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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-13, filed June 29th, 2026, with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues that Chen fails to teach or suggest selecting a FEC code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units based at least on a target data rate, as required by claim 1. Applicant argues that Chen et al. (US 2015/0086215), hereinafter Chen, instead determines a data rate based on other parameters, including measured SNR values, and therefore Yang et al. (US 2025/0150205) and Chen, alone or in combination, fail to teach the claimed limitation. Applicant also argues that the additional reference applied to the dependent claims does not cure the deficiency.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration of the prior art of record, Examiner agrees that the references do not sufficiently teach or suggest selecting the claimed FEC code, code rate, modulation scheme, and number of resource units based at least on the target data rate. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding analogous art and the rationale for combining the references are moot in view of the withdrawal of the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-13, filed June 29th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hassan et al. (US 7,634,016) in view of Lin et al. (EP 4156522).
Regarding independent claim 15, Applicant argues that independent claim 15 teaches features that provide patentability over Yang and Chen for reasons analogous to those presented in respect to claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered. However, claim 15 teaches limitations different from those of claim 1, and the previous rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is set forth below, based on Hassan et al. (US 7,634,016) in view of Lin et al. (EP 4156522), which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 15 as discussed below.
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.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan et al. (US 7,634,016), hereinafter Hassan, in view of Lin et al. (EP 4156522), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 15, Hassan teaches an apparatus comprising: a transmitter and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a target data rate for transmitting data (Hassan, Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 51-54, “FIG. 4 illustrates another embodiment of the invention. This figure shows a system 400 that that accepts a data rate from an application 401 and provides information to an OFDM transmitter 405 as to how it will transmit data”); based at least on the target data rate, select a modulation scheme and a code rate to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate (Hassan, Fig. 3, steps 306-308; col. 6, lines 31-38, “The system can then check at 306 whether that total data rate exceeds the required rate provided by the application. If it does, the system has two nonexclusive options. It can select a lower order modulation scheme for one subchannel at 307, or it can select a lower rate error correction coding scheme for one subchannel at 308. If the system selects a lower order modulation scheme, it can select that scheme for the subchannel that has the highest order modulation scheme”); and modulate the encoded data using the modulation scheme to generate modulated data, and the transmitter is configured to transmit the modulated data (Hassan, Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 58-65, “The data gathered by the energy detection module 402 are provided to the modulation selection scheme module 403 as well as the error correction coding scheme module 404, which either independently or in concert will select a modulation scheme and an error correction coding scheme respectively. The selected schemes are then provided by the system 400 to the transmitter 405, which can then begin transmitting over OFDM using those schemes”). Hassan teaches selecting and adjusting the modulation scheme and error correction coding rate based at least on the required data rate by comparing a calculated transmission rate with the required data rate and selecting a different modulation scheme and/or error correction coding rate until the required transmission rate is achieved.
Hassan fails to teach identify, based at least on the selected code rate, a forward error correction (FEC) code with a first code rate that is different from the selected code rate; encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code with the first code rate to generate encoded data that corresponds to the selected code rate.
However, Lin, in an analogous art, identify, based at least on the selected code rate, a forward error correction (FEC) code (Lin, para. [0092], lines 45-49, “In an embodiment, the first LDPC codeword in step 410 may be the mother code. In this case, the first code rate of the first LDPC codeword is a code rate of the mother code. In other words, LDPC encoding is performed on the K information bits by using the check matrix of the target code length and the target code rate, to obtain the first LDPC codeword. A code length of the first LDPC is the target code length, and the first code rate of the first LDPC codeword is the target code rate”) with a first code rate that is different from the selected code rate (Lin, para. [0094], lines 56-57, “the second code rate is higher than the first code rate”; para. [0095], lines 3-4, “he second code rate is lower than the first code rate”); encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code with the first code rate (Lin, para. [0092], lines 45-49, “In an embodiment, the first LDPC codeword in step 410 may be the mother code. In this case, the first code rate of the first LDPC codeword is a code rate of the mother code. In other words, LDPC encoding is performed on the K information bits by using the check matrix of the target code length and the target code rate, to obtain the first LDPC codeword. A code length of the first LDPC is the target code length, and the first code rate of the first LDPC codeword is the target code rate”) to generate encoded data that corresponds to the selected code rate (Lin, para. [0093], lines 52-53, “rate matching may be performed on the first LDPC codeword at the first code rate according to the rate matching scheme provided in this application, to obtain the second LDPC codeword at the second code rate”).
Hassan and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of wireless communication systems that use modulation and forward error correction coding.
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 Hassan to incorporate the teachings of Lin by including the functionality of using LDPC rate matching techniques.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to provide flexibility in achieving the desired coding rate for wireless transmission.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hassan in view of Lin teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the selected FEC code is a low density parity check (LDPC) code or a binary convolutional (BCC) code (Lin, para. [0002], lines 9-10, “This application relates to the field of channel coding, and more specifically, to an LDPC rate matching method and a communication apparatus”).
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 Hassan to incorporate the teachings of Lin by including the functionality of using a LDPC for the selected FEC code.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to provide forward error correction with selectable code rates for reliable transmission.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hassan in view of Lin teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the FEC code is an LDPC code with the first code rate that is greater than the selected code rate; in encoding the data, the one or more processors are configured to: receive a set of information bits; encode, by the FEC encoder, the set of information bits using the LDPC code with the first code rate to generate encoded bits and parity data; puncture one or more bits from the parity data to generate punctured parity data (Lin, para. [0081], lines 9-11, “an original LDPC codeword may be directly transmitted, or puncturing is first performed on check bits of the original LDPC codeword, and then the punctured codeword is transmitted”); and generate the encoded data by concatenating the encoded bits and the punctured parity data (Lin, para. [0082], lines 12-13, “During an ith transmission, a part of information bits are retransmitted in descending order of priorities [in ascending order of confidences], or a part of check bits obtained after puncturing are retransmitted at the same time”).
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 Hassan to incorporate the teachings of Lin by including the functionality of using LDPC puncturing techniques.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to achieve a desired code rate through puncturing of parity bits.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Lin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2025/0150205), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hassan in view of Lin teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the target data rate is 1 Mbps or 1.5 Mbps, and the range of the target data rate is 20% of the target data rate.
However, Yang, in an analogous art teaches wherein the target data rate is 1 Mbps or 1.5 Mbps (Yang, para. [0126], lines 5-7, "The frequency domain duplication scheme may produce a 4x duplication with an associated data rate between approximately 1.5 Mbps"), and the range of the target data rate is 20% of the target data rate (Yang, para. [0126], lines 5-8, "The frequency domain duplication scheme may produce a 4x duplication with an associated data rate between approximately 1.5 Mbps and approximately 1.8 Mbps depending on a GI"; this citation teaches an upper bound approximately 20% above a target data rate of 1.5 Mbps; para. [0036], lines 11-16, "Additionally, or alternatively, the wireless communication device may implement an ELR wireless packet design to extend a coverage range while maintaining a similar, or slightly lower, data rate when compared with an existing coverage range for the LR wireless communication system"; this citation teaches a lower operating range near a target data rate). Together, these citations teach that the system may implement a range of data rates about the target value 1.5 Mbps, with the range being approximately 20% of the target data rate.
Hassan, Lin, and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems that use modulation and forward error correction coding.
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 combination of Hassan in view of Lin to incorporate the teachings of Yang by including the functionality of a target rate of 1 or 1.5 Mbps, and a data rate range being 20% of the target data rate.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to provide a desired low data rate while extending the coverage range of the wireless communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art made of record fails to teach or suggest selecting, based at least on a target data rate, a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) for transmitting data. In particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest selecting the number of resource units based at least on the target data rate, in combination with the claimed selection of the FEC code, code rate, and modulation scheme.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are dependent on claims 1 and 8, and are therefore allowable under the same rationale.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 18 and 20 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.
Li et al. (US 2020/0014506) teaches determining the number of subcarriers of one or more RUs based on a required data rate, but does not teach selecting the number of RUs based on the target data rate.
Jiang et al. (US 11,191,082) teaches WLAN rate selection and allocates a plurality of RUs based on channel quality and queue information.
Choi et al. (US 10,440,704) teaches WLAN resource allocation including information identifying the number of RUs allocated to a STA, but does not teach that number being selected based on a target data rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE V BRADEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/G.V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights