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
The amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 6-7 and 13-20 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 remain as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 16-17 were amended to change claim dependencies. Claim 15 was amended to include minor wording changes. Claims 18-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The amendments to claims 18-20 overcome the indefiniteness issues raised in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. Claims 18-20 are now rejected under 35 USC § 103 for the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-9, filed January 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-17 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Yang et al. (US 2025/0150205), hereinafter Yang, in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0086215), hereinafter Chen.
Applicant argues that Yang, and Hu et al. (US 2024/0048418), hereinafter Hu, fail to teach the claim limitation “based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate”, and therefore the references do no teach the limitations of claim 1. Applicant further teaches that Jacobsen (US 2007/0180349), applied to clams 7 and 14, does not cure the deficiencies of Yang and Hu.
Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments. In response to these arguments, Examiner conducted an additional search and has applied new prior art references in a new rejection under 35 USC § 103. The newly applied references teach selecting transmission parameters including modulation scheme, coding rate, and resource allocation. In communication systems, the data rate is determined by the modulation scheme, coding rate, and the number of resource units used for transmission. Therefore, selecting these transmission parameters inherently determines, and is based on the resulting data rate.
Accordingly, the newly applied prior art teaches or suggests selecting transmission parameters based at least on a target data rate, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-5, 8-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an apparatus comprising: a transmitter (Yang, para. [0160], lines 1-2, "The wireless communication device 1800 includes an indication receiver 1825, a packet transmitter 1830") and one or more processors (Yang, para. [0006], lines 3-5, "The wireless communication device may include a processing system that includes processor circuitry"), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a target data rate for transmitting data over a channel with a frequency bandwidth (Yang, para. [0036], lines 5-8, "The wireless communication devices may implement an ELR wireless packet design to obtain a target data rate while maintaining an existing coverage range of an LR wireless communication system"); transmit the data within a range of the target data rate (Yang, para. [0069], lines 1-9, "The ELR wireless packet 505 may provide for increased signaling throughput and efficiency, extended range, or the like when compared with other LR wireless packet protocols. For example, the ELR wireless packet 505 may have a target data rate, such as a modulation and coding scheme [MCS] target data rate, where the MCS specifies a data rate, a channel bandwidth, and/or a number of antennas or spatial streams at a transmitting wireless communication device"); encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code and the code rate to generate encoded data (Yang, para. [0088], lines 1-4, "the wireless device may encode bits for the packet according to a coding rate. The wireless device, in some examples, also may apply a forward error correction [FEC], such as a ½ FEC"); and modulate the encoded data using the modulation scheme to generate modulated data (Yang, para. [0038], lines 25-30, "In the frequency domain duplication scheme, the wireless communication device may modulate the data portion according to a modulation and coding scheme [MCS] and a resource allocation, where the resource allocation accommodates for [and is likewise associated with] the duplications"), and the transmitter is configured to transmit the modulated data using the number of RUs (Yang, para. [0014], lines 4-11, "The method may include receiving an indication of a resource allocation via which to transmit a single-user wireless packet associated with an ELR communication mode, where the resource allocation is associated with a distributed resource unit [dRU] including 52 tones and a first frequency range and transmitting the single-user wireless packet in accordance with the resource allocation").
Yang fails to teach based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code, a code rate, a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth.
However, Chen, in an analogous art, teaches based at least on the target data rate, select a forward error correction (FEC) code (Chen, para. [0006], lines 6-9, “performing forward error correction (FEC) on each subcarrier or group of subcarriers according to the code rate corresponding to the subcarrier or group of subcarriers”), a code rate (Chen, Abstract, lines 5-10, “assigning, with the processor, a code rate to each of a plurality of forward error correction (FEC) encoders/decoders according to a mapping of a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to a code rate for each of the subcarriers or subcarrier groups”), a modulation scheme, and a number of resource units (RUs) within the frequency bandwidth (Chen, Abstract, lines 12-16, “assigning, with the processor, a modulation format to each subcarrier or each subcarrier group according to a mapping of an SNR for each subcarrier or subcarrier group to a bit number for a corresponding subcarrier or subcarrier group”; subcarriers equate to resource units). Chen teaches selecting a code rate, modulation format, and subcarriers for transmission. The modulation scheme, coding rate, and number of resource units/subcarriers determine the data rate of a communication system. Therefore, selecting these transmission parameters inherently determines the resulting data rate. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select these parameters based on a desired or target data rate.
Yang and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of tone/subcarrier transmission.
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 Yang to incorporate the teachings of Chen by including the functionality of selecting code rates, modulation schemes and resource units based on a data rate.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be that adaptive modulation, coding, and resource allocation techniques are well known in communication systems.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selected FEC code is a low density parity check (LDPC) code or a binary convolutional (BCC) code (Yang, para. [0095], lines 1-2, "At 705, the wireless device may perform an LDPC encoding on bits to be included in the packet").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: based at least on the target data rate, select a guard interval (GI) and a number of tones per RU, to transmit the data within a range of the target data rate (Yang, para. [0110], lines 1-5, "The wireless device may populate the tones of the frequency range such that after an IFFT 915, the wireless device may produce a 4x duplication prepended by a single GI. In other words, the wireless device may allocate a modulated symbol every 4th tone").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, 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.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the FEC code has a first code rate that is different from the selected code rate (Yang does not explicitly teach the limitation, however it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that FEC encoders in wireless communication systems typically implement a first code rate and then perform rate matching to achieve a second code rate that may be different from the first code rate. This is a well-known and routine practice in WLAN systems [e.g., IEEE 802.11]), the one or more processors are further configured to: encode, by the FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code with the first code rate to generate encoded data that corresponds to the selected code rate (Yang, para. [0088], lines 1-6, "at 605, the wireless device may encode bits for the packet according to a coding rate. The wireless device, in some examples, also may apply a forward error correction (FEC), such as a ½ FEC. In other words, the wireless device may code a first bit and leave a second bit uncoded for a ½ rate convolutional code").
Claim 8 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 4, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 5, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches an apparatus comprising: a transmitter (Yang, para. [0160], lines 1-2, "The wireless communication device 1800 includes an indication receiver 1825, a packet transmitter 1830") and one or more processors (Yang, para. [0006], lines 3-5, "The wireless communication device may include a processing system that includes processor circuitry"), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a target data rate for transmitting data (Yang, para. [0036], lines 5-8, "The wireless communication devices may implement an ELR wireless packet design to obtain a target data rate while maintaining an existing coverage range of an LR wireless communication system"); 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 (Yang, para. [0069], lines 1-9, "The ELR wireless packet 505 may provide for increased signaling throughput and efficiency, extended range, or the like when compared with other LR wireless packet protocols. For example, the ELR wireless packet 505 may have a target data rate, such as a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) target data rate, where the MCS specifies a data rate, a channel bandwidth, and/or a number of antennas or spatial streams at a transmitting wireless communication device"); encode, by an FEC encoder, the data using the FEC code with first code rate to generate encoded data that corresponds to the selected code rate (Yang, para. [0088], lines 1-6, "at 605, the wireless device may encode bits for the packet according to a coding rate. The wireless device, in some examples, also may apply a forward error correction (FEC), such as a ½ FEC. In other words, the wireless device may code a first bit and leave a second bit uncoded for a ½ rate convolutional code"); and modulate the encoded data using the modulation scheme to generate modulated data (Yang, para. [0038], lines 25-30, "In the frequency domain duplication scheme, the wireless communication device may modulate the data portion according to a modulation and coding scheme [MCS] and a resource allocation, where the resource allocation accommodates for [and is likewise associated with] the duplications"), and the transmitter is configured to transmit the modulated data (Yang, para. [0153], lines 1-7, "The wireless device may transmit the packet having the packet format 1715, which may be referred to as a mixed mode U-SIG 2x duplication MCS15 packet format. The packet format 1715 may include a 4x duplication to the data portion of the packet and/or a dRU. Additionally, or alternatively, the packet format 1715 may include a U-SIG modulated via an MCS").
Yang 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.
However, Chen, in an analogous art, also teaches 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 (Chen, para. [0006], lines 6-9, “performing forward error correction (FEC) on each subcarrier or group of subcarriers according to the code rate corresponding to the subcarrier or group of subcarriers”).
Yang and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of tone/subcarrier transmission.
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 Yang to incorporate the teachings of Chen by including the functionality of selecting a FEC code, that is different from a selected code rate, based on the selected code rate data rate.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be that adaptive coding rates are well known in communication systems.
Claim 16 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is an apparatus with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the FEC code is a first BCC code (Yang, para. [0009], lines 6-8, “applying a binary convolutional coding [BCC] interleaver, a low-density parity check [LDPC] tone mapper, or both to the data portion”) with the first code rate that is greater than the selected code rate (Yang teaches applying BCC to a data portion, which would imply the use of a BCC code rate); in encoding the data, the one or more processors are configured to: concatenate the first BCC code with the first code rate with a repetition code to generate a second BCC code that corresponds to the selected code rate; and encode, by the FEC encoder, the data using the second BCC code, to generate the encoded data that corresponds to the selected code rate (Yang, para. [0011], lines 5-14, “the repetition coding scheme may be associated with an inner coding of the data portion, encoding LDPC coded bits according to a low-density parity check [LDPC] coding scheme, where the LDPC coding scheme may be associated with an outer coding of the data portion, and producing the first quantity of duplications of at least the data portion in accordance with concatenating the LDPC coding scheme with the repetition coding scheme and repeating LDPC encoded bits by the first quantity”).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0048418), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the FEC code is an LDPC code (Yang, para. [0009], lines 6-8, “applying a binary convolutional coding [BCC] interleaver, a low-density parity check [LDPC] tone mapper, or both to the data portion”), but fails to teach the selected code rate is 1/3 and the first code rate is 1/2 or 1/4.
However, Hu, in an analogous art, teaches the selected code rate is 1/3 (Hu, Fig. 16 teaches a transmission processing flow that may include a LDPC encoder with coding rate R of 1/3), and the first code rate is 1/2 or 1/4 (Hu, Fig. 13 teaches a base code rate of 1/2 or 1/4).
Yang, Chen, and Hu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication systems.
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 Yang in view of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Hu by including the functionality of an LDPC code with a selected code rate of 1/3, and a first code rate of 1/2 or 1/4.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to support multi-user capabilities for orthogonal frequency-division multiple access operations (Hu, para. [0038], lines 9-18, “Moreover, multiple repetitions [e.g., 2x, 3x, 4x, 6x, 8x, 9x] may be utilized to achieve a low effective coding rate for enhancement in coverage range. Furthermore, to achieve support of multi-user [MU] scenarios with orthogonal frequency-division multiple-access (OFDMA), the proposed schemes may… (iv) flexibly schedule different RU sizes and coding rates [e.g., by a number of repetitions (Nx)]…” [shorten for brevity]).
Claim 13 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 6, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen, further in view of Hu, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Jacobsen (US 2007/0180349).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang in view of Chen, further in view of Hu teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the FEC code is an BCC code (Yang, para. [0009], lines 6-8, “applying a binary convolutional coding [BCC] interleaver, a low-density parity check [LDPC] tone mapper, or both to the data portion”), the selected code rate is 1/3 (Hu, Fig. 16 teaches a transmission processing flow that may include a BCC encoder with coding rate R of 1/3).
The combination of Yang in view of Chen, further in view of Hu, taken singly or combined, fails to teach the first code rate is 2/3.
However, Jacobsen, in an analogous art, teaches the first code rate is 2/3 (Jacobsen, para. [0057], lines 13-17, "Three layer data payloads 600, 602, 604 are shown in FIGS. 6A-C with corresponding UEP code rates applied, with R=1/2 at base layer data payload 600, R=2/3 at first enhancement layer data payload 602").
Yang, Chen, Hu and Jacobsen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication systems.
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 Yang in view of Chen, further in view of Hu to incorporate the teachings of Jacobsen by including the functionality of a first code rate being 2/3.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would that a BCC code rate of 2/3 is a well-known code rate in wireless communication systems (e.g., IEEE 802.11). Selecting 2/3 from among the known BCC code rates would have been a routine design choice that would yield predictable results.
Claim 14 is a method with limitations similar to the apparatus of claim 7, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Srinivasa et al. (US 2013/0177004), hereinafter Srinivasa.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, but fails to teach 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 first set of information bits; concatenate the first set of information bits with a set of information bits to generate a second set of information bits; encode, by the FEC encoder using the LDPC code with the first code rate, the second set of information bits, to generate parity data; and generate the encoded data by concatenating the first set of information bit and the parity data to achieve the selected code rate.
However, Srinivasa, in an analogous art, teaches 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 first set of information bits; concatenate the first set of information bits with a set of information bits to generate a second set of information bits; encode, by the FEC encoder using the LDPC code with the first code rate, the second set of information bits, to generate parity data; and generate the encoded data by concatenating the first set of information bit and the parity data to achieve the selected code rate (Srinivasa, para. [0063], lines 4-5, “LDPC encoding includes, for example, one or more of shortening, puncturing and/or repetition of bits”).
Yang, Chen, and Srinivasa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication systems.
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 Yang in view of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Srinivasa by including the functionality of LDPC encoding where the output codeword contains information bits and parity bits, and a code rate is achieved by concatenating the information and parity bits .
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be that LDPC encoding and rate matching techniques are well known in the art for adjusting code rates and achieving redundancy.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yang in view of Chen teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, but fails to teach 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; and generate the encoded data by concatenating the encoded bits and the punctured parity data.
However, Srinivasa teaches 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; and generate the encoded data by concatenating the encoded bits and the punctured parity data (Srinivasa, para. [0063], lines 4-5, “LDPC encoding includes, for example, one or more of shortening, puncturing and/or repetition of bits”).
Yang, Chen, and Srinivasa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of communication systems.
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 Yang in view of Chen to incorporate the teachings of Srinivasa by including the functionality of LDPC puncturing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be that puncturing is a well-known rate matching technique used to adjust code rates in ECC systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prodan (US 2014/0337682) teaches FEC coding and variable code rates.
Tzannes et al. (US 2002/0042899) teaches LDPC encoding and systematic LDPC codeword generation.
Park et al. (US 2019/0393891) teaches LDPC encoding and codeword structure including data bits and parity bits.
Chen et al. (US 2024/0022365) teaches long range wireless communication and waveform structures.
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