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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on February 9, 2024 and May 1, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 27 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In the specification, although statutory (non-transitory) embodiments of a computer readable medium are disclosed, non-statutory (transitory) embodiments are not explicitly excluded. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also known as machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Therefore, applicant is suggested to include the word “non-transitory” to claims 27 and 28 respectively.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 18, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20170250897 A1, hereinafter "Smith") in view of Khoshgard et al. (US 8675749 B2, hereinafter "Khoshgard") and in further view of Ravishankar et al. (US 20190082481 A1, hereinafter "Ravishankar").
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a communication method performed by a user equipment device (a node may be a mobile device and the like [0018]), said method comprising:
receiving, from a network apparatus (network node, Figure 2), mapping information on property of distance and bandwidth (The discovery messages and the routing table (400), as shown in Figure 4, constitute mapping information associating distance information and bandwidth information between network nodes [0025-0032]);
determining a bandwidth of a transmission window based on the mapping information and a distance between the user equipment device and the network apparatus (the routing table stores bandwidth and distance together/in association and chooses preferred routes based on bandwidth and distance [0029-0031]).
However, Smith does not teach:
identifying whether at the bandwidth a subcarrier is an available subcarrier or a virtual subcarrier which fails to support reliable symbol transmission;
estimating channel information at the bandwidth in one or more available subcarriers; and
transmitting, to the network apparatus, aware information of the user equipment device, the aware information comprising the channel information, positioning and ephemeris information, and subarray index of the user equipment device.
In analogous art, Khoshgard teaches:
identifying whether at the bandwidth a subcarrier is an available subcarrier (pilot subcarrier) or a virtual subcarrier which fails to support reliable symbol transmission (distinguishes between pilot subcarriers and non-pilot subcarriers, where pilot subcarriers are the most reliable [Col. 4, lines 49-57]);
estimating channel information at the bandwidth in one or more available subcarriers (channel estimation is performed based on pilot subcarriers [Col. 4, lines 49-57 & Col. 5, lines 16-21]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the channel estimation (taught by Khoshgard) at the transmission window bandwidth (taught by Smith) in order to improve reliability and data recovery within the selected bandwidth, since both references (Smith and Khoshgard) address wireless communication systems and share the common goal of reliable data transmission (Khoshgard, [Col. 1, lines 23-55]).
The combination of Smith and Khoshgard does not teach:
transmitting, to the network apparatus, aware information of the user equipment device, the aware information comprising the channel information, positioning and ephemeris information, and subarray index of the user equipment device.
In analogous art, Ravishankar teaches:
transmitting, to the network apparatus (station or STA [0083]), aware information (RRC Connection Request, FIG 6A, step 2 [0058]) of the user equipment (user terminal (UT) [0083]) device (the user terminal sends RRC Connection Request to station), the aware information comprising the channel information, positioning and ephemeris information, and subarray index of the user equipment device (the RRC Connection Request includes user terminal GPS location (positioning information) and measurement reports indicative of channel conditions. Ephemeris information of the UT is in the form of time-dependent position and movement information, as the UT provides updated location information when moving beyond threshold distances and participates in position verification procedures used for gateway and satellite selection
Additionally, transmission of identified and parameters related to satellite, beam, and gateway selection, which correspond to antenna array or sub-array related information used in configuring the communication link [0078-0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transmission of information from the user terminal to the STA (as taught by Ravishankar) into the OFDM channel based communication method from the combination of Smith and Khoshgard in order to improve transmission reliability, spectral efficiency, and throughput (Ravishankar, [0002-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar, specifically Smith, teaches wherein the mapping information is in a distance-bandwidth mapping table (routing table (400), as shown in Figure 4, constitute mapping information associating distance information and bandwidth information between network nodes [0025-0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Ravishankar teaches wherein the mapping information comprises a distance range and/or a granularity of the distance range (the network operation is based on distance thresholds and location-based regions, such as when a user terminal transmits updated position upon moving more than a predetermined threshold distance from a previously reported location, and when network behavior is determined based on the user terminal’s location relative to defined areas or regions [0018-0019]. These disclosures inherently define distance ranges, as network decisions are made based on whether the UE falls within one region or another, rather than on a continuously varying distance value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance range (as taught by Ravishankar) into the mapping information of the communication method (taught by the combination of Smith and Khoshgard) in order to reduce signaling overhead, simplify computation, and improve robustness in wireless communication systems (Ravishankar, [0002-0017]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1, including an apparatus (the hardware implementing the described modules [0061]) comprising at least one processor (the hardware includes at least one processor [0061]); and at least one memory including computer program code (the hardware includes a memory comprising of instructions [0061]), the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the communication apparatus as a user equipment device to perform (the processor, implements the instructions stored in the memory that describe the functionality of the modules [0061]), all taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1, including computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing a communication apparatus as a user equipment device to perform (a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium relates to an apparatus for performing the operations/instructions, storing computer program(s) required to perform operations).
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar in view of Wu et al. (US 20240080786 A1, hereinafter "Wu").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar does not teach wherein the mapping information comprises positioning information and/or ephemeris information of the network apparatus.
In analogous art, Wu teaches wherein the mapping information comprises positioning information and/or ephemeris information of the network apparatus (the network device broadcasts ephemeris information (including position, velocity and time) to a terminal device for use in determining timing advance, propagation delay, and distance-related transmission parameters [0070-0072, 0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ephemeris and positioning information transmitted by the network device (as taught by Wu) into the mapping information in the communication method (as taught in the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar) in order to improve accuracy of distance-based bandwidth and transmission window determination, particularly in systems where the network apparatus is mobile (Wu, [0063-0065, 0079]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankarin view of Humphreys et al. (US 20030091122 A1, hereinafter "Humphreys").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankarin does not teach wherein the mapping information comprises a lower absorption line center frequency and a higher absorption line center frequency in the transmission window, and a differential frequency between the lower absorption line center frequency and a falling edge frequency at a lower absorption line and a differential frequency between the higher absorption line center frequency and a falling edge frequency at a higher absorption line of the transmission window.
In analogous art, Humphreys teaches wherein the mapping information comprises a lower absorption line center frequency and a higher absorption line center frequency in the transmission window, and a differential frequency between the lower absorption line center frequency and a falling edge frequency at a lower absorption line and a differential frequency between the higher absorption line center frequency and a falling edge frequency at a higher absorption line of the transmission window (Defines a center frequency for frequency bands or bursts (corresponds to absorption line center frequency), and operating within a defined transmission window. Defining frequency-band boundaries and attenuation regions using band-stop filters and notch bands, including roll-off profiles at the edge of such bands. A roll-off or attenuation boundary defines a falling edge frequency at which signal magnitude decreases from an in-band level toward attenuation. Calculating frequency differences between center frequencies and adjacent frequency bands using for encoding and detection is taught (corresponds to differential frequency between center frequency and falling edge) [0052-0054, 0057, 0065-0068, 0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize frequency relationships, including those between center frequency and adjacent attenuation boundaries, incorporating these frequency values (as taught by Humphreys) into the mapping information in the communication method (as taught in the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar) in order to manage interference, support higher data rates, and to lower power and cost needed in these communication systems (Humphreys, [0005, 0011]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar in view of Lum et al. (US 20160112073 A1, hereinafter “Lum”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar does not teach wherein the mapping information comprises parameters of lower and higher frequency decline lines of the transmission window.
In analogous art, Lum teaches wherein the mapping information comprises parameters of lower and higher frequency decline lines of the transmission window (Defines transmission windows using cutoff frequencies corresponding to lower and higher frequency boundaries. Low-band and high-band filters are used to establish cutoff frequencies, defining the passband edges of a transmitted/received signal. Filters attenuate signals outside the defined frequency range, thereby forming a bounded transmission window between upper and lower frequency limits. The reference describes routing and partitioning signals according to the defined frequency bands, which inherently requires knowledge of the lower and higher cutoff frequencies that form the boundaries of the transmission window [0058-0059, 0061-0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter cutoff parameters defining transmission windows (as taught by Lum) into the mapping information in the communication method (as taught in the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar) in order to properly allocate, route, and process signals within the intended frequency range while minimizing interference (Lum, [0061-0066, 0070-0072]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Claim(s) 7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar in view of Ryu et al. (US 12532273 B2, hereinafter "Ryu").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar do not teach wherein the mapping information is transmitted in a synchronization signal block.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches wherein the mapping information is transmitted in a synchronization signal block (Figure 6 shows information being transmitted from a gNB (network apparatus) in the form of a new radio (NR) synchronization block (SSB). SSBs are used both for timing synchronization and transporting configuration information [Col 2, lines 61-67]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SSB (as taught by Ryu) as the manner of transmitting the mapping information (taught by the combination of Smith, Khoshgard, and Ravishankar) in order to achieve low latency and high reliability in a high frequency (such as 5G) communication network (Ryu, [Col. 6, lines 21-29]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 20, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, in view of Ravishankar, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20230198702 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches a communication method performed by network apparatus (network node, Figure 2), said method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment device (a node may be a mobile device and the like [0018]), mapping information on property of distance and bandwidth (The discovery messages and the routing table (400), as shown in Figure 4, constitute mapping information associating distance information and bandwidth information between network nodes [0025-0032]); Smith does not teach:
receiving, from the user equipment device, aware information of the user equipment device, the aware information comprising channel information, positioning and ephemeris information, and subarray index of the user equipment device,
wherein the channel information is estimated at a bandwidth of a transmission window in one or more available subcarriers, and the bandwidth is determined based on the mapping information and a distance between the user equipment device and the network apparatus.
In analogous art, Ravishankar teaches receiving, from the user equipment device (user terminal (UT) [0083]), aware information (RRC Connection Request, FIG 6A, step 2 [0058]) of the user equipment device (the user terminal sends RRC Connection Request to station), the aware information comprising channel information, positioning and ephemeris information, and subarray index of the user equipment device (the RRC Connection Request includes user terminal GPS location (positioning information) and measurement reports indicative of channel conditions. Ephemeris information of the UT is in the form of time-dependent position and movement information, as the UT provides updated location information when moving beyond threshold distances and participates in position verification procedures used for gateway and satellite selection. Additionally, transmission of identified and parameters related to satellite, beam, and gateway selection, which correspond to antenna array or sub-array related information used in configuring the communication link [0078-0094]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the receiving of information by the STA from the user terminal (as taught by Ravishankar) following the transmission of mapping information (as taught by Smith) in order to improve transmission reliability, spectral efficiency, and throughput (Ravishankar, [0002-0008]).
The combination of Smith and Ravishankar does not teach wherein the channel information is estimated at a bandwidth of a transmission window in one or more available subcarriers, and the bandwidth is determined based on the mapping information and a distance between the user equipment device and the network apparatus.
In analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the channel information is estimated at a bandwidth of a transmission window in one or more available subcarriers (The time-frequency resource structure of an NR system, including resource elements (REs), resource blocks (RBs), and OFDM symbols are described. Each RE or RB corresponds to one or more subcarriers in a transmission window [0081-0083]), and the bandwidth is determined based on the mapping information (SLIV value and PDSCH/PUSCH mapping configuration defines which OFDM symbols and subcarriers are allocated for data transmission, providing the mapping information used to determine the bandwidth for channel estimation [0085-0086]) and a distance between the user equipment device and the network apparatus (Describes beam selection and quasi-co-location (QCL) relationships, where large-scale channel characteristics, which depend on the distance between the user equipment and the base station, are used to select appropriate beams and resources [0050-0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate channel estimation and bandwidth selection (as taught by Kim) into the communication method (as taught by the combination of Smith and Ravishankar) in order to efficiently allocate resources and optimize data transmission based on channel conditions (Kim, [0046, 0092]).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8, including an apparatus (the hardware implementing the described modules [0061]) comprising at least one processor (the hardware includes at least one processor [0061]); and at least one memory including computer program code (the hardware includes a memory comprising of instructions [0061]), the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the communication apparatus as a user equipment device to perform (the processor, implements the instructions stored in the memory that describe the functionality of the modules [0061]), all taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8, including computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing a communication apparatus as a network apparatus to perform (a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium relates to an apparatus for performing the operations/instructions, storing computer program(s) required to perform operations).
Claim(s) 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn, in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20220360307 A1, hereinafter "Matsumura"), and in further view of Myung et al. (US 20230188247 A1, hereinafter "Myung").
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn do not teach:
calculating a precoder and a norma vector according to the channel information; and
calculating a signal-to-noise ratio at an available subcarrier based on the norma vector and a noise at the available subcarrier at the user equipment device to determine a bandwidth adaptive modulation and coding scheme index level per stream.
In analogous art, Matsumura teaches calculating a precoder and a norma vector according to the channel information (the UE performs channel estimation and sends back (to the network device) a PMI that is determined based on the channel information. This received PMI may indicate a precoder. Power normalization can then be calculated based off the precoder and the number of subcarriers [0070-0071, 0096-0097]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determining values from the received channel information (as taught by Matsumura) into the communication method performed by a network apparatus (as taught Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn) in order to further increase high speed data rates as well as provide lower latency as well as maintain reliability of channel information while reducing overhead (Matsumura, [0002, 0009]).
The combination of Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, and Matsumura does not teach calculating a signal-to-noise ratio at an available subcarrier based on the norma vector and a noise at the available subcarrier at the user equipment device to determine a bandwidth adaptive modulation and coding scheme index level per stream.
In analogous art, Myung teaches calculating a signal-to-noise ratio at an available subcarrier based on the norma vector and a noise at the available subcarrier at the user equipment device to determine a bandwidth adaptive modulation and coding scheme index level per stream (signal-to-interference-noise-ratio (SINR) is determined based on received channel state information (CSI), sent via a channel quality indicator (CQI) table, from a UE. The SINR is normalized, and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) is determined based on the normalized SINR. Noise at the BWP (subcarrier) at the UE is inherently present as it is necessary to calculate an SINR value. The MCS is adaptive as there is an emphasis on selecting the best tables (CQI and MCS) for more efficient communication [0007, 0013-0015, 0157-0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adaptive channel-quality-based transmission techniques (as taught by Myung) into the communication method performed by a network apparatus (as taught by Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn) in order to improve overall transmission efficiency, robustness, and reliability under varying channel conditions (Myung, [0003-0007]).
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 9, including wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (the hardware includes a memory comprising of instructions [0061]) are further configured to, with the at least one processor (the hardware includes at least one processor [0061]), cause the communication apparatus to further perform (the processor, implements the instructions stored in the memory that describe the functionality of the modules [0061]), all taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn, in view of Shengfeng et al. (WO 2020156127 A1, hereinafter "Shengfeng"), and in further view of Moon et al. (US 20210273345 A1, hereinafter "Moon").
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn do not teach:
calculating a distance between a center of transmitting antenna array and a center of receiving antenna array based on the positioning and ephemeris information, and the subarray index of the user equipment device, to determine an optimal subarray spacing.
In analogous art, Shengfeng teaches calculating a distance between a center of transmitting antenna array (network device) and a center of receiving antenna array (user device) based on the positioning and ephemeris information (teaches calculating a distance between a network device and a user device (e.g. a drone/UAV) based on positioning and movement parameters, including current location and movement information received from the terminal device [page 1; page 20]. Both the drone and the network device may include one or more antennas which may consist of an antenna group composed of multiple antennas, and the antennas are used for communication including signal transmission and reception [pages 12, 14]. Both the drone and the network device may include one or more antennas which may consist of an antenna group composed of multiple antennas, and the antennas are used for communication including signal transmission and reception [pages 12, 14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to incorporate the distance calculation between the receiver and transmitter (as taught by Shengfeng) into the communication method performed by a network apparatus (as taught by Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn) in order to reduce energy and resource waste in a wireless communication network, particularly in those with drones/UAVs (Shengfeng, page 1, below Summary of Invention).
Shengfeng does not teach [using the distance] and the subarray index of the user equipment device, to determine an optimal subarray spacing.
In analogous art, Moon teaches [using the distance] and the subarray index of the user equipment device, to determine an optimal subarray spacing (Arranging a plurality of antenna elements into subarrays, where each subarray is associated with an index [0041, 0044]. Each indexed subarray has one or more antenna elements and antenna panels are selected or activated for each subarray to achieve a desired arrangement for line-of-sight communication. The antenna array is reconfigured based on given array parameters, which may include a distance between a transmitting and receiving array, and subarray indexes [0080-0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the inter-device distance calculated (as taught by Shengfang) as the distance parameter in Moon’s adaptive subarray configuration, because both references address adapt communication parameters based on relative separation between communicating entities to improve transmission performance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporation the adaptive communication parameters (as taught by Shengfang and Moon) into the communication method performed by a network apparatus (as taught by Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn) in order to reduce signal degradation for line-of-sight (LOS) and other high frequency communication systems
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 10, including wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (the hardware includes a memory comprising of instructions [0061]) are further configured to, with the at least one processor (the hardware includes at least one processor [0061]), cause the communication apparatus to further perform (the processor, implements the instructions stored in the memory that describe the functionality of the modules [0061]), all taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 11, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, Matsumura, and Myung, in view of Tan et al. (US 20240289627 A1, hereinafter "Tan"), in further view of Cheon (US 20200367099 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, Matsumura, and Myung does not teach:
selecting a modulation order based on the signal-to-noise ratio at the available subcarrier and a bit error rate requirement;
extending modulated data to an antenna location at a level of subarray or antenna element according to the modulation order; and
calculating a total number of binary bits which are transmitted in downlink over one symbol duration based on the modulation order.
In analogous art, Tan teaches selecting a modulation order based on the signal-to-noise ratio at the available subcarrier and a bit error rate requirement (Table 2 lists modulation orders corresponding to a plurality of MCS indexes, each having an associated target code and spectral efficiency. Selection of MCS is based on a channel quality indicator (the signal to noise conditions at the subcarriers) received from the UE. The MCS, which directly correlates to the selected modulation order, is chosen to satisfy a maximum transport block error rate (bit error rate) [0092-0094]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modulation order selection (as taught by Tan) into the communication method (as taught by Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, Matsumura, and Myung) in order to improve efficient use of available channel resources and maximize spectral efficiency without exceeding any maximum thresholds (Tan, [0091-0094]).
The combination of Tan with the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, Matsumura, and Myung does not teach:
extending modulated data to an antenna location at a level of subarray or antenna element according to the modulation order; and
calculating a total number of binary bits which are transmitted in downlink over one symbol duration based on the modulation order.
In analogous art, Cheon teaches:
extending modulated data (symbol data [0094]) to an antenna location at a level of subarray or antenna element according to the modulation order (symbol mapper uses symbol data and performs antenna mapping according to the modulation order [0094]); and
calculating a total number of binary bits which are transmitted in downlink over one symbol duration based on the modulation order(Each transmitted symbol comprises m binary bits according to modulation order and the symbols are transmitted in the downlink, indicating that the total number of binary bits transmitted over one symbol duration is determined by the modulation order [0035-0036, 0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the antenna mapping and transmitted bits (as taught by Cheon) into the communication method (as taught by as taught by Smith, Ravishankar, Hahn, Matsumura, Myung, and Tan) in order to allow for dynamic yet reliable transmission parameters and to manage throughput and transmission efficiency (Cheon, [0020, 0032-0036]).
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 11, including wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (the hardware includes a memory comprising of instructions [0061]) are further configured to, with the at least one processor (the hardware includes at least one processor [0061]), cause the communication apparatus to further perform (the processor, implements the instructions stored in the memory that describe the functionality of the modules [0061]), all taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn in view of Ryu et al. (US 12532273 B2, hereinafter "Ryu").
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn do not teach wherein the mapping information is transmitted in a synchronization signal block.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches wherein the mapping information is transmitted in a synchronization signal block (Figure 6 shows information being transmitted from a gNB (network apparatus) in the form of a new radio (NR) synchronization block (SSB). SSBs are used both for timing synchronization and transporting configuration information [Col 2, lines 61-67]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SSB (as taught by Ryu) as the manner of transmitting the mapping information (taught by the combination of Smith, Ravishankar, and Hahn) in order to achieve low latency and high reliability in a high frequency (such as 5G) communication network (Ryu, [Col. 6, lines 21-29]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Athley et al. (US-20180343044-A1) discloses a method for obtaining a channel condition per antenna element of antenna array, involves transforming channel condition for sub-carrier located within coherence bandwidth of radio propagation channel to channel condition.
Cho et al. (US-20050201474-A1) discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting channel quality information in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing communication system.
Demir et al. (US-20230093950-A1) discloses transparency window aware sequence selection and transmission procedure for device discovery and range estimation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRA R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:30 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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/A.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413