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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The Preliminary Amendment filed on December 28, 2023 is acknowledged. Included amended claims 1-19 were examined for this office action.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 objected to because of the following informalities: Referring to claims 1, 18, and 19, while it is interpreted that “the generation of said channel quality metric offset” in the last line is referring back to “generating a channel quality metric offset” in line 5 (in claim 1, for example), it would be clearer to keep the verb tenses the same (i.e. change “the generation…” to “the generating…” in the last line for consistency and clarity). Referring to claims 2-17, the beginning of each claim should be amended from “An apparatus…” to “The apparatus” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite the limitation "the success of data transfer" in, for example, line 11 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Referring to claim 4, the claim recites, “generating the loss/reward function”. It is not clear if “generating” is different or the same as the claimed “compiling” in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the obtained feedback signal" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the feedback signal" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the feedback signal" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the feedback signal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claims 9, 10, and 11, the claims recite, “whether a transmission of a packet of data was successful” (claim 9) and “the packet of data” (claims 10 and 11). It is not clear how if this “transmission of a packet of data” and “the packet of data” is the same or different as the claimed “data transfer” in claim 1.
Referring to claims 10 and 11, each claim is currently dependent on claim 8, however, it appears each claim should be dependent on claim 9? Otherwise, there is insufficient basis for the limitations, “the indication” (claim 10, line 7) and “the packet of data” (claims 10 and 11).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the target error rate" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claim 16, the claim recites, “…training of the model”. Is “training” referring to “updating” of claim 1 or is it a different function? It is not clear as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0090593 A1 to Kim (herein referred to as Kim).
Referring to claims 1, 18, and 19, Kim discloses an apparatus and corresponding method and non-transitory storage device, comprising: at least one processor (Figure 1, element 102); and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (Figure 1, element 104 & paragraph [0062], “computer-readable storage media”) that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform (as a whole, see paragraphs [0137-0170] which describes and anticipates the below claim limitations): generating a channel quality metric offset (paragraph [0137], equation 8, “offset value”, as well as paragraphs [0141-); summing a channel quality metric and the channel quality metric offset to generate an adjusted channel quality metric of a channel of a mobile communication system (paragraphs [0137-0138], equation 8 shows the “summing” of a CQI + offset); setting a modulation and coding scheme for transmitting data over the channel based, at least in part, on the adjusted channel quality metric (paragraph [0138], “L is the number of MCSs supported, i.e. setting); obtaining feedback data relating to the success of data transfer over said channel ([0152], ACK/NACK feedback); compiling a loss/reward function based, at least in part, on said feedback data (algorithm described in paragraphs [0156-0170] & claim 1); and updating a model using the loss/reward function, wherein the model is used in the generation of said channel quality metric offset (algorithm described in paragraphs [0156-0170] & claim 1).
Referring to claim 2, Kim discloses wherein: the channel quality metric offset is based, at least in part, on a target error rate for transmissions using the mobile communication system ([0159], BLER).
Referring to claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the feedback data includes an acknowledgment signal indicative of whether a previous transmission over the channel was successful ([0165], ACK/NACK for a data block).
Referring to claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: generating the loss/reward function based on a predicted error rate and the obtained feedback signal ([0164-0167], Step 2, compute a reward).
Referring to claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the model provides said channel quality metric offset (Table 5, reward model defines the offset).
Referring to claim 9, Kim feedback signal includes an indication of whether a transmission of a packet of data was successful ([0153], ACK/NACK).
Referring to claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the channel quality metric comprises a signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio signal (paragraph [0136], SIR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10-12, and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112