to each STA, the system performance metric (0034).
Levy may not explicitly disclose a respective transmission power allocation.
Matsuo discloses a respective transmission power allocation (0020, transmit power control (TPC) signals to terminals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include TPC as taught by Matsuo so as to control station power consumption (0020).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of US 20130294397 A1 herein Lee.
Claim 15, Levy discloses The method of claim 1. Levy may not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining, from each STA, the respective set of LA parameters includes obtaining a frame having a high throughput (HT) control field indicating the set of LA parameters.
Lee discloses wherein obtaining, from each STA, the respective set of LA parameters includes obtaining a frame having a high throughput (HT) control field indicating the set of LA parameters (0063, HT control field). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include HT control as taught by Lee so as to increase the speed and reliability of a network and to extend the coverage of a wireless network (0003).
Claim 16, Levy in view of Lee discloses The method of claim 15. Levy may not explicitly disclose wherein, for each STA from which the respective set of LA parameters lacks the respective set of OL parameters, the HT control field has a plurality of subfields indicating a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio and one or more respective quality- of-service requirements.
Lee discloses wherein, for each STA from which the respective set of LA parameters lacks the respective set of OL parameters, the HT control field has a plurality of subfields indicating a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio and one or more respective quality- of-service requirements (0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include HT control as taught by Lee so as to increase the speed and reliability of a network and to extend the coverage of a wireless network (0003).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Matsuo in view of US 20130294397 A1 herein Lee.
Claim 17, Levy in view of Lee discloses The method of claim 12. Levy may not explicitly disclose wherein sending, to each STA, the system performance metric and the respective transmission power allocation includes sending a frame having a high throughput (HT) control field, the HT control field including a plurality of subfields indicating the respective transmission power allocation and the system performance metric.
Lee discloses wherein sending, to each STA, the system performance metric and the respective transmission power allocation includes sending a frame having a high throughput (HT) control field, the HT control field including a plurality of subfields indicating the respective transmission power allocation and the system performance metric (0091-0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to include HT control as taught by Lee so as to increase the speed and reliability of a network and to extend the coverage of a wireless network (0003).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190097750 A1 – Method, preferably implemented in a transmission node (81, 91, 11), for performing link adaptation of a radio link (106, 108, C1), comprising: determining (72) an estimation error of an estimated quality of the radio link (106, 108, C1), adapting (74) a Modulation and/or Coding Scheme, referred to as MCS, decision input value, which is based on the estimated quality of the radio link, by increasing the MCS decision input value if the determined estimation error exceeds a predetermined threshold, selecting (75) a MCS based on the MCS input value as adapted.
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights