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 . This Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 08/20/2024. Claims 1-3, 5-20, and 22 are pending. Claims 4, 21, and 23-53 are canceled.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for priority to PCT Application No. PCT/EP2023/057000, filed 20 March, 2023, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/325,081, filed 29 March, 2022, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in par. [0042] of the Specification, “If a first transmission TB has exactly K Failed CBGs, at 146 the OLLA_offset may not be changed” (emphasis added) should read “If a first transmission TB has exactly K Failed CBGs, at 136 the OLLA_offset may not be changed” (emphasis added) for consistency with the reference number in Fig. 1.
in par. [0046] of the Specification, “At 350, there may be a NACK for a first transmission, and no action may be taken. Then, there may be an ACK for a second transmission, leading to a decrease at 350, and again the same at 335” (emphasis added) should read “At 345, there may be a NACK for a first transmission, and no action may be taken. Then, there may be an ACK for a second transmission, leading to a decrease at 350, and again the same at 355” (emphasis added) for consistency with the reference numbers in Fig. 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
each of claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the wherein the” which should read “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Dependent claims 3, 5-9, 11-14, 20, and 22 were considered under 35 USC § 101 but is not being rejected under 35 USC § 101. The recited steps regarding the particular controlling of outer loop link adaptation amounts to integrating the judicial exception of respective independent claims 1 and 18 into a practical application.
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 8 and 9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the residual block error rate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that this limitation should read “a residual block error rate” if it is intended to establish a new residual block error rate or the limitation should read “the second transmission residual block error rate” if it is intended to refer back to the established limitation in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “a residual block error rate”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the residual block error rate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests that this limitation should read “a residual block error rate” if it is intended to establish a new residual block error rate or the limitation should read “the second transmission residual block error rate” if it is intended to refer back to the established limitation in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “a residual block error rate”.
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, 2, 10, and 15-19 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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 15-17 are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture) and claims 18-19 are drawn to a method (i.e. a process). As such, claims 1, 2, 10, and 15-19 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 15-19 are directed to initializing of and inputting of values into an outer loop link adaptation. Specifically, the claims recite “initialize parameters of an outer loop link adaptation of a user equipment”, 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 element(s) of the claim(s) such as a processor and memory merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the processor and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “initialize parameters of an outer loop link adaptation of a user equipment”. 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 claim(s) does/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 element(s) of using a processor and memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of initializing of and inputting of values into an outer loop link adaptation. The additional elements of “control, with the outer loop link adaptation, at least one of a first transmission block error rate, a second transmission residual block error rate, or a probability of having at most N failed code block groups in the first transmission” amount to mere data input, 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 processor and memory perform(s) the steps or functions of “control, with the outer loop link adaptation, at least one of a first transmission block error rate, a second transmission residual block error rate, or a probability of having at most N failed code block groups in the first transmission”. 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 initializing of and inputting of values into an outer loop link adaptation. 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.
Claims 2, 10, 15-17, and 19 generally describe the parameters for outer loop link adaptation and recite elements that amount to mere data input and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims 2, 10, 15-17, and 19 are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mendo Mateo et al. (US 2018/0035486), hereinafter “Mendo”.
Regarding claims 1, 18, Mendo teaches:
An apparatus or a method, comprising:
at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: the node may include one or more processors 1050); and
at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to
initialize parameters of an outer loop link adaptation of a user equipment (see Mendo, pars. [0028-0029]: The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may for example aim at meeting a certain target BLER. The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may be implemented by either increasing the offset ΔOLLA by a positive step ΔUP or decreasing the offset ΔOLLA by a negative step ΔDOWN, depending on whether a HARQ ACK or HARQ NACK is received. The target BLER, BLERT, may for example be set to values between 1% and 10%, depending on the network and HARQ configuration. For a given value of BLERT, the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may then be selected to meet the relation
B
L
E
R
T
=
1
1
+
Δ
U
P
Δ
D
O
W
N
; in this case, the determining the parameters for OLLA corresponds to initializing parameters of an outer loop link adaptation); and
control, with the outer loop link adaptation, at least one of a first transmission block error rate (see Mendo, pars. [0028-0029]: The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may for example aim at meeting a certain target BLER. The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may be implemented by either increasing the offset ΔOLLA by a positive step ΔUP or decreasing the offset ΔOLLA by a negative step ΔDOWN, depending on whether a HARQ ACK or HARQ NACK is received. The target BLER, BLERT, may for example be set to values between 1% and 10%, depending on the network and HARQ configuration. For a given value of BLERT, the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may then be selected to meet the relation
B
L
E
R
T
=
1
1
+
Δ
U
P
Δ
D
O
W
N
; in this case, the BLER is controlled based on changing OLLA parameters), a second transmission residual block error rate (optional limitation), or a probability of having at most N failed code block groups in the first transmission (optional limitation).
Regarding claims 2, 19, Mendo teaches the apparatus or method. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the parameters comprise an outer loop link adaptation offset up value and an outer loop link adaptation offset down value (see Mendo, pars. [0028-0029]: The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may for example aim at meeting a certain target BLER. The adaptation of the offset ΔOLLA may be implemented by either increasing the offset ΔOLLA by a positive step ΔUP or decreasing the offset ΔOLLA by a negative step ΔDOWN, depending on whether a HARQ ACK or HARQ NACK is received. The target BLER, BLERT, may for example be set to values between 1% and 10%, depending on the network and HARQ configuration. For a given value of BLERT, the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may then be selected to meet the relation
B
L
E
R
T
=
1
1
+
Δ
U
P
Δ
D
O
W
N
).
Regarding claims 5, 22, Mendo teaches the apparatus or method. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to
control the first transmission block error rate to converge to 1 / (outer loop link adaptation offset up value / outer loop link adaptation offset down value + 1) (see Mendo, par. [0029]: The target BLER, BLERT, may for example be set to values between 1% and 10%, depending on the network and HARQ configuration. For a given value of BLERT, the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may then be selected to meet the relation
B
L
E
R
T
=
1
1
+
Δ
U
P
Δ
D
O
W
N
) .
Regarding claim 6, Mendo teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to,
when acknowledgement is received from a first transmission and a second transmission, decrease an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset down value (see Mendo, par. [0031]: In the case of a HARQ ACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be decreased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA − ΔDOWN ≈ ΔOLLA − ΔUP∙BLERT; in this case, the offset is decreased based on transmissions of ACKs).
Regarding claim 16, Mendo teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the outer loop link adaptation offset up value and the outer loop link adaptation offset down value are semi-static network parameters (see Mendo, par. [0032]: The selected MCS thus also depends on the transmitted HARQ ACKs or NACKs and the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN, and on the initial value of the offset ΔINI from which the adaptation of the OLLA process starts. The initial value of the offset ΔINI determines the initial state of the OLLA process, while the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN (and the number of received HARQ ACKs and HARQ NACKs) determine how quickly the OLLA process converges. As a general rule, higher values of the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may expedite convergence, but may also increase the risk of instabilities).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo in view of Lou et al. (US 2020/0374040), hereinafter “Lou”
Regarding claims 3, 20, Mendo teaches the apparatus or method. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to,
when a first transmission transport block is received fully correct, decrease an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset down value (see Mendo, par. [0031]: In the case of a HARQ ACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be decreased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA − ΔDOWN ≈ ΔOLLA − ΔUP∙BLERT; in this case, the ACK indicates a first transmission transport block is received fully correctly);
when a first transmission transport block is received with errors, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset up value (see Mendo, par. [0030]: In the case of a HARQ NACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be increased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA + ΔUP; in this case, the NACK indicates a first transmission transport block is received with errors)
However, Mendo does not teach:
when a first transmission transport block is received with errors for M of N total code block groups, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset up value times M/N.
Lou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
link control scaled by errors for M of N total code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher; in this case, Lou teaches link control at the CBG level based on number of errors and total number of CBGs)
Therefore, since Lou teaches controlling the link based on number of errors and total number of CBGs, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the OLLA offset at the CBG level with a scaled factor of number of errors and total number of CBGs 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 7, Mendo teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to,
when a second transmission is not successfully decoded, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset up value (see Mendo, par. [0030]: In the case of a HARQ NACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be increased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA + ΔUP; in this case, the NACK indicates a transmission is not successfully decoded)
However, Mendo does not teach:
when a second transmission is not successfully decoded, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset up value times M/N, where N is a number of code block groups in the second transmission and M is a number of erroneous code block groups in the second transmission.
Lou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
link control scaled by errors for M of N total code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher; in this case, Lou teaches link control at the CBG level based on number of errors and total number of CBGs)
Therefore, since Lou teaches controlling the link based on number of errors and total number of CBGs, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the OLLA offset at the CBG level with a scaled factor of number of errors and total number of CBGs 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 10, Mendo teaches the apparatus.
However, Mendo does not teach:
wherein the parameters further comprise a threshold of failed code block groups.
Lou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the parameters further comprise a threshold of failed code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher, and see par. [0138]: At operation 303, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs that have error(s) (e.g., CBGs received with errors, CBGs in error, etc.). According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs in error according to a value, such as a threshold. For example, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or a major amount of CBGs are in error. According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or major amount of CBGs are in error by comparing number of corrupted CBGs with N/2; in this case, a threshold of CBGs with error is used for link control).
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 parameters of Mendo with the CBG threshold of Lou 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to,
when a first transmission transport block is received, decrease an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset down value (see Mendo, par. [0031]: In the case of a HARQ ACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be decreased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA − ΔDOWN ≈ ΔOLLA − ΔUP∙BLERT; in this case, the ACK corresponds to a first transmission transport block).
However, Mendo does not teach:
when a first transmission transport block has fewer than the threshold of failed code block groups, decrease an outer loop link adaptation offset
Lou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
link control determined using threshold of failed code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher, and see par. [0138]: At operation 303, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs that have error(s) (e.g., CBGs received with errors, CBGs in error, etc.). According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs in error according to a value, such as a threshold. For example, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or a major amount of CBGs are in error. According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or major amount of CBGs are in error by comparing number of corrupted CBGs with N/2; in this case, based on the number of CBGs in error, the link is controlled).
Therefore, since Lou teaches controlling the link based on the threshold of failed CBGs, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the OLLA offset at the CBG level with the threshold of failed CBGs 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node), cause the apparatus at least to,
when a first transmission transport block has failed code block groups, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset by the outer loop link adaptation offset up value (see Mendo, par. [0030]: In the case of a HARQ NACK, the offset ΔOLLA may be increased according to: ΔOLLA = ΔOLLA + ΔUP; in this case, the NACK indicates a first transmission transport block is received with failed code block groups).
However, Mendo does not teach:
when a first transmission transport block has more than the threshold of failed code block groups, increase an outer loop link adaptation offset
Lou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
link control determined using threshold of failed code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher, and see par. [0138]: At operation 303, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs that have error(s) (e.g., CBGs received with errors, CBGs in error, etc.). According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine the number of CBGs in error according to a value, such as a threshold. For example, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or a major amount of CBGs are in error. According to embodiments, a WTRU may determine whether a minor or major amount of CBGs are in error by comparing number of corrupted CBGs with N/2; in this case, based on the number of CBGs in error, the link is controlled).
Therefore, since Lou teaches controlling the link based on the threshold of failed CBGs, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the OLLA offset at the CBG level with the threshold of failed CBGs 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node),
control an error rate for having at most a predetermined number of failed transmissions in first transmissions to converge to 1/( outer loop link adaptation offset up value / outer loop link adaptation offset down value + 1) (see Mendo, par. [0029]: The target BLER, BLERT, may for example be set to values between 1% and 10%, depending on the network and HARQ configuration. For a given value of BLERT, the parameters ΔUP and ΔDOWN may then be selected to meet the relation
B
L
E
R
T
=
1
1
+
Δ
U
P
Δ
D
O
W
N
) .
Mendo does not teach, but Lou teaches:
control an error rate for having at most a predetermined number of failed code block groups in first transmissions (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher; in this case, the number of failed CBGs is determined with respect to the BLER (i.e. error rate))
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 error rate of Mendo with the error rate having a number of failed CBGs of Lou 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou teaches the apparatus.
Mendo does not teach, but Lou teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold comprises a fixed integer parameter or a dynamically calculated parameter corresponding to a predetermined percentage of allowed failed code block groups (see Lou, Fig. 4, par. [0150]: the WTRU may store, save, record, etc. information associated and/or indicating which CBGs have errors and which CBGs are correctly detected and/or received. In such a case, the WTRU may have (e.g., may record) a CBG level acknowledgement bitmap of [AANNAAAA], which indicates that CBGs 2 and 3 are in error from among CBGs 0-7 (for example, the letter “A” represents an ACK, and the letter “N” represents a NACK). According to embodiments, the WTRU may send an acknowledgement 402 including any of a CBG level coded acknowledgement and a TB level acknowledgement, and see par. [0151]: the CBG level acknowledgement may be (e.g., encoded using) 3 bits to indicate which CBG may be (e.g., commanded to be, required to be, etc.) retransmitted. For example, a CBG coded ACK of ‘010’ may indicate that CBG 2 is to be retransmitted. According to embodiments, the gNB may retransmit CBG 2 403 (e.g., only retransmit CBG 2) and may set DCI to indicate a retransmission. For example, a CBG transmit indication (CBGTI) may be ‘010’, which may indicate that the retransmission includes CBG 2, and see par. [0135]: there may be a CBG based multi-step retransmission procedure. In a case of a good link adaptation scheme, a BLER (e.g., a target BLER) may be expected to be around 10%. In such a case further having a TB with up to 8 CBGs, a BLER may be higher, that is, the chance to have one or two CBGs in error may be higher; in this case, target BLER is used for determining the number (i.e. percentage) of failed CBGs).
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 error rate of Mendo with the error rate having a number of failed CBGs of Lou 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 reducing signaling overhead (see Lou, par. [0135]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo in view of Schober et al. (US 2013/0308479), hereinafter “Schober”.
Regarding claim 8, Mendo teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node),
However, Mendo does not teach:
to control the residual block error rate to converge to 1/(outer loop link adaptation offset up value / (2 x outer loop link adaptation offset down value) +1)
Schober, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
to control the residual block error rate to converge to 1/(outer loop link adaptation offset up value / (2 x outer loop link adaptation offset down value) +1) (see Schober, pars. [0022-0023]: The ratio between the parameters AstepUp and AstepDown determines the BLER target that the algorithm will converge to:
B
L
E
R
=
1
A
s
t
e
p
U
p
A
s
t
e
p
D
o
w
n
+
1
. For certain desired BEER target (e.g. 10%) and a known AstepUp, one may compute AstepDown as:
A
s
t
e
p
D
o
w
n
=
A
s
t
e
p
U
P
∙
B
L
E
R
1
-
B
L
E
R
; in this case, BLER is controlled based on steps. By changing the BLER target, the ratio of step up to step down changes).
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 Mendo with the specific control of Schober 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 offset for OLLA to improve system performance (see Schober, par. [0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo in view of Ren et al. (US 9,203,590), hereinafter “Ren”.
Regarding claim 9, Mendo teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node),
However, Mendo does not teach:
to control the residual block error rate to prevent the residual block error rate from exceeding a parameterized upper bound value using a moving average window to estimate a first transmission block error rate and force an outer loop link adaptation offset to increase if the parameterized upper bound value is reached.
Ren, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
to control the residual block error rate to prevent the residual block error rate from exceeding a parameterized upper bound value using a moving average window to estimate a first transmission block error rate and force an outer loop link adaptation offset to increase if the parameterized upper bound value is reached (see Ren, col. 4, lines 49-56: In the case that the reported CSI is optimistic, the estimated SINR is above the actual SINR, reflecting a better channel condition than the actual channel condition. Because the MCS selected to transmit the transport block is based on the better channel condition inaccurately estimated, the selected modulation scheme and coding rate would yield an actual BLER higher than the target BLER. As a result, more than 1 out of 10 transmissions will fail, and see col. 5, lines 21-27: the eNB 102 may select an aggressive MCS that is higher than the highest MCS supported by the radio link. In such case, the actual BLER would be higher than the target BLER and the estimated SINR would be adjusted downward based on the assumption that the CSI is optimistic, even though the estimated SINR may have matched the channel condition perfectly, and see col. 6, lines 34-40: When the selected MCS is aggressive, the generalized outer-loop control procedure adjusts the outer-loop adjustment upwards by an up_step whenever the transmission has succeeded. The control procedure also tallies the upward adjustments that the outer-loop adjustment has accumulated through a separate parameter, which is referred as accumulated aggressive adjustment and denoted as aggressive_adj; in this case, increasing the outer-loop adjustment (i.e. forcing an outer loop link adaption offset to increase) occurs when the selected MCS is aggressive, which yields an actual BLER higher than a target BLER, corresponding to when the parameterized upper bound value for block error rate is reached. This occurring based on a number of transmissions corresponds to the estimation using a moving average window).
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 Mendo with the specific control of Ren 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 ensuring proper outer-loop control in various systems (see Ren, col. 1, lines 52-56).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo in view of Ge et al. (US 2014/0369283), hereinafter “Ge”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou teaches the apparatus. Mendo further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor (see Mendo, Fig. 10, par. [0068]: The memory 1060 includes suitably configured program code to be executed by the processor(s) 1050 so as to implement the above-described functionalities of the node),
However, the combination of Mendo in view of Lou does not teach:
when a first transmission transport block has exactly the threshold of failed code block groups, maintain a current value of an outer loop link adaptation offset.
Ge, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
when a first transmission transport block has exactly the threshold of failed code block groups, maintain a current value of an outer loop link adaptation offset (see Ge, par. [0051]: If it is determined that the UE is configured with multiple transmission layers, at steps S433 and S434, only the SU-MIMO OLLA offset for the transmission layer on which the ACK/NACK message is reported is updated. Specifically, at step S433, in responsive to receipt of an ACK message of a packet from the UE, the SU-MIMO OLLA offset for the transmission layer on which the ACK message is reported, i.e., βr, rεR, R={r: rth-layer is ACKed}, which is maintained in the OLLA memory unit 320, is increased by Dstep_up; in this case, based on the ACK/NACK message, only a specific OLLA offset is updated and the other OLLA offsets are maintained, corresponding to maintaining a current value of an OLLA offset based on a first transmission transport block having a number of failed code block groups when taken in combination with the other references).
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 apparatus of the combination of Mendo in view of Lou with the maintaining a current value of an OLLA offset of Ge 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 spectrum efficiency of the system (see Ge, par. [0005]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0040590), hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 17, Mendo teaches the apparatus.
However, Mendo does not teach:
wherein the outer loop link adaptation is configured to allow adjustment of an outer loop link adaptation offset within a predetermined range of values.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the outer loop link adaptation is configured to allow adjustment of an outer loop link adaptation offset within a predetermined range of values (see Li, Eq. 2, par. [0167]: offsetmax represents the OLLA adjustment amount, and the adjustment amount is a maximum value set by the system).
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 outer loop link adaptation of Mendo with the predetermined range of values for the OLLA offset of Li 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 reliability of data transmission (see Li, par. [0122]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 2015/0117321) teaches a method and base station for adjusting outer-loop adjustment values used for link adaptation in a wireless communication network.
Chen et al. (US 11,457,453) teaches a method in a wireless communication system for performing link adaptation.
Lee et al. (US 2008/0159192) teaches an apparatus and method for Forward link Outer Loop Rate Control (FOLRC) using Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) in a mobile communication system.
Liu et al. (US 9,930,554) teaches a method performed in a network node with two or more transmission states for dynamically managing outer loop link adaptation instances for a wireless device.
Mirzaee et al. (US 2018/0026742) teaches systems and methods for outer loop Link Adaptation (LA) with bundled feedback.
Nam et al. (US 2019/0223033) teaches methods, systems, and devices for outer-loop link adaptation with multiple offset parameters.
Oteri et al. (US 2010/0284454) teaches a system and method for outer loop link adaptation for a wireless communications system.
A. Durán et al. ("Self-Optimization Algorithm for Outer Loop Link Adaptation in LTE") teaches a novel algorithm for improving outer loop link adaptation (OLLA) convergence speed in the downlink of Long Term Evolution (LTE).
F. J. Martín-Vega et al. ("Emerging Tools for Link Adaptation on 5G NR and Beyond: Challenges and Opportunities") teaches the signaling aspects of NR technology for multi-domain LA and the challenges that need to be faced.
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