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 . Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/494,900, filed 04/07/2023, is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1, it is determined to increase target SINR both in the case that average power is greater than available power and in the case that average power is less than available power. This is inconsistent with Applicant's specification in pars. [0025-0028] and Claims 1 and 10.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 10-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 10, “A non-transient computer-readable medium” should read “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
in claims 11-19, “The computer-readable medium” should read “The non-transient computer-readable medium” for consistency with how the claim is established in independent claim 10.
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.
The term “lower” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How much lower the UE’s available power level is compared to the UE’s average power level is rendered indefinite by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being any amount less than. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on independent claim 1. Dependent claims 11-19 are rejected due to their dependency on independent claim 10.
The term “higher” in claims 1 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How much higher the UE’s available power level is compared to the UE’s average power level is rendered indefinite by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being any amount greater than. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on independent claim 1. Dependent claims 11-19 are rejected due to their dependency on independent claim 10.
The term “higher” in claims 9 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How much higher the throughput of the selected MCS must be is rendered indefinite by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted an MCS of any throughput.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), and claim 10 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1 and 10 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-19 are directed to determining to decrease or increase target SINR. Specifically, the claims recite “comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level; and determining to decrease the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is lower than the UE’s average power level, or to increase the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is higher than the UE’s average power level”, which is grouped within the Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of the claims such as non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, and base station merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, and base station perform the steps or functions of “comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level; and determining to decrease the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is lower than the UE’s average power level, or to increase the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is higher than the UE’s average power level”. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional elements of using a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, and base station to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining to decrease or increase target SINR. The additional elements of “tracking the UE’s requested RB allocations and the UE’s granted RB allocations”, “deriving the UE’s average power level corresponding to the UE’s granted RB allocations over the period of time”, and “deriving the UE’s available power level” amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processor, and base station perform the steps or functions of “comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level; and determining to decrease the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is lower than the UE’s average power level, or to increase the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is higher than the UE’s average power level”. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining to decrease or increase target SINR. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 generally describe the signals that are sent between nodes and recite elements that amount to mere data gathering and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 15-19 recite elements that further describe the abstract idea of determining to decrease or increase target SINR and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2013/0190035), hereinafter "Wang", in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0289921), hereinafter "Kim".
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
A method for uplink link adaptation (ULLA) in a telecommunication system, comprising:
dynamically changing a user equipment (UE)’s target signal to noise ratio (SINR) based on the UE’s available power and on the UE’s resource block (RB) allocation needs (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained; in this case, changes to target SINR can be made using the result of maximum power minus current power used (i.e. available power) and resource allocation), by:
deriving the UE’s available power level (see Wang, pars. [0093]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE; in this case, the PHR being the result of maximum power minus current power used corresponds to the available power level);
comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained); and
determining to decrease the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is lower than the UE’s average power level, or to increase the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is higher than the UE’s average power level (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained; in this case, a comparison is performed using the PHR value, which corresponds to maximum power minus current power used. The case that the PHR value is greater than the target PHR value corresponds to the current power used being low (i.e. the available power is greater than the average power). In this case, a value is added to the target SINR (i.e. the SINR is increased). In the case that the PHR value is less than the target PHR value, the current power being used is high and the target SINR is decreased).
However, Wang does not teach:
tracking, over a period of time, the UE’s requested RB allocations and the UE’s granted RB allocations;
deriving the UE’s average power level corresponding to the UE’s granted RB allocations over the period of time;
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
tracking, over a period of time, the UE’s requested RB allocations and the UE’s granted RB allocations (see Kim, pars. [0084-0085]: The wireless device (for example, small cell base station) receives the PHR from the mobile terminal and determines the maximum number of PRBs that may be allocated to the mobile terminal on the basis of the PHR and the current location (or path loss) of the mobile terminal The wireless device (for example, small cell base station) allocates the number of PRBs smaller than the maximum number of PRBs to the mobile terminal at the time of scheduling of an uplink scheduler; in this case, the maximum number of PRBs that may be allocated corresponds to the requested RB allocations and the number of PRBs allocated corresponds to the granted RB allocations);
deriving the UE’s average power level corresponding to the UE’s granted RB allocations over the period of time (see Kim, par. [0114]: As illustrated in the above Equation 1, the PUSCH transmission power is determined depending on the path loss at the current location of the mobile terminal, the TPC command, and the number of allocated PRBs);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Wang with the tracking of RB allocations and deriving of average power of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of minimizing battery consumption of a mobile terminal (see Kim, par. [0009]).
Regarding claims 2, 12, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium. Wang further teaches:
further comprising sending a message to the UE reflecting an update to the UE’s target SINR (see Wang, Fig. 3, par. [0145]: if ΔSINR≥HSINR, the TPC command is 4; when ΔSINR≥HSINR, it is indicated that an absolute value of the difference value between the current SINR in the channel and the target SINR is greater than or equal to the highest SINR threshold value and the quality of the signal in the channel is relatively poor, therefore a TPC command with a bit value of 4 can be sent to the UE, so that the UE increases the transmission power greatly according to the TPC command; in this case, a TPC command (i.e. a message) may be sent when the target SINR has been changed (i.e. updated)).
Regarding claims 4, 14, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium. Wang further teaches:
further comprising receiving a power headroom report (PHR) from the UE that is a report of headroom between estimated current UE transmit power and nominal UE transmit power; and deriving the UE’s available power level from the power headroom report (see Wang, pars. [0093]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE, and see Wang, par. [0101]: the adjustment of the TPC command is closely related to the PHR value reported by the UE; in this case, the PHR is the result of maximum power (i.e. nominal power) minus current power and corresponds to the available power level).
Regarding claims 5, 15, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium.
Wang does not teach, but Kim teaches:
further comprising determining a power per resource block measurement (see Kim, par. [0095]: In the above Equation, Pn represents noise power per the PRB and is calculated like the following Equation. Pn=−174 dBm/Hz+10log10(180 kHz)=−121 [dBm/PRB]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or non-transient computer-readable medium of Wang with determining a power per resource block measurement of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of minimizing battery consumption of a mobile terminal (see Kim, par. [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches:
dynamically changing a user equipment (UE)’s target signal to noise ratio (SINR) based on the UE’s available power and on the UE’s resource block (RB) allocation needs (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained; in this case, changes to target SINR can be made using the result of maximum power minus current power used (i.e. available power) and resource allocation);
deriving the UE’s available power level (see Wang, pars. [0093]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE; in this case, the PHR being the result of maximum power minus current power used corresponds to the available power level);
comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained); and
determining to decrease the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is lower than the UE’s average power level, or to increase the UE’s target SINR when the UE’s available power level is higher than the UE’s average power level (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained; in this case, a comparison is performed using the PHR value, which corresponds to maximum power minus current power used. The case that the PHR value is greater than the target PHR value corresponds to the current power used being low (i.e. the available power is greater than the average power). In this case, a value is added to the target SINR (i.e. the SINR is increased). In the case that the PHR value is less than the target PHR value, the current power being used is high and the target SINR is decreased).
However, Wang does not teach:
A non-transient computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on a processor at a wireless telecommunication network base station, cause the base station to perform steps, the steps comprising:
tracking, over a period of time, the UE’s RB allocation needs;
tracking, over the period of time, the UE’s requested RB allocations and the UE’s granted RB allocations;
deriving the UE’s average power level corresponding to the UE’s granted RB allocations over the period of time;
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
A non-transient computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on a processor at a wireless telecommunication network base station, cause the base station to perform steps (see Kim, Fig. 7, par. [0144]: A wireless device TN100 may be the base station, and see Kim, par. [0145]: the wireless device TN100 may include at least one processor TN110, a transmitting/receiving apparatus TN120 connected to a network to perform communication, and a memory TN130, and see Kim, par. [0146]: The processor TN110 may be configured to implement the procedures, the functions, and the methods described with reference to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention, and see Kim, par. [0147]: The memory TN130 and the storage apparatus TN140 may each store various information associated with the operation of the processor TN110), the steps comprising:
tracking, over a period of time, the UE’s RB allocation needs;
tracking, over the period of time, the UE’s requested RB allocations and the UE’s granted RB allocations (see Kim, pars. [0084-0085]: The wireless device (for example, small cell base station) receives the PHR from the mobile terminal and determines the maximum number of PRBs that may be allocated to the mobile terminal on the basis of the PHR and the current location (or path loss) of the mobile terminal The wireless device (for example, small cell base station) allocates the number of PRBs smaller than the maximum number of PRBs to the mobile terminal at the time of scheduling of an uplink scheduler; in this case, the maximum number of PRBs that may be allocated corresponds to the requested RB allocations (i.e. allocation needs) and the number of PRBs allocated corresponds to the granted RB allocations);
deriving the UE’s average power level corresponding to the UE’s granted RB allocations over the period of time (see Kim, par. [0114]: As illustrated in the above Equation 1, the PUSCH transmission power is determined depending on the path loss at the current location of the mobile terminal, the TPC command, and the number of allocated PRBs);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the changing target SINR of Wang with the non-transitory medium and processor, tracking of RB allocations, and deriving of average power of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of minimizing battery consumption of a mobile terminal (see Kim, par. [0009]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the non-transient computer-readable medium.
Wang does not teach, but Kim teaches:
wherein the wireless telecommunications network base station is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) or 5G base station (see Kim, par. [0045]: a base station (BS) may refer to an to advanced base station, a high reliability base station, a nodeB, an evolved node B (eNodeB, eNB)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Wang with the base station being a LTE or 5G base station of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of minimizing battery consumption of a mobile terminal (see Kim, par. [0009]).
Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Panchal (US 2014/0071836), hereinafter “Panchal”.
Regarding claims 3, 13, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium.
However, the combination of Wang in view of Kim does not teach:
further comprising calculating average resource block allocation per UE using an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter.
Panchal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising calculating average resource block allocation per UE using an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter (see Panchal, pars. [0008-0009]: An enhanced nodeB (eNodeB) in an LTE system is responsible for managing resource scheduling for both uplink and downlink channels. The goal of a resource scheduling algorithm is to optimize allocation of PRBs. UEs are assigned to the PRB based on which UE has the highest priority ratio rm,t,u,s/({tilde over (R)}t,u,s)α, where {tilde over (R)}t,u,v is long-term averaged throughput, rm,t,u,s is instantaneous spectral efficiency and a is a variable used to tune the "fairness" of the scheduler. The average throughput {tilde over (R)}t,u,v on TTI t is computed using the following single-pole IIR filter:…A scheduler at the serving cell s is configured to assign the PRB m at TTI t to a UE u with the highest determined priority ratio. In general, there are two types of scheduling algorithms used to determine the priority ratio, opportunistic scheduling and fair scheduling. Fair scheduling focuses on achieving at least a minimum data rate for each UE by setting α =1 for all UEs, while opportunistic scheduling focuses on achieving at least a maximum total data rate among all the UEs serviced by setting α<1 for UEs that have a relatively low throughput; in this case, part of the resource block allocation is dependent upon an IIR filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or non-transient computer-readable medium of the combination of Wang in view of Kim with the IIR filter of Panchal with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of optimizing the allocation of PRBs (see Panchal, par. [0008]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium. Wang further teaches:
for lowering the UE’s target SINR (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained).
However, the combination of Wang in view of Kim does not teach:
further comprising deriving an expected throughput
Panchal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising deriving an expected throughput (see Panchal, pars. [0008-0009]: An enhanced nodeB (eNodeB) in an LTE system is responsible for managing resource scheduling for both uplink and downlink channels. The goal of a resource scheduling algorithm is to optimize allocation of PRBs. UEs are assigned to the PRB based on which UE has the highest priority ratio rm,t,u,s/({tilde over (R)}t,u,s)α, where {tilde over (R)}t,u,v is long-term averaged throughput, rm,t,u,s is instantaneous spectral efficiency and a is a variable used to tune the "fairness" of the scheduler. The average throughput {tilde over (R)}t,u,v on TTI t is computed using the following single-pole IIR filter:…A scheduler at the serving cell s is configured to assign the PRB m at TTI t to a UE u with the highest determined priority ratio. In general, there are two types of scheduling algorithms used to determine the priority ratio, opportunistic scheduling and fair scheduling. Fair scheduling focuses on achieving at least a minimum data rate for each UE by setting α =1 for all UEs, while opportunistic scheduling focuses on achieving at least a maximum total data rate among all the UEs serviced by setting α<1 for UEs that have a relatively low throughput)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or non-transient computer-readable medium of the combination of Wang in view of Kim with throughput determination of Panchal with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of optimizing the allocation of PRBs (see Panchal, par. [0008]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Mercer et al. (US 2018/0287650), hereinafter “Mercer”.
Regarding claims 6, 16, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium. Wang further teaches:
further comprising comparing the UE’s available power level with the UE’s average power level (see Wang, pars. [0093-0094]: The traffic service is a data traffic service performed on the uplink of the UE. The PHR can be obtained by subtracting power used by the uplink channel currently from a maximum transmission power of the UE, and the PHR can reflect a current power adjustable range of the UE. When the base station side performs power adjustment or resource allocation for the UE, the PHR value should be considered to ensure that power required to perform the power adjustment or the resource allocation for the UE does not exceed the maximum transmission power of the UE, otherwise the accuracy of the power adjustment or the resource allocation performed by the base station for the UE will be influenced. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the PHR value with the target PHR value, so as to judge whether the power adjustment range is exceeded. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the target FER value is added onto the target SINR value; otherwise, the target FER value is subtracted from the currently saved target SINR value. If the current PHR value is greater than the target PHR value, the adjustment range is relatively large, thus a current SINR value greater than the target SINR value can be obtained; in this case, a comparison is performed using the PHR value, which corresponds to maximum power minus current power used (i.e. available power))
However, the combination of Wang in view of Kim does not teach:
together with a hysteresis term.
Mercer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
together with a hysteresis term (see Mercer, par. [0101]: a hysteresis is introduced when the average power exceeds a threshold. The hysteresis delays the RF power adjustment trigger signal to allow confirmation that the threshold-exceeding activity is not an anomalous event. For example, if the average power monitored during an average power period by the medium average filter still exceeds the threshold at the end of the hysteresis delay, then the trigger condition is confirmed, and the RF power adjustment trigger is activated to adjust the RF power supplied to the antenna. A hysteresis may also be applied to the decrease in attenuations, such that the start of attenuation is delayed until the transmitted average power during the average time period is confirmed to be decreasing below a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the comparison of available and average power of the combination of Wang in view of Kim with the inclusion of a hysteresis of Mercer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing confirmation that threshold-exceeding activity is not an anomalous event (see Mercer, par. [0101]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Vanghi et al. (US 6,597,923), hereinafter “Vanghi”.
Regarding claims 7, 17, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium.
However, the combination of Wang in view of Kim does not teach:
further comprising limiting a permitted value for the UE’s target SINR to be equal to or less than a maximum target SINR.
Vanghi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising limiting a permitted value for the UE’s target SINR to be equal to or less than a maximum target SINR (see Vanghi, Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 1-16: The output of the accumulator 335 is input to the clipper 340 which allows the revised SNR value to proceed to the delay 345 and subsequently to the demodulator 105, unless the revised SNR value is outside a predetermined range for the target SNR. For example, the clipper 340 may limit the target SNR to a range of 1 dB<SNR<3 dB. On the other hand, if N is smaller than or equal to N*, the system adjust the target SNR 115 threshold used by the inner loop power control function of the demodulator 105 by a negative amount that depends on both N and N*, unless the revised SNR value is outside a predetermined range for the target SNR. In essence, the clipper 340 operates to insure that the outer loop 350 operates within an operating range between SNRMin and SNRMAX. That is, the clipper 340 output is equal to min{max{ SNRMin, Xin} ; SNRMAX }, where Xin is the digital input to the clipper 340).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control of SINR of the combination of Wang in view of Kim with the limiting the target SINR to be equal to or less than a maximum target SINR of Vanghi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the responsiveness of the transmitter power control function (see Vanghi, col. 3, lines 33-40).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Hunsaker et al. (US 2013/0322359), hereinafter “Hunsaker”.
Regarding claims 9, 19, the combination of Wang in view of Kim teaches the method or non-transient computer-readable medium.
However, the combination of Wang in view of Kim does not teach:
further comprising enabling the UE to select a higher throughput modulation coding scheme (MCS).
Hunsaker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further comprising enabling the UE to select a higher throughput modulation coding scheme (MCS) (see Hunsaker, par. [0086]: for the UL implementation instructions for the power control are provided by the network element such as eNB to the UE. For example, after the SINR has been reduced using power down commands, resulting in a low MCS and a larger number of PRBs, it is possible to subsequently move back up to a fewer number of PRBs and a larger MCS using power up commands in response to a PHR (power Headroom Report) showing that excess power exists to power the UE up and to allow for a high SINR, a high MCS and fewer PRBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method or non-transient computer-readable medium of the combination of Wang in view of Kim with the selecting higher throughput MCS of Hunsaker with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the data transmission capacity (see Hunsaker, pars. [0080-0083]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Raghothaman et al. (US 2019/0357232) teaches techniques for implementing uplink spatial reuse in a C-RAN.
Yang et al. (US 2024/0276387) teaches a method for uplink power control including determining a user equipment specific SINR link adaptation target.
Feng et al. (WO 2013/185319) teaches a method, apparatus, and computer program for controlling power and rate including a modulation and coding scheme and transmission power.
B. -s. Chen et al. ("Adaptive Two-Loop Power Tracking Control in CDMA Systems with the Utility Optimization") teaches a scheme including an adaptive searching algorithm for determining an optimal target SINR.
Z. Yang et al. ("An Advanced Power Control Algorithm Based on PHR in LTE-A PUSCH") teaches an optimization PUSCH power control algorithm based on PHR including setting the range of target SINR.
J. Zheng et al. ("A Utility-Based Joint Power and Rate Adaptive Algorithm for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks") teaches joint power and rate adaptation including setting SINR requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Nishant B Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights