DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-21 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.
Specifically, the applicant has amended claims 1, 2 and 12 to include the ‘on a data channel’ limitation. In light of the applicant changing the scope of the claimed limitations, the consideration of prior art has been updated to address the newly claimed scope.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/31/2026, with respect to the objection to the term ‘signalling’ have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12 and 16 have been withdrawn.
In light of the most recently filed amendments, the rejection of claim 12 under USC 101 has been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-21, specifically addressing the limitations of claims 1, 2, 12, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 regarding the and/or indefiniteness concerns are withdrawn. Note- this does not revoke all 112(b) rejections, only the rejections based on these specific grounds.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed the applicant's arguments, and a response to all applicable arguments follows.
Applicant’s argument: In light of the arguments related to the ‘112(f) rejection’ and the correlated 112(a) single means rejection.
Examiner’s response: Responding first to the ‘claim rejection’ relating to 112(f) and claim 2. For clarity of the record, 112(f) is a tool for the applicant to invoke a means plus function interpretation, not a standing rejection.
Further, in an effort to provide compact prosecution, potential 112(b) rejections were provided to address standing issues should the limitations be corrected to properly invoke a 112(f) interpretation [removing the single means issue]. As the single means issue still is present, these potential rejections will not be further addressed or commented on, but have been presented to the applicant so they may be fully aware of potential concerns when making future amendments. Until the single means issue has been resolved, these issues are not actively relevant and need not be further addressed.
Turning now to claim 2 and the ‘single means’ rejection. Claim 2 recites the limitation ‘a transmitting radio node’ which is interpreted by the Examiner as attempting to invoke 112(f) as a means plus function limitation (see the details in the previous action). The applicant has amended claim 2 to reads ‘the transmitting radio node comprising processing circuitry’, and has alleged the issue has been rectified. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The presence of the limitation, ‘a transmitting radio node’ is interpreted as intending to invoke a means plus function 112(f) interpretation. However, this limitation is present in the claim as a ‘single means’ (please see the detailed 112a rejection in the previous action). Therefore, the limitation fails to invoke 112(f), and thus fails to require that the limitation be given the scope of the disclosed specific structure (which must be supported in the disclosure or invoke the 112(b) issues). In this state, the 112(b) concerns, noted as ‘potential’ issues in the previous office action, are not yet a factor in the prosecution. Rather, a ‘single means’ claim limitation fails to invoke 112(f), and instead triggers a rejection under 112(a) (please see the detailed rejection of claims 2 and 14-21 through USC 112(a) provided in the previous office action). This issue is still present in the current claim set. The limitation is interpreted as invoking 112(f). The newly amended limitation of ‘comprising processing circuitry’ only serves to recite generic structure, and does not “modified (the generic placeholder) by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function”, see MPEP 2181. See also in MPEP 2181(II)(B) “The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” This passage explains why the added limitation does not adequately address the modification by sufficient structure, or the disclosure of support for the limitation within the disclosure (though again, this is does not affect the single means issue). As such, the attempt to invoke 112(f) as a single means triggers the 112(a) rejection. As explained, nothing in the amendments to arguments has altered this situation, and as such the claims continue to be rejected under USC 112(a) as a single means claim.
Therefore, the 112(a) rejection of the claims has been maintained. Please note the associated elements related to 112(f) and (b) that were provided for clarity of record around the handling of this limitation will not be shown in detail in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. [note this rejection was detailed in the previous office action as well]
Claim 2 (and by dependency claims 2 and 14-21) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 2 recites a means plus function style claim, while only reciting a single element ‘transmit data signalling’. Extrapolated out, the limitation reads a ‘transmission radio node configured to transmit data signalling’. Every other limitation serves to define the data, but without any active elements or additional structure or ‘machine’ embodiments or modifications to the ‘transmit’ aspect. Per the MPEP “A single means claim is a claim that recites a means-plus-function limitation as the only limitation of a claim. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by its terms is limited to "an element in a claim for a combination." Therefore, single means claims that do not recite a combination cannot invoke section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph. As such, they are not limited to the structure, material or act disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function. Thus, a single means limitation that is properly construed will cover all means of performing the claimed function. The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A claim of such breadth reads on subject matter that is not enabled by the specification, and therefore, should be rejected under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. See also MPEP § 2164.08(a).” As such the scope of the single means limitation in claim 2 lacks enablement as the claim enables all forms of the ability of the node to transmit including those not enabled by the specification.
This issue is not corrected by any associated dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laroia (US Pub 20070019583) in view of Liu (US Pub 20200076670, see IDS).
Re claim 1, 2 and 12, Lar discloses a method of operating a transmitting radio node (Figure 2, Par 37, 41); the associated transmitting radio node comprising processing circuitry (Figure 2, Par 37, 41) for in a wireless communication network (Figure 2, Par 37, 41); and the associated embodiment comprising a non-transitory computer storage medium (Fig 2 el 206/210; Par 37, 41-43, 45, 125), storing a computer program (Fig 2 el 206/210; Par 37, 41-43, 45, 125), comprising instructions causing processing circuitry (Fig 2 el 206/210; Par 37, 41-43, 45, 125), to one or both control and perform a method (Fig 2 el 206/210; Par 37, 41-43, 45, 125), the method comprising:
transmitting data signalling on a data channel (Par 16, 45 -traffic channel), the data signalling representing a plurality of data blocks (Par 16, 45, 57-59, 63-65 -special information block portion, user data coded block portion), a first set of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks being associated to a first Modulation and Coding Scheme, MCS (Par 16, 45, 57-59, 63-65 -special information block portion rate and modulation choices), and a second set of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks being associated to a second MCS (Par 16, 45, 57-59, 63-65 - user data coded block portion rate and modulation choices), the first MCS being different from the second MCS (Par 16, 45, 57-59, 63-65 -special information block portion rate and modulation choices, user data coded block portion rate and modulation choices – shown as different/distinct modulation types); Lar fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the design further comprises wherein the transmission power for the first set of data blocks is dependent on the second MCS; the transmission power for the second set of data blocks is dependent on the first MCS; or the transmission power for the first set of data blocks is dependent on the second MCS and the transmission power for the second set of data blocks is dependent on the first MCS.
This design is however disclosed by Liu. Liu discloses wherein the design further comprises wherein the transmission power for the first set of data blocks is dependent on the second MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions for the data parts over the data channel); the transmission power for the second set of data blocks is dependent on the first MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions for the data parts over the data channel); or the transmission power for the first set of data blocks is dependent on the second MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions for the data parts over the data channel) and the transmission power for the second set of data blocks is dependent on the first MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions for the data parts over the data channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lar in order to incorporate the transmission power considerations of Liu based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance by factoring MCS and data block relationships into the power determinations, the signal is able to more efficiently utilize the channel while meeting the needs of the applied MCS and maintaining acceptable PAPR relationships to ensure desired levels of resource consumption and communication quality for communications on the channel.
Re claims 3 and 14, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Liu further discloses wherein the transmission power for the first set of data blocks and the second set of data blocks are the same (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – power set to same level or offset is set to zero), or a transmission power parameter depending on MCS for the first set of data blocks and the second set of data blocks are the same (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – power set to same level or offset is set to zero), or both the transmission power and the transmission power parameter depending on MCS for the first set of data blocks and the second set of data blocks are the same (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – power set to same level or offset is set to zero).
Re claims 4 and 15, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Liu further discloses wherein transmission power for the first set (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions over the data channel), the second set (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions over the data channel), or both the first set and the second set is based on a transmission power parameter dependent on a MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions over the data channel).
Re claims 5 and 16, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Lar further discloses wherein the data signalling is transmitted over a plurality of consecutive allocation units (Fig 16; Par 87) (Liu also further discloses this at Fig 10 Par 230).
Re claims 6 and 17, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Liu further discloses wherein the transmission power for the first set and second set is based on a maximum allowed transmission power according to the first MCS and the second MCS (Par 277, 288, 286-290).
Re claims 7 and 18, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Liu further discloses wherein the transmission power for the first set (Par 277, 288, 296-297 – stipulated offset ranges), the second set (Par 277, 288, 296-297 – stipulated offset ranges), or both the first set and the second set is based on a minimum allowed transmission power according to the first MCS and the second MCS (Par 277, 288, 296-297 – stipulated offset ranges).
Re claims 8 and 19, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the transmitting radio node according to claim 2; Liu further discloses wherein the transmission power for the first set (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290), the second set (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290), or both the first set and the second set is based on the first MCS and the second MCS (Par 23-25, 253-256, 277, 286-290 – MCS and power relationship controlled through PAPR offset restrictions over the data channel).
Re claim 11, the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1; Lar further discloses wherein the data signalling is scheduled with a control information message (Par 43-45, 56, 102).
Claims 9-10 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lar and Liu as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Furuskar (herein after Fur)(US Patent 6704898).
Re claims 9 and 20; the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the associated transmitting radio node of claim 2; but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein: one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions; one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions; or one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions and one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions.
This design is however disclosed by Fur. Fur discloses wherein: one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions (Fig 4 Col 4 line 59-C5L40, C6L18-65; Fig 6a-b, C7L66-C8L30 – initial transmission vs retransmission); one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions (Fig 4 Col 4 line 59-C5L40, C6L18-65; Fig 6a-b, C7L66-C8L30 – initial transmission vs retransmission); or one or more of the data blocks are associated to new transmissions (Fig 4 Col 4 line 59-C5L40, C6L18-65; Fig 6a-b, C7L66-C8L30 – initial transmission vs retransmission) and one or more of the data blocks are associated to retransmissions (Fig 4 Col 4 line 59-C5L40, C6L18-65; Fig 6a-b, C7L66-C8L30 – initial transmission vs retransmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lar in order to incorporate the retransmission processing of Fur based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the use and consideration of retransmission and retransmission characteristics allows for a dynamic review and adjustment to signal communication failures to improve the overall connectivity and functionality of the communication environment.
Re claims 10 and 21; the combined disclosure of Lar and Liu as a whole discloses the method according to claim 1 and the associated transmitting radio node of claim 2; but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the Modulation and Coding Scheme used for transmitting a data block is based on whether the data block is transmitted in a new transmission or retransmission.
This design is however disclosed by Fur. Fur discloses wherein the Modulation and Coding Scheme used for transmitting a data block is based on whether the data block is transmitted in a new transmission or retransmission (Fig 4 Col 4 line 59-C5L40, C6L18-65; Fig 6a-b, C7L66-C8L30 – initial transmission vs retransmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Lar in order to incorporate the retransmission processing of Fur based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the use and consideration of retransmission and retransmission characteristics allows for a dynamic review and adjustment to signal communication failures to improve the overall connectivity and functionality of the communication environment.
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 MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights