DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 10, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 and 31-44 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on June 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
Figures 1-3, 10, and 11 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication Nos. 2023/0127928, 2023/0104269, 2022/0070935; note the respective drawings). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 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 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16, 31-34, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by WO Publication No. 2022/083856 A1 (hereinafter “Tiirola”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiirola.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 31, and 39: Tiirola teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, which are configured, individually or in any combination, to:
receive an indication of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (see, e.g., figure 5, [0036], [0049]; UE 510 receives indication of MCS);
receive an instruction to modify fidelity of an uplink transmission (see, e.g., figure 5, [0043], [0044], [0049], [0050], [0056]; UE 510 receives instruction changing the EVM requirement); and
transmit the uplink transmission using the MCS and using at least one transmission parameter that is selected to increase or decrease an error vector magnitude (EVM) associated with the uplink transmission (see, e.g., figure 5, [0033], [0034], [0045]; in conjunction with a given MCS, parameters are selected for uplink transmission).
Tiirola teaches the UE receiving an indication of MCS and EVM requirement, wherein these messages (i.e. indications or instructions) are in the same or different messages (see, e.g., [0049). To the extent the system taught in Tiirola does not inherently include selecting the parameters and subsequently transmitting in the uplink based on both messages, this feature would nevertheless have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, in view of Tiirola alone, in order to, meet the EVM or IBE requirements for a given MCS.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 1 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 9, 31, and 39, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 10, 32, and 40: Tiirola further anticipates and/or teaches wherein the instruction comprises an instruction to increase the fidelity, and the at least one transmission parameter is selected to decrease the EVM (see, e.g., [0033], [0034], [0056]; parameters are selected based on a more or less relaxed EVM, thus indicating less or more fidelity, respectively). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 2 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 10, 32, and 40, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 33, and 41: Tiirola further anticipates and/or teaches wherein the instruction comprises an instruction to decrease the fidelity, and the at least one transmission parameter is selected to increase the EVM (see, e.g., [0033], [0034], [0056]; parameters are selected based on a more or less relaxed EVM, thus indicating less or more fidelity, respectively). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 3 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 11, 33, and 41, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 12, 34, and 42: Tiirola further anticipates and/or teaches wherein the instruction is included in downlink control information (DCI) (see, e.g., [0049], [0055], [0056]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 3 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 12, 34, and 42, respectively.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 38: Tiirola further anticipates and/or teaches wherein the at least one transmission parameter comprises one or more of: a power amplifier (PA) backoff; a PA mode; a compensation for in-phase signal and quadrature signal (I/Q) imbalance; a local oscillator (LO) mode; a waveform selected based at least in part on peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR);a PAPR mode; or a modified bandwidth (see, e.g., [0033], [0034]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 8 is applicable to the apparatus and method of claims 16 and 38, respectively.
10. Claims 5, 13, 35, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiirola, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2026/0074821 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claims 5, 13, 35, and 43: Tiirola substantially teaches the apparatus as set forth above regarding claim 4, but does not explicitly state wherein the DCI comprises format 0_1. However, this feature is taught in Liu (see, e.g., [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Liu, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Tiirola, in order to enhance coverage and transmission quality and/or improve communication efficiency.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 5 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 13, 35, and 43, respectively.
11. Claims 6, 14, 36, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Tiirola or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiirola, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0043955 (hereinafter “Ko”).
Regarding claims 6, 14, 36, and 44: Tiirola further anticipates and/or teaches wherein the instruction comprises a single bit (see, e.g., [0049], [0058]; note flag, field, or parameter). To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Tiirola, it is nevertheless taught in Ko (see, e.g., [0048], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ko, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Tiirola, in order to indicate information.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 6 is applicable to the apparatus and methods of claims 14, 36, and 44, respectively.
12. Claims 7, 15, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiirola, in view of either Ko or U.S. Publication No. 2023/0309171 A1 (hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 37: Tiirola substantially teaches the apparatus as set forth above regarding claim 4, but does not explicitly state wherein the instruction comprises a plurality of bits, and the at least one transmission parameter is further selected using a codepoint of the instruction. However, this feature is taught in Ko (see, e.g., [0048], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ko, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Tiirola, in order to indicate information.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught in Zhou (see, e.g., [0528], [0543]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhou, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Tiirola, in order to indicate information.
The rationale set forth above regarding the apparatus of claim 7 is applicable to the apparatus and method of claims 15 and 37, respectively.
Relevant Art
13. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights