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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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) 36-42, 44, 47, 49, 52-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (Pub. No. 20230318778) in view of Wu et al. (Pub. No. 20200106547).
- With respect to claims 36, 53-56, Horn teaches a communication method, comprising: transmitting, at a terminal device and to a network device, capability information indicating: at least one modulation and coding scheme (MCS) supported by the terminal device (e.g. block 510 in Fig. 5 discloses the UE transmit an indication of capability to network node having portion with difference MCSs) and at least one configuration associated with the at least one MCS, wherein the at least one configuration comprises a set of parameters associated with the at least one MCS (see par. 93 discloses “For example, the configuration information may indicate that the UE is to indicate support of one or more ways in which the MCSs may be different (e.g., different modulation orders and/or different coding rate constellations, among other examples) and/or by how much the MCSs may be different.”); and receiving, from the network device, a configuration associated with a configured MCS (e.g. steps 535 and 540 in Fig. 5). Horn implicitly fails to teach the capability information comprises a fourth index of a spectrum efficiency associated with the at least one MCS. Wu teaches the fourth index of the spectrum efficiency associated with the at least one MCS (See Fig. 3A, B shows the index associated with spectrum Efficiency). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the index of spectrum efficiency associated with the at least one MCS for amount data to be transmitted, a channel quality in wireless communication.
- With respect to claims 37, 47, Horn teaches wherein the set of parameters at least comprises: a carrier frequency, a subcarrier spacing, and a waveform (e.g. par. 71-74 disclose time domain as set of parameters with waveform).
- With respect to claims 38, 49, 52, Horn teaches wherein the set of parameters further comprises at least one of: a phase tracking reference signal(PTRS) pattern for the at least one MCS (see par. 82 discloses “the time domain communication may include adaptive MCSs for data samples located in different regions of a time domain symbol (e.g., a DFT-s-OFDM symbol) to optimize throughput based at least in part on phase noise and a PTRS allocation”), a rank of the at least one MCS, or a phase estimation algorithm.
- With respect to claim 39, Horn teaches wherein the capability information comprises an index of the at least one MCS (e.g. number of MCSs discloses in abstract, par. 5-7).
- With respect to claim 40, Horn teaches wherein the at least one MCS comprises a first MCS and a second MCS, and wherein the capability information comprises: a first index of the first MCS and an offset of a second index of the second MCS to the first index of the first MCS (e.g. number of MCSs discloses in abstract, par. 5-7).
- With respect to claim 41, Horn teaches wherein the capability information comprises a third index of the at least one configuration, wherein a relationship between the third index and the at least one configuration is predefined (consider as the time domain as third index of the at least configuration discloses in par. 6, since the claims fails to discloses the index of capability as).
- With respect to claim 42, Horn teaches wherein the capability information comprises the spectrum efficiency associated with the at least one MCS (e.g. Fig. 4 shows the time domain when communicating in a frequency band; par. 71-73).
- With respect to claim 44, Horn teaches wherein an index of the configured MCS is not higher than an index of the at least one MCS supported by the terminal device (e.g. par. 90 discloses “, the second portion does not need to be configured with a relatively high MCS with a high error rate to allow for efficient use of the first portion. In this way, the first portion of the time domain communication may have an improved efficiency in carrying data, and the second portion may have a reduce error rate, which may conserve power, computing, network, and/or communication resources to detect and correct”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45-46, 48, 50-51 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights