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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 7/13/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Simply adding paragraph 18.1 to overcome the rejection of claims 13 and 20 under 35 USC 112 is not sufficient.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to the claims, the recitation of first target BLER being between 8 and 12 percent and the second BLER target between 1 and 3 percent is indefinite. US PG PUB 20250253970 A1 (published version of the present application) recites in paragraph 18 “For example, a default BLER target may be 10% and the lowered BLER target may be 2%. Optionally, depending on network particulars, the BLER target may be less than 2% and may be adjusted, for example, to between zero and one percent.” The specification does not recite a range between 1 and 3 percent for the second BLER and does not recite a range between 8 and 12 for the first BLER.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) further in view of Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) teaches, a method comprising: assigning(see paragraph 27; target BLER defined for certain transmissions) for a first group of devices (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a wearable device, electric meter, gas pump, large or small kitchen appliance, healthcare device, implant, sensor/actuator, internet of things (IoT) devices) and second group of devices (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a smartphone or a laptop), wherein the first group of devices are reduced capability (RedCap) (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a wearable device, electric meter, gas pump, large or small kitchen appliance, healthcare device, implant, sensor/actuator, display, internet of things (IoT) devices, always on (AON) devices) and the second group of devices are enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) devices (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a smartphone or a laptop).
Li teaches, that “by using MCS offsets for different LCs and/or receiving multiple UL grants with multiple MCSs, the techniques presented herein may permit UE may be able to adjust MCSs used to transmit UL channel transmissions associated with the one or more LCs to meet PDBs, reducing the need for retransmissions and, thereby, saving time, frequency, and power resources” (see paragraph 101).
However, Li specifically fails to teach, lowering the default BLER target to an adjusted BLER target for the first group of devices; and assigning the adjusted BLER target to the first group of devices, thereby extending coverage for the first group of devices.
Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1) teaches, lowering the default BLER target to an adjusted BLER target for the first group of devices; and assigning the adjusted BLER target to the first group of devices, thereby extending coverage for the first group of devices (see paragraph 75; a RedCap UE of the first category may support a lower maximum MCS than a UE of the second category (e.g., quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) or the like as compared to 256-quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) or the like), may support a lower maximum transmit power than a UE of the second category; lowering the maximum allowed MCS of a RedCap is a known way of lowering its BLER; see paragraph 40; The frequencies between FR1 and FR2 are often referred to as mid-band frequencies. Recent 5G NR studies have identified an operating band for these mid-band frequencies as frequency range designation FR3 (7.125 GHz-24.25 GHz). Frequency bands falling within FR3 may inherit FR1 characteristics and/or FR2 characteristics, and thus may effectively extend features of FR1 and/or FR2 into mid-band frequencies).
Li and Shehata both relate to wireless/cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the lowering of the MCS as taught by Shehata into the teachings of Li. The motivation to do so would be to make RedCap transmissions more robust by having a simple symbols the have larger geometric separations in the signal space and thus making them much harder to corrupt.
In regards to claim 10 and 17, Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) teaches a system comprising: a memory storing data and instructions; and a processor accessing the stored data and executing the stored instructions to perform operations including; assigning a first block error rate (BLER) target (see paragraph 27; target BLER defined for certain transmissions) for a first group of devices wherein the first group of devices are enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) devices (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a smartphone or a laptop); assigning a second BLER target for a second group of devices, wherein the second BLER target (see paragraph 27; target BLER defined for certain transmissions) is lower than the first BLER target (see paragraph 29; a BS may allocate a lower MCS in order to meet a BLER target) and the second group of devices are reduced capability (RedCap) devices (see paragraph 35; see figure 1 UE 104, which can be a wearable device, electric meter, gas pump, large or small kitchen appliance, healthcare device, implant, sensor/actuator, internet of things (IoT) devices).
In further regards to claims 10 and 17, Li that “by using MCS offsets for different LCs and/or receiving multiple UL grants with multiple MCSs, the techniques presented herein may permit UE may be able to adjust MCSs used to transmit UL channel transmissions associated with the one or more LCs to meet PDBs, reducing the need for retransmissions and, thereby, saving time, frequency, and power resources” (see paragraph 101).
Li, however, fails to teach applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices to extend coverage for the second group of devices.
Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1) teaches, applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices to extend coverage for the second group of devices (see paragraph 75; a RedCap UE of the first category may support a lower maximum MCS than a UE of the second category (e.g., quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) or the like as compared to 256-quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) or the like), may support a lower maximum transmit power than a UE of the second category; lowering the maximum allowed MCS of a RedCap is a known way of lowering its BLER; see paragraph 40; The frequencies between FR1 and FR2 are often referred to as mid-band frequencies. Recent 5G NR studies have identified an operating band for these mid-band frequencies as frequency range designation FR3 (7.125 GHz-24.25 GHz). Frequency bands falling within FR3 may inherit FR1 characteristics and/or FR2 characteristics, and thus may effectively extend features of FR1 and/or FR2 into mid-band frequencies).
Li and Shehata both relate to wireless/cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the lowering of the MCS as taught by Shehata into the teachings of Li. The motivation to do so would be to make RedCap transmissions more robust by having simple symbols the have larger geometric separations in the signal space and thus making them much harder to corrupt.
In regards to claim 2, Li teaches, providing the adjusted BLER target for uplink BLER (see paragraph 71; Scheduler 344 may schedule UEs for data transmission on the downlink and/or uplink).
In regards to claim 3, Li teaches, providing the adjusted BLER target for both downlink and uplink BLER (see paragraph 71; Scheduler 344 may schedule UEs for data transmission on the downlink and/or uplink).
In regards to claim 11, Li teaches, wherein the applying comprises applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for uplink BLER (see paragraph 132; the UE 604 may group the plurality of LCs into the different groups of LCs based on a BLER target for each LC in the plurality of LCs. Each group of LCs may be associated with a different BLER target and includes LCs of the plurality of LCs associated with that BLER target. In some cases, two different groups of LC may be sufficient, such as a first group of LCs associated with a first BLER target and a second group of LCs associated with a second BLER target).
In regards to claim 12, Li teaches, wherein the applying comprises applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for both uplink BLER and downlink BLER (see paragraph 71; Scheduler 344 may schedule UEs for data transmission on the downlink and/or uplink).
In regards to claim 19, Li teaches, applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for at least uplink BLER (see paragraph 132; the UE 604 may group the plurality of LCs into the different groups of LCs based on a BLER target for each LC in the plurality of LCs. Each group of LCs may be associated with a different BLER target and includes LCs of the plurality of LCs associated with that BLER target. In some cases, two different groups of LC may be sufficient, such as a first group of LCs associated with a first BLER target and a second group of LCs associated with a second BLER target).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) further in view of Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1) and further in view of Muraoka (US Publication 2020/0053598 A1).
In further regards to claim 5, Li and Shehata in combination teach all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Both references teach lowering the MCS as shown above.
However, there is no particular showing of an MCS table and thus LI and Shehata fail to teach, using a particular modulation coding scheme (MCS) table to further extend coverage for the first group of devices.
Muraoka (US Publication 2020/0053598 A1) teaches, using a particular modulation coding scheme (MCS) table to further extend coverage for the first group of devices (see figure 4 and paragraph 18 for the MCS table; see paragraph 30; as the BLER decreases due to the lower MCS, the probability of actually obtaining a desired transmission rate can be increased).
Li, Shehata and Muraoka relate to cellular communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the MCS table as taught by Muraoka into the teachings of Li and Shehata. The motivation to do so would be to provide adaptive modulation and coding that allows a bandwidth-guaranteed user to achieve a desired transmission rate.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) further in view of Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1) and further in view of Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C).
In regard to claim 7, Li and Shehata teach all the limitations of the parent claims as stated above.
Li and Shehata also teach BLER as stated above.
Li and Shehata however fail to teach, wherein the default BLER target is 10% and the adjusted BLER target is 2%.
Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C) however teaches, wherein the default BLER target is 10% and the adjusted BLER target is 2% (see the attached section from the reference; original BLER can be 10% the adjustment of the BLER target value, setting the new BLER target value and the return time, the new BLER target value is set to be several grades: 1%, 2%).
Li, Shehata and Deng both relate to improvement in wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the adjustment of the target BLER to a specific percentage as shown by Deng into the teachings of Li and Shehata. The motivation to do so would be to allow for optimizing the load on the system by reducing the wireless resource consumption to an actual percentage that is sufficient enough to provide the service.
In regards claims 13 and 20, Li and Shehata teach all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Li teaches a first BLER target is between 8% and 12% (see paragraph 95; the MCS indicated within the UL grant may target a same BLER (e.g., 10%) for all LCs) BLER target of 1% (see paragraph 98).
Li and Shehata however fail to teach, wherein the first BLER target is between 8% and 12% and the second BLER target is between 1% and 3%.
Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C) however teaches, wherein the first BLER target is between 8% and 12% and the second BLER target is between 1% and 3% (see the attached section from the reference; original BLER can be 10% the adjustment of the BLER target value, setting the new BLER target value and the return time, the new BLER target value is set to be several grades: 1%, 2%).
Li, Shehata and Deng relate to improvement in wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the adjustment of the target BLER to a specific percentage as shown by Deng into the teachings of Li and Shehata. The motivation to do so would be to allow for optimizing the load on the system by reducing the wireless resource consumption to an actual percentage that is sufficient enough to provide the service.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Publication 2023/0300844 A1) further in view of Shehata et al. (US Publication 2023/0379848 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2023/0370914 A1).
In regard to claims 8-9, 14-15 and 18 Li and Shehata in combination teach all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Li and Shehata fail to teach, creating information elements (IEs) for cell access for the first group of devices and creating IEs for random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection between new radio (NR) carriers and transmitting information elements (IEs) for cell access for the RedCap devices and the IEs comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs and providing information elements (IEs) comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs for the second group of devices.
Kim et al. (US Publication 2023/0370914 A1) teaches, creating information elements (IEs) for cell access for the first group of devices and transmitting information elements (IEs) for cell access for the RedCap devices (see paragraph 62; configured for the RedCap terminal are referred to as a third SS #0 and a third CORESET #0. The first SS #0, the second SS #0, and the third SS #0 may be the same as or different from each other. The first CORESET #0, the second CORESET #0, and the third CORESET #0 may be the same as or different from each other. SS #0 and CORESET #0 are each indicated by a 4-bit index. The 4-bit index indicates a configuration predetermined in the standard specification. Except for SS #0 and CORESET #0, the detailed configuration of the remaining SS and CORSESET is indicated by each individual information element) and creating IEs for random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection between new radio (NR) carriers and the IEs comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs and providing information elements (IEs) comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs for the second group of devices (see paragraphs 576-577; The terminal selects for RA-SDT a RACH-ConfigCommon IE from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; A RACH-ConfigCommon IE is selected for RA-SDT from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; see paragraph 532 for terminal being RedCap; see paragraph 574; The terminal selects, based at least in part on a specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL among a plurality of rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SULs, a uplink carrier. The specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL is the one included in a first RACH-ConfigCommon IE among a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs for the first uplink)).
Li, Shehata and Kim are both related to data transmission in cellular/wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of the random access configuration for the redcap terminals as taught by Kim into the teachings of Li and Shehata. The motivation to do so would be to allow for higher data rate and lower latency when the Redcap device wants has continuous small data transmissions.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) and the Nader reference filed on 7/13/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 20 under 35 USC 112, simply adding paragraph 18.1 to overcome the rejection of claims 13 and 20 under 35 USC 112 is not sufficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-8786. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights