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 abstract of the disclosure has been amended. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
***
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2026-06-23 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. After a thorough review of the arguments, Examiner believes they fall into three groups: (A) Limitations not taught or suggested in the prior art; (B) Piecemeal analysis of references; and ( C) No motivation to combine prior art references. Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments is structured accordingly.
(A) Limitations not taught or suggested in the prior art
Applicant argues that the cited portions of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0367729, hereinafter “Huang”) and Islam et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246378, hereinafter “Islam”) do not teach or suggest the claimed features of applicant’s independent claims, specifically “signal the UE to perform a non-coherent transmission when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth” (please see Remarks, pp. 11-12 and p. 13). Specifically, applicant states:
“The portions of Islam cited by the Examiner do not disclose such a threshold/target bandwidth relationship” (Remarks, p. 11);
“[Islam’s] threshold is a static, localized baseline metric for an individual carrier or bandwidth part; the threshold value itself is not structurally dependent on or scaled according to the size of a target bandwidth” (Remarks, pp. 11-12);
“[Applicant’s] claims require that the signal strength parameter be less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth. The cited passages of Islam do not disclose such an association. The claimed invention structurally links the threshold directly to the target bandwidth, establishing a distinct operational relationship where the threshold changes or is defined relative to the specific bandwidth in question” (Remarks, p. 12); and
“The rejection effectively extracts a threshold from one portion of Islam and bandwidth-part reporting from a separate portion of Islam and combines those concepts to arrive at the claimed threshold-bandwidth relationship. Such a reconstruction is based on hindsight and uses Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap (Remarks, p. 12).
First, Examiner notes that Huang is relied upon to teach or suggest “signal the UE to perform a non-coherent transmission when a value of at least one signal strength parameter is [relatively low]” (see Huang, Fig. 5, step 504; ¶¶0048-0049), and Islam is relied upon to teach or suggest “when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth”; it is the combination of Huang and Islam that teaches or suggests the specific limitations in applicant’s independent claims. For response to Applicant’s argument against the combination of Huang and Islam, please see section ( C) No motivation to combine prior art references below. The remainder of this section will assume the combination of Huang and Islam is proper.
Second, regarding arguments (1), (2), and (3): upon revisiting the reference, Examiner maintains that, as previously cited, Islam does disclose or suggest “signal the UE … when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth” as recited in the independent claims. Specifically, Islam states in ¶0109 that “[A] computed SNR [i.e., signal strength value] is then compared to a threshold. When the SNR is below the threshold, the wireless communication link to the UE has a low SNR, and the network switches to using a light DCI type”. It is the examiner’s position that, considering the entirety of Islam’s disclosure, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this threshold is “associated with a target bandwidth”.
Examiner notes that the limitation “associated with a target bandwidth” allows for a much broader interpretation than that relied upon in Applicant’s arguments. For instance, this limitation (as opposed to, for example, the language of objected Claim 12) does not limit the size/range of the bandwidth; it does not require that the threshold is static or dynamic; nor does it require a unique threshold value for each of a variety of bandwidths. It does not “structurally [link] the threshold directly to the target bandwidth, establishing a distinct operational relationship where the threshold changes or is defined relative to the specific bandwidth in question”, nor does the claim language require the “threshold value itself [to be] structurally dependent on or scaled according to the size of a target bandwidth”, as argued by Applicant (see Remarks, pp. 11-12). Rather, it merely requires the existence of any threshold value (to which the signal strength parameter is compared) in relation to any bandwidth. Examiner posits that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that any device communicating in a wireless communications system will necessarily have a bandwidth upon which it is transmitting and/or receiving data (i.e., a target bandwidth), and that any signal strength value (e.g., SNR) measured and compared against a threshold value will necessarily be measured upon that bandwidth and compared to a threshold value that is therefore inherently related to (i.e., associated with) that bandwidth. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Islam’s ¶0109 teaches or suggests a value of a signal strength parameter being less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth.
Even assuming the threshold in Islam ¶0109 were not to be interpreted as being related to a target bandwidth, Islam discloses such a threshold-bandwidth relationship in ¶¶0242-0246: link quality (e.g., SNR) is compared to a threshold across one or more carrier(s) or bandwidth part(s).
Further, regarding argument (4), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the essential aspects of the limitation(s) upon which Islam is relied to teach or suggest are all included in Islam’s disclosure (e.g., ¶0109 and ¶0242-0246) and therefore do not rely upon Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap.
Thus, Examiner maintains that Islam does in fact teach or suggest “signal the UE … when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth” as recited by applicant’s independent claims.
(B) Piecemeal analysis of references
Applicant argues that “even assuming Islam discloses low-SNR thresholding, Islam employs such thresholding for purposes of selecting a light DCI format and facilitating scheduling-related operations. Islam does not use the threshold as part of a framework for causing a UE to perform a non-coherent transmission” (please see Remarks, p. 12). In response to this argument against Islam, Examiner notes that 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, Huang is relied upon to teach or suggest “signal the UE to perform a non-coherent transmission when a value of at least one signal strength parameter is [relatively low]” (see Huang, Fig. 5, step 504; ¶¶0048-0049), and Islam is relied upon to teach or suggest “when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth”; it is the combination of Huang and Islam that teaches or suggests the specific limitations in applicant’s independent claims. For response to Applicant’s argument against the combination of Huang and Islam, please see section ( C) No motivation to combine prior art references below
( C) No motivation to combine prior art references
Applicant argues that “The Office Action does not provide a sufficient technical rationale explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Huang’s coherent/non-coherent transmission framework by incorporating Islam’s light-DCI thresholding mechanism in the specific manner required by the claims [and that] there is no functional, structural, or logical incentive in the prior art to extract these disparate elements and integrate them into the claimed specific framework” (please see Remarks, pp. 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as previously demonstrated in the prior Office Action, there is teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Huang and Islam found in both the references themselves and in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s alleged invention (i.e., a U.S. Patent Publication to the same inventor/applicant as the applied prior art).
Huang and Islam are both directed to wireless communications, and more specifically to improving wireless communications in low-SNR conditions (please see, for instance, Huang ¶0025 and Islam ¶0039). To this end, Huang teaches/suggests to “signal the UE to perform a non-coherent transmission when a value of at least one signal strength parameter is [relatively low]” (see Huang, Fig. 5, step 504; ¶¶0048-0049). It would be obvious to combine this functionality with the threshold-bandwidth of Islam, since doing so would increase the reliability of wireless communications in low SNR conditions – a goal that each disclosure states explicitly (again: see, for instance, Huang ¶0025 and Islam ¶0039). Further, as noted in the prior Office Action, Huang was demonstrably aware of the concept and advantages of causing a UE to transition to non-coherent transmission in response to SNR being below a threshold value, as noted in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0337533 to Huang et al. (i.e., the same applicant and inventor as the applied reference): “one or both of the base station 105 and the UE 115 may measure (or detect) an SNR. In response to the SNR failing to satisfy (e.g., being less than) a threshold SNR, a non-coherent transmission may be performed” (¶0099 emphasis added).
For these reasons, it is clear that there was some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to combine Huang and Islam to produce Applicant’s claimed invention.
For the above reasons (A), (B), and ( C), the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
***
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.
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.
***
Claims 1-3, 17-19, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0367729 to Huang et al. (“Huang”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0246378 to Islam et al. (“Islam”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 27), Huang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 8, communications device 800, and ¶¶0058-0059; this corresponds to base station(s) 110 of Fig. 1 and ¶¶0028-0029), comprising: one or more memories collectively storing computer-executable instructions (Fig. 8, computer-readable medium/memory 812; ¶¶0058-0059); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Fig. 8, processor 804; ¶¶0058-0059) to cause the apparatus to: … signal the UE to perform a non-coherent transmission when a value of at least one signal strength parameter is relatively low (Fig. 5, step 504; ¶¶0048-0049; see also ¶¶0043-0045. The BS instructs the UE to use non-coherent PUCCH transmissions during relatively low SNR conditions); … and monitor for the non-coherent transmission from the UE (Fig. 5, step 506; ¶¶0048-0049).
Huang does not disclose: obtain an indication of at least one signal strength parameter associated with the apparatus at a user equipment (UE); signal the UE … when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth.
However, Islam discloses: obtain an indication of at least one signal strength parameter associated with the apparatus at a user equipment (UE); signal the UE … when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth (Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246. See also ¶¶0243-0244).
Huang and Islam are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Islam to include: obtain an indication of at least one signal strength parameter associated with the apparatus at a user equipment (UE); signal the UE … when a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth. Doing so would "increase the reliability of wireless communications in low SNR conditions, e.g. when the UE is at a cell edge. Increasing reliability may be especially important when the UE is operating in a mode in which relatively high reliability is required, e.g. if the UE is an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) UE" (Islam, ¶0039). Additionally, in light of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/00337533 to Huang et al. ("Huang 533") Huang was clearly aware of the concept and advantages of causing a UE to transition to non-coherent transmission in response to SNR being below a threshold value (see Huang 533, ¶0099) and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Islam to accomplish this.
As to claim 2, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one signal strength parameter comprises at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) (Islam, Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246).
As to claim 3, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to obtain the indication of the at least one signal strength parameter, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive channel state information (CSI) associated with a set of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources configured for the UE, wherein the CSI comprises the at least one signal strength parameter (Islam, Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246).
As to claim 17 (and similarly applied to claim 28), Huang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 7, communications device 700, and ¶¶0056-0057; this corresponds to UE(s) 120 of Fig. 1 and ¶¶0028-0029), comprising: one or more memories collectively storing computer-executable instructions (Fig. 7, computer-readable medium/memory 712; ¶¶0056-0057); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Fig. 7, processor 704; ¶¶0056-0057) to cause the apparatus to: … receive a message from the network entity triggering the apparatus to perform a non-coherent transmission (Fig. 4, step 404; ¶¶0046-0047); and after reception of the message, transmit the non-coherent transmission to the network entity (Fig. 4, step 406; ¶¶0046-0047).
Huang does not disclose: determine at least one signal strength parameter associated with a network entity at the apparatus, wherein a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth; transmit an indication of the at least one signal strength parameter to the network entity; after transmission of the indication of the at least one signal strength parameter, receive a message from the network entity.
However, Islam discloses: determine at least one signal strength parameter associated with a network entity at the apparatus, wherein a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth; transmit an indication of the at least one signal strength parameter to the network entity; after transmission of the indication of the at least one signal strength parameter, receive a message from the network entity (Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246. See also ¶¶0243-0244).
Huang and Islam are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Islam to include: determine at least one signal strength parameter associated with a network entity at the apparatus, wherein a value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than a threshold associated with a target bandwidth; transmit an indication of the at least one signal strength parameter to the network entity; after transmission of the indication of the at least one signal strength parameter, receive a message from the network entity. Doing so would "increase the reliability of wireless communications in low SNR conditions, e.g. when the UE is at a cell edge. Increasing reliability may be especially important when the UE is operating in a mode in which relatively high reliability is required, e.g. if the UE is an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) UE" (Islam, ¶0039). Additionally, in light of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/00337533 to Huang et al. ("Huang 533") Huang was clearly aware of the concept and advantages of causing a UE to transition to non-coherent transmission in response to SNR being below a threshold value (see Huang 533, ¶0099) and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Islam to accomplish this.
As to claim 18, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the at least one signal strength parameter comprises at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) (Islam, Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246).
As to claim 19, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein in order to transmit the indication of the at least one signal strength parameter, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit channel state information (CSI) associated with a set of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources configured for the apparatus, wherein the CSI comprises the at least one signal strength parameter (Islam, Fig. 6; ¶0109 and ¶0246).
***
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Islam and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0203985 to Malladi et al. (“Malladi”).
As to claim 4, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect at least one of (i) a radio frequency (RF) link failure between the apparatus and the UE or (ii) one or more cyclic redundancy check (CRC) failures associated with one or more messages transmitted to the UE; and responsive to the detection, determine that the value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than the threshold.
However, Malladi discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect at least one of (i) a radio frequency (RF) link failure between the apparatus and the UE or (ii) one or more cyclic redundancy check (CRC) failures associated with one or more messages transmitted to the UE; and responsive to the detection, determine that the value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than the threshold (Fig. 1, steps 130-132; ¶0022).
Huang, Islam, and Malladi are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; uplink power control; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Malladi to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect at least one of (i) a radio frequency (RF) link failure between the apparatus and the UE or (ii) one or more cyclic redundancy check (CRC) failures associated with one or more messages transmitted to the UE; and responsive to the detection, determine that the value of the at least one signal strength parameter is less than the threshold. Doing so would "provide the advantage to maintain the integrity of the uplink HS-DPCCH over various conditions" (Malladi, ¶0029). Furthermore, it merely combines prior art elements according to known methods (cyclic redundancy checks, signal-to-noise ratios, and SNR thresholds) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
***
Claims 5, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Islam and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0346084 to Elshafie et al. (“Elshafie”).
As to claim 5, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of one or more parameters associated with a communication channel between the apparatus and the UE, wherein signaling the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission occurs after a determination that the one or more parameters satisfy one or more second conditions.
However, Elshafie discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of one or more parameters associated with a communication channel between the apparatus and the UE, wherein signaling the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission occurs after a determination that the one or more parameters satisfy one or more second conditions (Fig. 8, step 802 (N); ¶¶0093-0094 and ¶0096).
Huang, Islam, and Elshafie are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Elshafie to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of one or more parameters associated with a communication channel between the apparatus and the UE, wherein signaling the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission occurs after a determination that the one or more parameters satisfy one or more second conditions. Doing so would be advantageous because "DMRS-based communication … may be suboptimal in low SNR conditions. The energy spent on DMRS does not contain any useful information, and, in low SNR conditions, the accuracy of the channel estimation may be poor, leading to significant performance degradation during demodulation and decoding. Thus, at low SNR, noncoherent transmission (without DMRS) can have better results than coherent transmission (with DMRS). This concept applies, for example, to transmission on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)" (Elshafie, ¶0078).
As to claim 6, Huang in view of Islam and further in view of Elshafie discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of a delay spread, a maximum Doppler spread, received power, transmission bandwidth, or a subcarrier spacing (Fig. 8, step 802 (N); ¶¶0093-0094 and ¶0096).
As to claim 21, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the message comprises an indication of a slot aggregation parameter to be used for the non-coherent transmission; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on the slot aggregation parameter.
However, Elshafie discloses: wherein the message comprises an indication of a slot aggregation parameter to be used for the non-coherent transmission; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on the slot aggregation parameter (¶¶0106-0107).
Huang, Islam, and Elshafie are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Elshafie to include: wherein the message comprises an indication of a slot aggregation parameter to be used for the non-coherent transmission; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on the slot aggregation parameter. Doing so would be advantageous because "DMRS-based communication … may be suboptimal in low SNR conditions. The energy spent on DMRS does not contain any useful information, and, in low SNR conditions, the accuracy of the channel estimation may be poor, leading to significant performance degradation during demodulation and decoding. Thus, at low SNR, noncoherent transmission (without DMRS) can have better results than coherent transmission (with DMRS). This concept applies, for example, to transmission on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)" (Elshafie, ¶0078).
***
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie and further in view of Yang et al., “Wideband time frequency coding” (“Yang”).
As to claim 7, Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie discloses the apparatus of claim 5.
Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie does not disclose: wherein the one or more second conditions comprise at least one of (i) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (ii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth.
However, Yang discloses: wherein the one or more second conditions comprise at least one of (i) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (ii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth (p.10563, section II.B; Fig. 1 and equation (6) discloses a target maximum transmission power (i.e., amplitude A)).
Huang, Islam, Elshafie and Yang are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie to incorporate the teachings of Yang to include: wherein the one or more second conditions comprise at least one of (i) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (ii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth. Doing so would be motivated by: "In the wideband regime, the performance of many of the popular modulation schemes such as code division multiple access and orthogonal frequency division multiplexing fails quickly without channel state information. It is known that in this regime, reliable channel state information, both imperfect and perfect, cannot be obtained owing to energy constraints and limitations. This suggests the need for schemes which can perform well without channel state information … When compared to other modulation schemes such as code division multiple access, orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, pulse position modulation, and impulsive frequency shift keying without channel state information, Wideband time frequency coding achieves higher rates in the wideband regime, and performs comparably in smaller bandwidths" (Yang, Abstract).
As to claim 8, Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie and further in view of Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the target duty cycle is less than or equal to 1 (Yang, p.10563, section II.B; Fig. 1 and equation (6)).
As to claim 9, Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie and further in view of Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission is greater than an average transmission power used for a transmission with a longer duration than the non-coherent transmission (Yang, p.10563, section II.B; equation (6) shows amplitude A is greater than average transmission power P_t).
As to claim 10, Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie and further in view of Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of at least one of the target bandwidth, the target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth, or the target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth (Islam, ¶0243).
As to claim 11, Huang in view of Islam and Elshafie and further in view of Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of a slot aggregation parameter to be used for the non-coherent transmission (Elshafie, ¶¶0106-0107).
***
Claims 13, 16, 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Islam and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0367225 to Papaleo et al. (“Papaleo”).
As to claim 13, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, from a plurality of predefined values of the target duty cycle, based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE.
However, Papaleo discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, from a plurality of predefined values of the target duty cycle, based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE (Figs. 3-4, ¶¶0100-0103, and ¶¶0109-0113).
Huang, Islam, and Papaleo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; dynamic duty cycles; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Papaleo to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, from a plurality of predefined values of the target duty cycle, based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE. Doing so would provide "one or more potential advantages. For instance, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may enable a transmitting UE 115 to have an increased number of available resources over which to send transmissions without violating an energy constraint of a victim device. Additionally or alternatively, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may ensure that a UE 115 does not transmit a transmission with too much energy when as bandwidth approaches a higher value" (Papaleo, ¶0093).
As to claim 16, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE.
However, Papaleo discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE (Fig. 4 and ¶¶0109-0113).
Huang, Islam, and Papaleo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; dynamic duty cycles; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Papaleo to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: select a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission, wherein in order to signal the UE to perform the non-coherent transmission, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to signal an indication of the value of the target duty cycle to the UE. Doing so would provide "one or more potential advantages. For instance, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may enable a transmitting UE 115 to have an increased number of available resources over which to send transmissions without violating an energy constraint of a victim device. Additionally or alternatively, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may ensure that a UE 115 does not transmit a transmission with too much energy when as bandwidth approaches a higher value" (Papaleo, ¶0093).
As to claim 20, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the message comprises an indication of at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (iii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) the target duty cycle or (iii) the target maximum transmission power.
However, Papaleo discloses: wherein the message comprises an indication of at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (iii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) the target duty cycle or (iii) the target maximum transmission power (Fig. 4 and ¶¶0109-0113).
Huang, Islam, and Papaleo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; dynamic duty cycles; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Papaleo to include: wherein the message comprises an indication of at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth or (iii) a target maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission at the target bandwidth; and transmission of the non-coherent transmission is further based on at least one of (i) the target bandwidth, (ii) the target duty cycle or (iii) the target maximum transmission power. Doing so would provide "one or more potential advantages. For instance, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may enable a transmitting UE 115 to have an increased number of available resources over which to send transmissions without violating an energy constraint of a victim device. Additionally or alternatively, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may ensure that a UE 115 does not transmit a transmission with too much energy when as bandwidth approaches a higher value" (Papaleo, ¶0093).
As to claim 23, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle.
However, Papaleo discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle (Figs. 3-4, ¶¶0100-0103, and ¶¶0109-0113).
Huang, Islam, and Papaleo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; dynamic duty cycles; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Papaleo to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on at least one of the target bandwidth or a subcarrier spacing associated with the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle. Doing so would provide "one or more potential advantages. For instance, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may enable a transmitting UE 115 to have an increased number of available resources over which to send transmissions without violating an energy constraint of a victim device. Additionally or alternatively, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may ensure that a UE 115 does not transmit a transmission with too much energy when as bandwidth approaches a higher value" (Papaleo, ¶0093).
As to claim 26, Huang in view of Islam discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
Huang in view of Islam does not disclose: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle.
However, Papaleo discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle (Fig. 4 and ¶¶0109-0113).
Huang, Islam, and Papaleo are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communications; techniques for switching between coherent and non-coherent transmissions; dynamic duty cycles; and/or arrangements affording multiple use of the transmission path. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang in view of Islam to incorporate the teachings of Papaleo to include: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a value of a target duty cycle for the non-coherent transmission, wherein the value of the target duty cycle is based on an allowable maximum transmission power for the non-coherent transmission; and transmit the non-coherent transmission according to the value of the target duty cycle. Doing so would provide "one or more potential advantages. For instance, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may enable a transmitting UE 115 to have an increased number of available resources over which to send transmissions without violating an energy constraint of a victim device. Additionally or alternatively, adjusting the duty cycle according to transmission bandwidth may ensure that a UE 115 does not transmit a transmission with too much energy when as bandwidth approaches a higher value" (Papaleo, ¶0093).
***
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 15, 22, 24, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
References Cited
Elshafie, A. et al. (2022). Uplink control information transmission format selection (US 2022/0346084 A1). Filed 2021-04-23.
Huang, Y. et al. (2021). Switch between coherent and non-coherent pucch transmissions (US 2021/0367729 A1). Filed 2021-05-21.
Huang, Y. et al. (2021). Codepoint scrambling for a non-coherent transmission (US 2021/0337533 A1). Filed 2020-10-16.
Islam, T. et al. (2019). Systems and methods for scheduling wireless communications (US 2019/0246378 A1). Filed 2018-02-07.
Malladi, D. et al. (2004). Uplink power control (US 2004/0203985 A1). Filed 2002-06-24.
Papaleo et al. (2020). Dynamic duty cycle (US 2020/0367225 A1). Filed 2020-05-07.
Yang et al. "Wideband time frequency coding," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10561-10571, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2023.3262162.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen, Tao et al. (2002). Method and apparatus for power control in a communication system (US 20020142791 A1). Filed 2001-03-30.
Chong, Chia-Chin et al. (2010). Method for optimum bandwidth selection of time-of-arrival estimators (US 20100295731 A1). Filed 2007-12-21.
Elshafie, Ahmed et al. (2021). Method and apparatus for non-coherent pucch transmission (US 20210377992 A1). Filed 2021-05-25.
Elshafie, Ahmed et al. (2021). User equipment (ue) transmitter and base station receiver for transmissions from a ue to a base station (US 20210367826 A1). Filed 2021-05-20.
Howard, Paul et al. (2007). Automatic selection of coherent and noncoherent transmission in a wireless communication system (US 20070110140 A1). Filed 2005-11-14.
Huang, Yi et al. (2023). Codepoint scrambling for a non-coherent transmission (US 20230107196 A1). Filed 2022-12-08.
Kim, Cheul Soon et al. (2019). Method for transmitting and receiving uplink data channel, and apparatus thereof (US 20190082456 A1). Filed 2018-09-07.
Kumar, Sunil (2024). Dynamic additional demodulation reference signal configuration (US 20240195554 A1). Filed 2022-12-08.
Li, Qiaoyu et al. (2021). Layer mapping for multi-trp transmissions (US 20210306109 A1). Filed 2019-08-13.
Liang, Lin et al. (2023). Method, device and computer readable medium for communication (US 20230283437 A1). Filed 2020-09-18.
Landis, Shay et al. (2021). Non-coherent waveforms for wireless communication (US 20210119846 A1). Filed 2020-10-15.
Lunttila, Timo et al. (2008). Coherent and non-coherent control signaling (US 20080268860 A1). Filed 2008-04-24.
Nadakuduti, Jagadish et al. (2024). Linear computation of radio frequency exposure for coherent transmissions (US 20240298274 A1). Filed 2024-03-01.
Paz, Daniel et al. (2023). Synchronization signal block coverage extension for a sub-terahertz band (US 20230239815 A1). Filed 2022-01-20.
Sanderford, Jr., H. Britton (1998). Enhanced time of arrival method (US 5742635 A). Filed 1994-05-05.
Siriwongpairat, Wipawee et al. (2022). Adaptive coding, modulation, and power control for positive train control systems (US 20220212700 A1). Filed 2021-11-04.
Sun, Haitong et al. (2023). Downlink control for non-coherent joint transmission (US 20230038005 A1). Filed 2022-10-19.
Sun, Jing et al. (2018). Non-coherent joint transmission techniques (US 20180049236 A1). Filed 2017-08-10.
Wang, Renqiu et al. (2020). Devices and methods for uplink control channel design in regular bursts for new radio (nr) networks (US 10542558 B2). Filed 2017-09-14.
Welborn, Matthew L. (2008). Dual-mode system and method for receiving wireless signals (US 20080207152 A1). Filed 2007-02-28.
Yang, Shan et al. (2024). Multi-antenna coherence capability reporting method, terminal, base station and storage medium (US 20240187072 A1). Filed 2021-09-13.
Yang, Wei et al. (2021). Transmitting payloads using m-sequences (US 20210360632 A1). Filed 2021-05-13.
Zhang, Yushu et al. (2019). Phase tracking reference signal (pt-rs) power boosting (US 20190140729 A1). Filed 2019-01-02.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights