DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 16, 20 and 24 have been amended.
Claims 8, 15, 23 and 30 have been canceled.
Objection to claims is withdrawn since claims have been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims filed on 05/20/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are on the amended features raising a new scope and do not apply to any of the references being used in the instant office action, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
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, 6, 9, 12-13, 16, 21, 24 and 27-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Gokceli comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories ([0095 and Fig. 8] “FIG. 8 illustrates an apparatus comprising a processing circuitry, such as at least one processor, and at least one memory 20 including a computer program code (software) 24, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (software) are configured”) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a configuration signal indicating that tone reservation is activated ([0071 and Fig. 4] “the access node may transmit a downlink message to the terminal device in step 404, indicating that the tone reservation has been enabled and, further, the above-described parameter(s) of the tone reservation.” Fig. 4: 404 “Configure Tone Reservation (Conditions, Sub-carrier Allocation)”) on a first plurality of resource elements of a downlink transmission ([0070] “The parameters may include allocation of the tones reserved for the peak correction to sub-carriers, conditions for enabling the reserved tone allocation, channels using the tone reservation, etc. The location of the reserved tones may be substantially static, e.g. at an either edge or both edges of the sub-carriers carrying information symbols or as interleaved with the sub-carriers carrying the information symbols.” Note that the first set of RE will be discussed in view of Kowalski.) and a second plurality of resource elements of the downlink transmission is reserved for data transmission (This will be discussed in view of Kowalski.),
wherein the configuration signal indicates a rule for selection of resource elements of the downlink transmission in accordance with one or more channel conditions of a downlink channel (This will be discussed in view of Kowalski.), and
wherein the tone reservation is activated on the first plurality of resource elements of the downlink transmission based at least in part on the rule (This will be discussed in view of Kowalski.);
receive, from a network entity, the downlink transmission comprising the first plurality of resource elements and the second plurality of resource elements (This will be discussed in view of Kowalski.); and
decode the downlink transmission in accordance with the configuration signal ([0071, Fig. 4, Fig. 3 and Fig. 2] “Upon receiving the message in step 404, the terminal device may configure the tone reservation feature in block 406. Then, upon receiving an uplink scheduling grant in step 408 from the access node, the terminal device may determine whether or not the conditions for enabling the peak correction have been met, e.g. whether or not there are currently allocated tones (sub-carriers) for the peak correction signal.”).
It is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about first and second resource elements. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Kowalski as follows;
on a first plurality of resource elements of a downlink transmission ([Kowalski, 0035 and Fig. 4] “As shown, some tones 418a in the OFDM signal 416 may be used to carry data. These tones 418a will be referred to herein as data bearing tones 418a. Other tones 418b in the OFDM signal 416 may be reserved for generating PAPR reduction signals. These tones 418b will be referred to herein as reserved tones 418b.”);
a second plurality of resource elements of the downlink transmission is reserved for data transmission ([Kowalski, 0035 and Fig. 4] “As shown, some tones 418a in the OFDM signal 416 may be used to carry data. These tones 418a will be referred to herein as data bearing tones 418a. Other tones 418b in the OFDM signal 416 may be reserved for generating PAPR reduction signals. These tones 418b will be referred to herein as reserved tones 418b.”);
wherein the configuration signal indicates a rule for selection of resource elements of the downlink transmission in accordance with one or more channel conditions of a downlink channel ([Kowalski, 0019] “The system also includes a tone selection component that is configured to determine tone selection information based on the estimated communication channel information”), and
wherein the tone reservation is activated on the first plurality of resource elements of the downlink transmission based at least in part on the rule ([Kowalski, 0051 and Fig. 8] “FIG. 8 illustrates an embodiment of an OFDM transmitter 812 that is configured to implement an optimized tone reservation scheme.” See Fig. 8 for 862 “Receive Channel State Information” and 866 “Compute Optimum Set of Sub-Carriers”);
receive, from a network entity, the downlink transmission comprising the first plurality of resource elements and the second plurality of resource elements ([Kowalski, Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and 0036] “. The OFDM receiver 514 includes a signal reception component 522 that is configured to receive the OFDM signals 516. As described above, the OFDM signals 516 may include a plurality of tones 418, including both data bearing tones 418a and reserved tones 418b.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Kowalski in order to improve efficiency of physical layers such that “The present disclosure relates to the issue of determining which tones are reserved for PAPR reduction and which tones are used for payload transmission.” [Kowalski, 0006].
Regarding claim 9, it is a network entity claim corresponding to the method claim 1 in a reciprocal way, “one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories” ([0095 and Fig. 8] “FIG. 8 illustrates an apparatus comprising a processing circuitry, such as at least one processor, and at least one memory 20 including a computer program code (software) 24, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (software) are configured”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 9, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 6 and 21, the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein:
the configuration signal comprises at least one of a radio resource control signal, a downlink control information signal, a medium access control (MAC) layer control element, or a combination thereof ([0068] “The availability of the sub-carriers for the peak correction may be determined, for example, from a current RRC configuration, from received downlink control information received in a message from a serving access node”).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, the network entity of claim 9 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein, to transmit the configuration signal, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
transmit a report comprising one or more locations and values for the first plurality of resource elements ([Kowalski, 0039 and Fig. 5] “The tone selection information 530 is information that is related to the selection of reserved tones 418b and/or data bearing tones 418a in the OFDM signals 516.”).
Regarding claims 13 and 28, the network entity of claim 9 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein:
the configuration signal comprises at least one of a radio resource control signal, a downlink control information signal, a medium access control (MAC) layer control element, or a combination thereof ([0068] “The availability of the sub-carriers for the peak correction may be determined, for example, from a current RRC configuration, from received downlink control information received in a message from a serving access node”).
Claim(s) 2 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of Astely et al. (US 2025/0056286, “Astely”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
estimate a downlink channel response based at least in part on receiving the configuration signal ([Hu, 0115] “the PPDU may include resource unit allocation information. The resource unit allocation information may indicate one or more resource units. In addition, the resource unit allocation information further indicates that the one or more resource units include a first subcarrier set and a second subcarrier set.”); and
determine one or more locations of the first plurality of resource elements based at least in part on estimating the downlink channel response ([Hu, 0097 and Table 1] “The resource unit allocation subfield includes 8 bits, and all possible resource unit arrangement and combination manners within the 242-tone RU are indicated through an index… An index table of the resource unit allocation subfield is shown in the table 1:”).
It is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about an energy level in REs. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Astely as follows;
wherein the first plurality of resource elements are associated with lower energy levels than the second plurality of resource elements ([Astely, 0277] “the power in a first set 426 of REs in subcarriers 402 outside of the set 412 and in each of the at least one IM symbol 410 is less than or equal to the power of a second set 416 of REs”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Astely in order to achieve better channel capacity including higher data rates such that “a need for an interference measurement technique that improves the accuracy of channel quality reported to a network node to enable a radio communication closer to the channel capacity, particularly at higher data rates” [Astely, 0007].
Claim(s) 3 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2025/0233632, “Lee”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, it is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about a rate matching without REs. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lee as follows;
the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
perform a rate matching process based at least in part on discarding the first plurality of resource elements from data included in the downlink transmission, wherein decoding the downlink transmission is based at least in part on performing the rate matching process ([Lee, 0238] “the processor may be further configured to perform rate-matching, perhaps for PDSCH decoding, based at least in part on the empty resource elements (and/or the resource elements that do not contain a PDSCH symbol).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Lee in order to improve channel measurements such that “to perform interference measurement estimation based at least in part on energy associated with the identified one or more interference measurement resource elements.” [Lee, 0004].
Claim(s) 4 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of Varghese (US 2024/0097818).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, it is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about LLR values. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Varghese as follows;
the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
modify one or more log likelihood ratio values associated with the first plurality of resource elements, wherein decoding the downlink transmission is based at least in part on modifying the one or more log likelihood ratio values ([Varghese, 0071] “the soft-output MIMO decoder circuitry 320 that generates a first output sequence comprising log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) for the first plurality of subcarrier symbols of the first subcarrier and … Therefore, using a channel observation X.sub.m and a suitable soft-decoder algorithm (e.g. any conventional soft-output MIMO decoding algorithm such as a maximum likelihood algorithm)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Varghese in order to decrease decoding errors such that “calculate one or more respective log-likelihood ratios for each of the first subcarrier symbols and generate a first output sequence comprising the respective log-likelihood ratios calculated for the first subcarrier symbols” [Varghese, 0011].
Claim(s) 5, 11, 20 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of Troulis et al. (US 2008/0298531, “Troulis”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 20 and 26, it is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about adjusting a procedure for cyclic prefix reduction. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Troulis as follows;
the UE of claim 1, the network entity of claim 9, the method of claim 16 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a control signal indicating that both of a weighted overlap and add technique (WOLA) and a short cyclic prefix are used in the downlink transmission; and adjust a cyclic prefix removal procedure on the downlink transmission based at least in part on determining that the short cyclic prefix is used in the downlink transmission ([Troulis, 0044] “The cyclic prefix remover 409 may be configured to remove a predetermined number of samples for each transmitted symbol according to a cyclic prefix control signal 407. Preferably, the cyclic prefix control signal 407 may be adjusted when changes are made to the guard interval length associated with each transmitted symbol. If the cyclic prefix remover 409 is not configured correctly, an incorrect amount of samples may be thrown away. In at least some embodiments, the cyclic prefix control signal 407 is operable to update the cyclic prefix remover 409”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Troulis in order to avoid undesirable high data transmission duration such that “devices that implement a plurality of guard interval lengths (e.g., long interval, medium interval, and short interval) and/or selectively switch between implementing a guard interval” [Troulis, 0003].
Claim(s) 7, 14, 22 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of Marinier et al. (US 2025/0287251, “Marinier”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7, 14, 22 and 29, it is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about configuration indicating a pattern. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Marinier as follows;
the UE of claim 1, the network entity of claim 9, the method of claim 16 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein the configuration signal indicates a pattern associated with the first plurality of resource elements ([Marinier, claim 1] “receiving configuration information, the configuration information indicating a first set of resource elements (REs) for interference measurements and a second set of REs for interference measurements, wherein the configuration information indicates a first pattern for the first set of REs”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Marinier in order to increase accuracy of channel measurements such that “determining an interference measurement based on the DM-IM resource, and demodulating a received signal based on the interference measurement.” [Marinier, 0014].
Claim(s) 10 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokceli et al. (US 2022/0132482, “Gokceli”) in view of Kowalski (US 2007/0242598) and further in view of El Hamss et al. (US 2023/0327934, “Hamss”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Gokceli unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, it is noted that while disclosing tone reservation on subcarriers, Gokceli does not specifically teach about a way to be applied. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Hamss as follows;
the network entity of claim 9 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
estimate a downlink channel based at least in part on receiving one or more sounding reference signals; and determine whether the tone reservation or a weighted overlap and add technique is to be applied based at least in part on one or more of a channel condition, a signal to noise ratio of the UE, a delay spread report, or a combination thereof ([Hamss, 0133] “a WTRU may (e.g., be configured to) transmit a sounding reference signal (SRS) e.g., along with any of assisting information and a PRT configuration request. The SRS transmission may allow the gNB to determine the channel condition of the WTRU e.g., for selecting the (e.g., appropriate) PRT configuration for the WTRU.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Gokceli by using the features of Hamss in order to improve channel measurements such that “the WTRU may receive an indication of frequency resources to be used for transmitting a PRT signal based on the PRT configuration.” [Hamss, Abstract].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights