DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 04/30/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-14 are pending for evaluation.
Note: The claims are presented with independent claims listed first in numerical order, followed by dependent claims also in numerical order; any dual or mirror claims are grouped with the lowest-numbered claim in their respective pairing.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 01/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English-version of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-14 remain pending for evaluation. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification (i.e., application title) and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/05/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pg. 8-9 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Vijayan fails to teach or suggest at least “wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge. and, for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication, and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded” in the amended Claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applicant has included content from canceled Claims 2-3 and 6 into independent Claim 1. Vijayan supplies the OFDMA/multi-carrier frequency-resource allocation framework. Further, Athalye supplies the content taught from previous Claims 2-3 and Kapnadak supplies the content from previous Claim 6.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pg. 9-11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Athalye fails to teach or suggest at least “wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge. and, for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication” in the previous Claims 2-3 and in the amended Claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Athalye’s Para. [0045-0050] describe controlling terminal transmit power based on the spectral allocation in order to reduce out-of-band/spurious emissions and comply with spectral masks or other regulatory requirements.
In particular, Para. [0045] teaches that a terminal (i.e., terminal 220) can vary its transmit power levels to minimize spurious emissions falling outside the permitted frequency allocation, and Para. [0046] explains that this may be accomplished by reducing the output power of power amplifier 224 from its maximum value, i.e., applying power backoff. Further Para. [0049] teaches that the power backoff may be computed based at least in part of the size and/or position of the UL spectral allocation, including applying a larger backoff when the allocation is close to one or more band edges than when the allocation is closer to the center of the band.
Thus, Athalye teaches setting or limiting the maximum transmission output for the allocated spectral/frequency resource based on the resource’s position so as to reduce out-of-band emissions, which corresponds to the claimed setting of the individual maximum value of transmission output such that signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pg. 11 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Kapnadak fails to teach or suggest at least “wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded” in in the previous Claim 6 and in the amended Claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the rejection relies on Vijayn to teach determining a transmission output value for each user terminal, including obtaining required and maximum transmit power information for each terminal. Kapnadak Para. [00042] further teaches that an optimization module determines optimum parameter values for all UEs in a selected geographical area, including transmit power levels for each UE and particular carrier frequency components assigned to each UE. Kapnadak further explains that the overall network capacity, denoted by
C
, is determined as a function of parameters including operating frequency, resuse factors, transmit power levels, and carrier components.
Thus, Kapnadak teaches jointly determining each UE’s transmission output value with respect to the carrier/frequency component assigned to that UE, such that the determined transmission output value is an optimized value for the allocated frequency resource and does not exceed the maximum transmission output value associated with that allocated resource.
In conclusion, the system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak teaches “wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge. and, for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication, and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded” in the amended Claim 1. Accordingly, Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak teaches the amended Claim 1, and Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to independent Claim(s) 13 and 14 and the dependent claims are substantively the same as those set forth for Claim 1. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claim 1 are equally applicable to the independent Claim(s) 13 and 14 and the dependent claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan et al. (US 2009/0040975, previously presented), Vijayan hereinafter, in view of Athalye et al. (US 2009/0191910, previously presented), Athalye hereinafter, and Kapnadak et al. (US 2017/0111800, previously presented), Kapnadak hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Vijayan teaches a communication apparatus that performs wireless communication compliant with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, the communication apparatus comprising (Fig. 6, Para. [0060-0072]):
at least one memory that stores a set of instructions (Fig. 6, element 622, Para. [0060-0072]);
and at least one processor that executes the instructions, the instructions, when executed, causing the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising (Fig. 6, elements 614, 620, and 634, Para. [0060-0072]):
executing allocation processing for allocating individual frequency resources to a plurality of user terminals (Fig. 5, steps 512-516; Para. [0057-0058] - [0057] FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram of an embodiment of a process 500 to allocate and assign carriers to active terminals. Initially, pertinent information regarding the transmit power of each terminal to be scheduled for data transmission is obtained (step 512)…The pertinent transmit power information may thus be provided in various forms. [0058] The maximum number of carriers that may be allocated to each terminal is then determined based on the transmit power information (e.g., based on the required and maximum transmit powers) (step 514). This may be achieved by using various schemes such as the two carrier allocation schemes described above. A specific number of carriers is then allocated to each terminal based on (1) the maximum number of carriers that may be allocated to the terminal, (2) the total number of carriers available for allocation to all terminals, and (3) any number of other factors (step 516). The number of carriers allocated to each terminal is bounded by the maximum number that may be allocated. Moreover, the sum of all carriers allocated to the terminals is bounded by the total number of carriers available for allocation; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]);
and controlling communication such that Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) communication with the plurality of user terminals is performed using respective frequency resources allocated to the plurality of user terminals in the allocation processing (Fig. 5, step 518; Para. [0059] - Specific carriers are then assigned to each terminal in a manner such that the amount of out-of-band emissions may be reduced or minimized (step 518). This may be achieved by using various schemes such as the two carrier assignment schemes described above. The assigned carriers for each terminal may then be signaled to the terminal via a carrier assignment. Each scheduled terminal would then transmit using the specific assigned carriers and for the scheduled time period; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]),
wherein in the allocation processing, a frequency resource closer to an edge of a usable frequency band is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a lower transmission output, and a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a higher transmission output (Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056] - [0054] In one carrier assignment scheme, carriers are assigned to active terminals based on their required transmit powers. For a given transmission interval, the number of carriers to allocate to each active terminal is first determined (e.g., based on the required transmit power of the active terminal and possibly other factors as described above). The active terminals may be associated with different required transmit powers. The group of carriers to assign to the active terminal with the largest required transmit power is then selected to be near the middle of the operating, the group of carriers for the active terminal with the next largest required transmit power is selected to be those closest to the middle of the operating band, and so on, and the group of carriers for the active terminal with the lowest required transmit power is then selected to be toward the edges of the operating band. This carrier assignment scheme can reduce out-of-band emissions to the extent possible; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Examiner’s Note: Vijayan describes a multi-access, multi-carrier wireless communication apparatus (Vijayan Fig. 6) in which an access point communicates with multiple terminals using OFDMA-based transmission (Vijayan Fig. 2, Para. [0027-0029], which the examiner interprets as compliant with IEEE 802.11 because OFDMA is a core transmission feature of IEEE 802.11 standards. Vijayan’s carrier assignment process in Fig. 5, steps 512-516 corresponds to allocation of individual frequency resources, and its transmit-power-based placement of carriers – assigning lower-power terminals toward band edges and higher-power terminals toward interior frequencies – corresponds to control of multi-user OFDMA communication based on transmission output characteristics (Vijayan Fig 5, Para. [0053-0055]).
Yet, Vijayan does not expressly teach wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge and for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication.
However, Athalye teaches
wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge (Para. [0047-0051] - [0049] In view of the above, a power backoff can be computed by base station 210 and/or terminal 220 based at least in part on the size and/or position of the UL spectral allocation for terminal 220 in the permitted frequency band associated with system 200. For example, a spectral allocation for terminal 220 can include subcarriers that are closer to the center of the permitted bandwidth and/or subcarriers that are closer to the edge of the permitted bandwidth. Thus, in order to reduce out-of-band power, power amplifier 224 at terminal 220 can apply a larger power backoff when the allocation is close to one or more of the band edges than when the allocation is closer to the center of the band. By way of a specific, non-limiting example, this difference can be on the order of 1-3 dB; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
Examiner’s Note: In Athalye , a “spectral allocation comprising one or more subcarriers withing a permitted frequency” corresponds to the claims’ frequency resource. Athalye further teaches applying a power backoff (power headroom) to each spectral allocation based on its position relative to the band edge, wherein allocations closer to the band edge require greater backoff and allocations farther from the edge require less backoff. Because the applied backoff limits the maximum power that may be transmitted on that spectral allocation, the backoff defines a maximum transmission output value for each frequency resource.
for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication (Para. [0045] - Referring again to FIG. 2, in addition to an allocation of bandwidth for terminal 220, base station 210 and/or terminal 220 can, in accordance with one aspect, control an amount of power utilized by terminal 220 for transmission within system 200. In one example, in order to comply with spectral masks or other regulatory requirements and/or to reduce interference with other nearby devices or frequency channels, terminal 220 can vary its transmit power levels in order to minimize the intensity of spurious emissions from terminal 220 that fall outside the permitted frequency allocation for terminal 220. In another example, resource scheduler 214 at base station 210 can assign a power level to be utilized by terminal 220 in the form of a power spectral density (PSD) requirement. A PSD assigned by resource scheduler 214 can be linked to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) and/or bandwidth allocation given by resource scheduler, such that a PSD can be inferred by terminal 220 from a MCS assignment and/or a bandwidth allocation. Alternatively, PSD can be assigned by resource scheduler independently; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
Examiner’s Note: In Athalye, the claim’s “regulatory value” corresponds to “spectral masks or other regulatory requirements,” and “signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency” corresponds to “spurious emissions falling outside the permitted frequency allocation.” Athalye teaches controlling transmit power levels to minimize the intensity of such spurious emissions so as to comply with regulatory requirements, thereby teaching setting transmission output based on out-of-band signal limits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vijayan’s invention of “techniques for managing peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) for multi-carrier modulation in wireless communication systems” (Vijayan Para. [0003]) with Athalye’s invention of “techniques for power management in a wireless communication system” (Athalye Para. [0003]) because Athalye’s invention provides “efficient and adaptable power headroom management techniques” which “minimize spurious emissions at a terminal,” thereby reducing “capacity degradations to adjacent channels due to interference” (Athalye Para. [0007]).
Yet, Vijayan nor Athalye expressly teach and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded.
However, Kapnadak teaches
and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded (Fig. 2, step 240, Para. [0042] - In step 240, method 200 optimizes the network for the geographical area in accordance with the network information and the user endpoint device information that is processed for each cell, and the cell specific traffic pattern that is generated for each cell. For example, the method optimizes (broadly increases the capacity) for a geographical area of the network based on: the list of UEs and their respective classifications (e.g. as cell interior, cell edge or overshooting), the list of hotspots of each cell that are identified, and the cell specific traffic patterns that are generated. For example, an optimization module that maximizes or increases a network capacity across the geographical area determines, for an optimal capacity level: a frequency reuse factor for each frequency, transmit power levels for each UE (e.g., based on whether the UE is classified as a cell interior or a cell edge UE), particular operating frequencies to be used in each cell, and particular carrier frequency components to be assigned to each UE. Mathematically one can express this optimization as follows; let ƒ.sub.1.sup.i . . . ƒ.sub.n.sub.i.sup.i, denote the multiple frequencies where n.sub.i is the number of carrier components assigned to the i.sup.th UE. Similarly, the transmit powers and reuse factors for UE i on each of the carrier components is denoted by P.sub.1.sup.i . . . P.sub.n.sub.i.sup.i and R.sub.1.sup.i . . . R.sub.n.sub.i.sup.i, respectively. The goal of the optimization module is to determine the optimal parameter values for all UEs in the selected geographical area that would maximize the overall network capacity denoted by C, which is a function of the variables (operation frequency, reuse factors, transmit power levels and carrier components); See also Fig. 1, Para. [0013-0036]; Fig. 2, Para. [0037-0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded as taught by Kapnadak, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye, so that it would provide techniques which maximize “the network capacity of cell sites by coordinating frequency assignments based on a view of the entire geographical area that is selected for optimization” (Kapnadak Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 13, Vijayan teaches a method for controlling a communication apparatus that performs wireless communication compliant with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802.11) standard, the method comprising (Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]):
executing allocation processing for allocating individual frequency resources to a plurality of user terminals (Fig. 5, steps 512-516; Para. [0057-0058]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]);
and controlling communication such that Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) communication with the plurality of user terminals is performed using respective frequency resources allocated to the plurality of user terminals in the allocation processing (Fig. 5, step 518; Para. [0059]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]),
wherein in the allocation processing, a frequency resource closer to an edge of a usable frequency band is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a lower transmission output, and a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a higher transmission output (Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Yet, Vijayan does not expressly teach wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge and for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication.
However, Athalye teaches
wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge (Para. [0047-0051]; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication (Para. [0045]; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vijayan’s invention of “techniques for managing peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) for multi-carrier modulation in wireless communication systems” (Vijayan Para. [0003]) with Athalye’s invention of “techniques for power management in a wireless communication system” (Athalye Para. [0003]) because Athalye’s invention provides “efficient and adaptable power headroom management techniques” which “minimize spurious emissions at a terminal,” thereby reducing “capacity degradations to adjacent channels due to interference” (Athalye Para. [0007]).
Yet, Vijayan nor Athalye expressly teach and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded.
However, Kapnadak teaches
and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded (Fig. 2, step 240, Para. [0042]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0013-0036]; Fig. 2, Para. [0037-0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded as taught by Kapnadak, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye, so that it would provide techniques which maximize “the network capacity of cell sites by coordinating frequency assignments based on a view of the entire geographical area that is selected for optimization” (Kapnadak Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 14, Vijayan teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method for controlling a communication apparatus that performs wireless communication compliant with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802.11) standard, the method comprising (Fig. 6, element 622, Para. [0060-0072]):
executing allocation processing for allocating individual frequency resources to a plurality of user terminals (Fig. 5, steps 512-516; Para. [0057-0058]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]);
and controlling communication such that Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) communication with the plurality of user terminals is performed using respective frequency resources allocated to the plurality of user terminals in the allocation processing (Fig. 5, step 518; Para. [0059]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]),
wherein in the allocation processing, a frequency resource closer to an edge of a usable frequency band is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a lower transmission output, and a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a higher transmission output (Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Yet, Vijayan does not expressly teach wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge and for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication.
However, Athalye teaches
wherein an individual maximum value of transmission output is set for each frequency resource used in the OFDMA communication such that a higher maximum value is set for a frequency resource farther from the edge (Para. [0047-0051]; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
for each frequency resource, the individual maximum value of transmission output is set such that a signal strength at a predetermined out-of-band frequency does not exceed a regulatory value as a result of the frequency resource being used in the OFDMA communication (Para. [0045]; See also Para. [0054]; Fig. 3, Para. [0043-0044]; Fig. 6, Para. [0064-0065]; Fig. 7, Para. [0066]; Fig. 8, Para. [0067-0068]; Fig. 9, Para. [0069]; Fig. 13, Para. [0080]; Fig. 14, Para. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vijayan’s invention of “techniques for managing peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) for multi-carrier modulation in wireless communication systems” (Vijayan Para. [0003]) with Athalye’s invention of “techniques for power management in a wireless communication system” (Athalye Para. [0003]) because Athalye’s invention provides “efficient and adaptable power headroom management techniques” which “minimize spurious emissions at a terminal,” thereby reducing “capacity degradations to adjacent channels due to interference” (Athalye Para. [0007]).
Yet, Vijayan nor Athalye expressly teach and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded.
However, Kapnadak teaches
and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded (Fig. 2, step 240, Para. [0042]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0013-0036]; Fig. 2, Para. [0037-0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide and wherein, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a transmission output value is determined to ensure that the individual maximum value of transmission output set for the allocated frequency resource is not exceeded as taught by Kapnadak, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye, so that it would provide techniques which maximize “the network capacity of cell sites by coordinating frequency assignments based on a view of the entire geographical area that is selected for optimization” (Kapnadak Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak teaches Claim 1.
Vijayan further teaches
executing determination processing for determining a transmission output value for each of the plurality of user terminals (Fig. 5, step 512, Para. [0057] - FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram of an embodiment of a process 500 to allocate and assign carriers to active terminals. Initially, pertinent information regarding the transmit power of each terminal to be scheduled for data transmission is obtained (step 512). In an embodiment, the required and maximum transmit powers for each terminal are obtained. The required transmit power for each terminal may be sent by the terminal or obtained based on some other means. The maximum transmit power for each terminal may be sent by the terminal, known a priori, or obtained based on some other means. In another embodiment, the difference between the maximum and required transmit powers for each terminal is obtained. In yet another embodiment, the maximum transmit power and the initial transmit power for each terminal may be obtained (e.g., during registration), and the required transmit power for the terminal may thereafter be estimated based on the initial transmit power and an accumulation of all power control commands sent to the terminal. The pertinent transmit power information may thus be provided in various forms; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]),
and wherein in the allocation processing, a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal for which a higher transmission output value is determined by the determination processing (Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Regarding Claim 7, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak Claim 5.
Vijayan further teaches
wherein in the determination processing, for each of the plurality of user terminals, the transmission output value is determined for the user terminal based on a distance between the user terminal and the communication apparatus (Fig. 1; Para. [0035-0038] - Referring back to FIG. 1, the terminals may be dispersed throughout the system. Each terminal is associated with a particular path loss to its access point, which is largely dependent on the distance between the terminal and the access point. Each terminal also requires a particular received signal quality at the access point to achieve a target level of performance. The required received signal quality may be quantified by a particular received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the target level of performance may be quantified by a particular frame error rate (FER), packet error rate (PER), and so on. The required transmit power for each terminal is dependent on its path loss and its required received signal quality; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Examiner’s Note: Vijayan Para. [0035] states that the transmit power for each terminal is dependent on its path loss to its access point and that path loss is dependent on the distance between the terminal and the access point. Therefore, the transmission output value of the user terminal in Vijayan Para. [0035] is based on a distance between the user terminal and the communication apparatus (i.e., access point).
Regarding Claim 8, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak Claim 7.
Vijayan further teaches
obtaining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a measurement value related to the distance based on a difference between a strength of a signal transmitted by the communication apparatus and a strength of a signal received by the user terminal, and wherein in the determination processing, for each of the plurality of user terminals, the transmission output value is determined for the user terminal based on the measurement value obtained for the user terminal (Fig. 1; Para. [0035-0038]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Examiner’s Note: The examiner interprets the measurement value defined in Claim 8 as path loss.
Regarding Claim 10, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak Claim 1.
Vijayan further teaches
wherein only in a case where the OFDMA communication is performed using a specific communication channel within the usable frequency band, the allocation processing is executed such that a frequency resource closer to the edge of the usable frequency band is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a lower transmission output, and a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a higher transmission output (Para. [0027] -The techniques described herein for managing PAPR may be implemented in various wireless multiple-access multi-carrier communication systems. For example, system 100 may be an OFDMA system that utilizes OFDM for data transmission. Moreover, these techniques may be used for the uplink as well as the downlink. For clarity, these techniques are described specifically for the uplink in an OFDMA system. In the following description, an active terminal is one that is scheduled for data transmission on the uplink (and possibly the downlink); Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056] - [0054] In one carrier assignment scheme, carriers are assigned to active terminals based on their required transmit powers. For a given transmission interval, the number of carriers to allocate to each active terminal is first determined (e.g., based on the required transmit power of the active terminal and possibly other factors as described above). The active terminals may be associated with different required transmit powers. The group of carriers to assign to the active terminal with the largest required transmit power is then selected to be near the middle of the operating, the group of carriers for the active terminal with the next largest required transmit power is selected to be those closest to the middle of the operating band, and so on, and the group of carriers for the active terminal with the lowest required transmit power is then selected to be toward the edges of the operating band. This carrier assignment scheme can reduce out-of-band emissions to the extent possible; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2024/0172138, previously presented), Tong hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 4, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak teaches Claim 1.
Vijayan further teaches
wherein the OFDMA communication is performed using a plurality of frequency resources included in one communication channel in the usable frequency band (Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]),
Yet, Vijayan, Athalye, nor Kapnadak expressly teach a maximum value of transmission output across all of the frequency resources in the communication channel is higher in a case where the OFDMA communication is performed with the plurality of user terminals than in a case where OFDM communication is performed with a single user terminal using the communication channel.
However, Tong teaches
a maximum value of transmission output across all of the frequency resources in the communication channel is higher in a case where the OFDMA communication is performed with the plurality of user terminals than in a case where OFDM communication is performed with a single user terminal using the communication channel (Para. [0033] - Each STA may have a plurality of available channels, and each available channel may correspond to one maximum transmission power. The maximum available transmission power of the STA is the minimum of the plurality of maximum transmission power corresponding to the plurality of available channels of the STA, rather than saying that the one with the maximum transmission power of the plurality of available channels is the maximum available transmission power of the STA. When the AP performs selection, for example, intends to send on the primary 40 MHz, whether the primary 40 MHz of each STA is available may be determined first, and then the STA with the maximum of the maximum available transmission power is selected to communicate in the STAs with available primary 40 MHz channels. However, the maximum available transmission power is the minimum of the maximum transmission power of the two 20 MHz channels corresponding to the primary 40 MHz channel, since the maximum transmission power is a limit value, the stability of the communication system may be ensured by determining the maximum available transmission power with the minimum limit value; See also Para. [0008, 0032, 0044]).
Examiner’s Note: Tong teaches determining a single maximum available transmission power applicable across a plurality of frequency resources when communicating with a plurality of STAs, wherein that value is determined for a communication channel comprising multiple sub-channels. Tong further distinguishes this multi-STA determination from communication with a single STA, selecting the STA having the highest such maximum available transmission power when multiple STAs are eligible for communication on the channel. Accordingly, Tong teaches that the maximum transmission output across all frequency resources in a communication channel is higher in a plurality-of-STA case than in a single-STA case.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a maximum value of transmission output across all of the frequency resources in the communication channel is higher in a case where the OFDMA communication is performed with the plurality of user terminals than in a case where OFDM communication is performed with a single user terminal using the communication channel as taught by Tong, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak, so that it would provide means to ensure communication system stability “by determining the maximum available transmission power with the minimum limit value” (Tong Para. [0033]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak, and further in view of Bitran et al. (US 2013/0272260, previously presented), Bitran hereinafter, and J. P. Ebert and A. Wolisz (previously presented), "Combined tuning of RF power and medium access control for WLANs," 1999 IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications (MoMuC'99) (Cat. No.99EX384), San Diego, CA, USA, 1999, pp. 74-82, doi: 10.1109/MOMUC.1999.819475, Ebert hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 9, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak teaches Claim 7.
Yet, Vijayan, Athalye, nor Kapnadak expressly teach determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a modulation scheme for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing.
However, Bitran teaches
determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a modulation scheme for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing (Para. [0015] - In an embodiment, the method includes transmitting acknowledgement messages to the station at a power level that is lower than a normal power level used for data transmission to the station, and setting a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) of the acknowledgement messages to match the power level. In another embodiment, preventing the interference includes transmitting the signals at a power level that is selected so as to block the station but refrain from blocking other stations that are not in close proximity to the wireless device. In yet another embodiment, preventing the interference includes synchronizing in the wireless device a time base of the second connection to a frame time base of the first connection; See also Para. [0014, 0072, 0083, 0090, 0093-0094, 0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a modulation scheme for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing as taught by Bitran, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak, so that it would provide methods which mitigate interference from WLAN communications upon LTE transmissions or vice versa “especially when the transmitter and receiver are collocated and when the two networks operate in overlapping or adjacent frequency bands” (Bitran Para. [0028]).
Yet, Vijayan, Athalye, Kapnadak, nor Bitran expressly teach determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a data length for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing.
However, Ebert teaches
determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a data length for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing (Section VII. Conclusion - With regards to IEEE 802.1 1. we showed that there is an optimal transmission power for every packet size. Further, our results indicate, that packets should be as large as possible to save energy for low BERs (<
10
-
5
). For higher BERs a packet size of approximately 500 Bytes leads to the largest reduction in energy consumption. IEEE 802.11 provides no mechanism for assembling the packets to make them large. This would be very useful for non-real-time data. But IEEE 802.1 1 provides a mechanism, called MAC packet fragmentation, which allows for fragmenting large packets into smaller units. This mechanism is in particular helpful in case of high bit error rates. Fragmentation will increase the probability, that a packet will go through the channel since shorter packets are less subject to be hit by an error; See also Section I. Introduction; Section V. Energy Consumption; Section VI. Results).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining, for each of the plurality of user terminals, a data length for data transmission to the user terminal, based on at least the transmission output value determined by the determination processing as taught by Ebert, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak/Bitran, so that it would provide methods “to achieve an optimal operating point with respect to energy consumption” for IEEE 802.11 networks (Ebert Section V).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0142132, previously presented), Kim hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 11, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak teaches Claim 1.
Vijayan further teaches
the allocation processing is executed such that a frequency resource closer to the edge of the usable frequency band is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a lower transmission output, and a frequency resource farther from the edge is allocated to a user terminal, among the plurality of user terminals, that corresponds to a higher transmission output (Fig. 4; Para. [0053-0056]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0024-0027]; Fig. 2, Para. [0028-0030]; Fig. 3A-C, Para. [0031-0048]; Fig. 4, Para. [0053-0056]; Fig. 5, Para. [0057-0059]).
Yet, Vijayan, Athalye, nor Kapnadak expressly teach wherein only in a case where the communication apparatus is used in a specific country.
However, Kim teaches
wherein only in a case where the communication apparatus is used in a specific country (Fig. 5, Para. [0065-0071] - [0065] Country information element indicating channels which are based on the operating frequencies and locations (countries) of APs and STAs are defined in the IEEE 802.11 WLAN standard. FIG. 5 illustrates a country information element. The country information element is transmitted within a beacon frame or a probe response frame),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein only in a case where the communication apparatus is used in a specific country as taught by Kim, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak, so that it would provide “a method for receiving available channel information, which allows an STA which operates as an unlicensed device in the TVWS (TV whitespace) to efficiently acquire available channel information” (Kim Para. [0010]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Iwai et al. (US 2018/0227950, previously presented), Iwai hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 12, Vijayan in view of Athalye and Kapnadak teaches Claim 1.
Yet, Vijayan, Athalye, nor Kapnadak expressly teach wherein each of the frequency resources used in the OFDMA communication is a resource unit (RU) constituted by a plurality of consecutive subcarriers.
However, Iwai teaches
wherein each of the frequency resources used in the OFDMA communication is a resource unit (RU) constituted by a plurality of consecutive subcarriers (Fig. 14, Para. [0169-0171] - [0169] FIG. 14 illustrates the RU allocation pattern being discussed in standardization of 11ax (refer to, for example, IEEE 802.11-15/1066r0, “HE-SIG-B Contents”). The numerical values illustrated in FIG. 14 indicate the number of tones that constitute RU #1 to RU #9 (also referred to as the “number of subcarriers”). As illustrated in FIG. 14, in the RU allocation pattern for 20 MHz or less, only the central RU (RU #5 surrounded by a black border in FIG. 14) may be allocated. Here, since the bandwidth of the central RU (26 tones) is the minimum, and the central RU is a resource in the vicinity of the DC subcarrier, the interference is large, so that the reception performance may be lower than that of the other RUs; See also Fig. 6B, Para. [0097-0103]; Fig. 10B, Para. [0112-0122]; Fig. 11B, Para. [0123-0136]; Fig. 13B, Para. [0154-0157]; Fig. 13C, Para. [0159-0161]; Fig. 15, Para. [0172-0175]; Fig. 16, Para. [0178-0182]; Fig. 18B, Para. [0189-0196]; Fig. 21B, Para. [0205-0212]; Fig. 21C, Para. [0214-0220]; Fig. 22B, Para. [0224-0229]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein each of the frequency resources used in the OFDMA communication is a resource unit (RU) constituted by a plurality of consecutive subcarriers as taught by Iwai, in the combined system of Vijayan/Athalye/Kapnadak, so that it would provide a method for “increasing the system throughput without an increase in the amount of information of a control signal transmitted through random access” (Iwai Para. [0009]).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pop et al. (US 20230199744):
Para. [0023] - This disclosure is directed to resource block allocation for a wireless communication device (e.g., user equipment). A cellular network may allocate a frequency range (e.g., a frequency channel or frequency band) for which the user equipment may transmit signals. When transmitting a signal, the user equipment may generate radio frequency signals (e.g., emissions) outside of the allocated channel. To avoid or reduce such out-of-channel (or out-of-band) emissions, a non-governmental (e.g., the 3.sup.rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)) or governmental (e.g., the United States Federal Communications Commission) regulatory body may provide specifications or regulations that may limit the maximum power output of transmissions. To comply with specifications and/or regulations, the user equipment may reduce output power of a transmission signal. This power reduction may be referred to as maximum power reduction (MPR). In practice, the MPR may be an amount of transmission power reduction for the user equipment to back off, and may be applied in multiple and/or incremental steps.
Para. [0082] - The inner resource block region corresponds to a first maximum power reduction value and the outer resource block region corresponds to a second maximum power reduction value, the second maximum power reduction value greater than the first maximum power reduction value.
See Also Para. [0027] and Para. [0052]
Nguyen et al. (US 20210105728), Para. [0094] - In some aspects, the UE may determine a value for P.sub.1, representing the transmit power available to be allocated to an individual PSFCH transmission to a particular other UE, based on one or more transmit power constraints. In some aspects, the one or more transmit power constraints may generally include a maximum transmit power capability of the UE (e.g., a maximum output power), one or more parameters that relate to a power backoff, one or more power sharing rules to be applied to concurrent PSFCH transmissions, and/or the like. For example, the one or more parameters that relate to the power backoff may include a maximum power reduction (MPR) value by which the maximum transmit power capability of the UE is to be reduced (e.g., to control adjacent channel leakage). In some aspects, the parameters that relate to the power backoff may further include an additional MPR (A-MPR) value that is added to the MPR value to provide additional spectral emission control (e.g., the A-MPR value specifies a further amount by which the maximum transmit power capability of the UE is to be reduced due to regulatory, deployment, or other constraints). Accordingly, based on the maximum transmit power capability of the UE and the one or more parameters that relate to the power backoff (e.g., MPR, A-MPR, and/or the like), the UE may determine a maximum transmit power that is available to allocate among a quantity of n concurrent PSFCH transmissions in a particular candidate set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 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, Marcus Smith can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights