CTNF 18/719,111 CTNF 82112 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Preliminary Amendment This action is in response to applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/12/2024. Claim 4 has been amended. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 09/11/2024, 11/21/2025 and 02/05/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit in claim 1 with the corresponding structure may be found in par [0108]-[0110], [0238] and [0242]-[0243] and figures 7 and 21, and transmitting unit in claim 1 with the corresponding structure may be found in par [0108]-[0110], [0238] and [0246] and figures 7 and 21; receiving unit in claim 10 with the corresponding structure may be found in par [0140]-[0141], [0238] and [0246] and figures 11 and 21, and control unit in claim 10 with the corresponding structure may be found in par [0140]-[0143], [0238] and [0242]-[0243] and figures 11 and 21. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190245728 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20200021412 A1) . Consider claim 1 , Li discloses transmitting device (read as transmission device includes a processor for determination module 71 and a transmitter for transmission module 72, figure 7, par [0109]-[0110] and [0112]) comprising: a control unit configured to determine a modulation and coding strategy (MCS) index (read as determines a MCS for data transmission (step 41) and the same MCS based signaling uses MCS indication information carrying a MCS index, with the index defining the corresponding modulation and coding relation, par [0067], [0072] and [0104-[0105]); and a transmitting unit configured to transmit information about the MCS index (read as transmission module 72 send MCS indication information that carries a MCS index to a reception device (steps 44 and 45), figure par [0072]-[0073], [0104] and [0106]). However, Li discloses the claimed invention above with MCS indication information that carries a MCS index (par [0072]-[0073]) and corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3 (par [0092]-[0097]) but does not specifically disclose determine MCS indication information that carries MCS index according to information about phase noise. Nonetheless, Xu discloses determining the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) related information according to information about phase noise, which the network device uses a factor of the impact of phase noise and a comprehensive power spectral density of phase noise to determine or modify MCS threshold information, and then sends the determined MCS threshold, par [0034]-[0035] and [0041]-[0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the teachings of Li, to modify Li’s MCS indication information determination that carries MCS index and phase noise compensation signaling using Xu’s phase noise based MCS information adaption technique, in order to better adapt to phase noise conditions and reduce resource overheads (see [0042] of Xu) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190245728 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20200021412 A1), and in further view of Islam et al. (US 20190253121 A1) . Consider claim 2 , as applied to claim 1 above, Li, as modified by Xu, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein the control unit determines one MCS table (read as corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3 (par [0092]-[0097]) wherein the control unit determines one MCS table among a plurality of MCS tables according to the information about the phase noise, and determines the MCS index from the determined MCS table. Nonetheless, Islam discloses a message provides an MCS table indication for supported candidate MCS tables, and the DCI carries an MCS index into the indicated MCS table, par [0078]-[0080], [0097]-[0098] and [0212]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Islam into the teachings of Li, which modified by Xu, to modify the phase noise adapted MCS determination using Islam’s MCS tables indication technique, in order to allow switching between different MCS tables as needed (see [0087] and [0213] of Islam). Consider claim 3 , as applied to claim 2 above, Li, as modified by Xu and Islam, discloses wherein the control unit determines the MCS index from the determined MCS table according to the information about the phase noise (read as the MCS table 3, comprising modulation with different modulation orders and corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3, par [0092]-[0097]). Consider claim 4 , as applied to claim 2 above, Li, as modified by Xu and Islam, discloses wherein the determined MCS table comprises modulation capable of resisting the phase noise (read as the MCS table 3, comprising modulation with different modulation orders and corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3, par [0092]-[0097]). Consider claim 5 , as applied to claim 4 above, Li, as modified by Xu and Islam, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein the determined MCS table further comprises the modulation capable of resisting the phase noise (read as the MCS table 3, comprising modulation with different modulation orders and corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3, par [0092]-[0097]) but does not specifically disclose a second type of modulation different from the modulation. Nonetheless, Islam further discloses the MCS table includes 16QAM, 64QAM, or QPSK, par [0099]-[0103]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Islam into the teachings of Li, which modified by Xu, to modify the phase noise adapted MCS table using Islam’s different modulation table design, in order to allow different modulations choices for different operating conditions. Consider claim 7 , as applied to claim 2 above, Li, as modified by Xu and Islam, discloses wherein the transmitting unit is further configured to transmit information about a MCS table identifier, the MCS table identifier indicating whether the determined MCS table comprises modulation capable of resisting phase noise (read as transmission module 72 send MCS indication information that carries a MCS index to a reception device (steps 44 and 45), figure par [0072]-[0073], [0104] and [0106]; and the phase noise compensation based on MCS table 3, par [0092]-[0097]). Consider claim 8 , as applied to claim 2 above, Li, as modified by Xu and Islam, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose a receiving unit configured to receive information about a MCS table identifier, and the control unit is further configured to determine the MCS table according to the received information about the MCS table identifier, and determine the MCS index from the determined MCS table. Nonetheless, Xu further discloses the network device receives table number information and determines the corresponding table related settings from that received information, and also selects a number corresponding to an optimal table, par [0108]-[0110], [0114]-[0145] and [0158]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Xu into the teachings of Li, which modified by Xu and Islam, to modify the MCS index table using Xu’s table selection technique based on received table number, in order to allow receiver-informed table selection to compensate phase noise (see [0158] of Xu) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam et al. (US 20190253121 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20170070374 A1), and in further view of Li et al. (US 20190245728 A1) . Consider claim 10 , Islam discloses a receiving device (read as the UE receives a second configuration message indicating which MCS table from supported candidate MCS tables is to be assumed, then the received DCI from the base station, figure 2, par [0079] and [0097]) comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive information about a modulation and coding strategy (MCS) index (read as the UE receives DCI including an MCS index into the indicated MCS table, par [0097]); and a control unit configured to determine a corresponding MCS table for demodulation (read as the UE is told which table from the supported candidate MCS table is to be assumed, and then uses the MCS index in that table to determine modulation order and target code rate for decoding, par [0097]-[0098]); wherein the MCS table comprises modulation (read as the MCS table includes modulation order entries for MCS index values, and the UE uses the table entry corresponding to the MCS index, par [0097] and [0121]). However, Islam discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose the demodulation according to the received information about the MCS index. Nonetheless, Nakamura discloses in demodulation, the MCS table set (a plurality of MCS tables) is inputted, and the MCS is determined using the notified corresponding MCS index and to select a predetermined MCS table from the plurality of MCS tables with corresponding MCS index, par [0013] and [0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura into the teachings of Islam, to modify the MCS table using Nakamura’s MCS table selection with corresponding MCS index technique, in order to notify a proper MCS with proper MCS table (see par [0011] of Nakamura). However, Islam, as modified by Nakamura, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose the modulation capable of resisting phase noise. Nonetheless, Li discloses MCS table 3, comprising modulation with different modulation orders and corresponding relationship between MCS index and density of phase noise compensation reference signal on MCS table 3, par [0092]-[0097]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Islam, which modified by Nakamura, to modify the MCS table using Li’s phase noise aware table with corresponding MCS index, in order to take phase noise compensation into consider to ensure the system performance (see par [0003] of Li) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6 and 9 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Junpeng Chen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 2 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 3 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 4 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 5 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 6 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 7 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 8 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 9 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 10 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 11 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 12 Art Unit: 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/719,111 Page 13 Art Unit: 2645
Prosecution Insights