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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/05/2025, 027/2026 and 05/21/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 2 the recited “comprises the processing unit is configured to:” should be “comprises the processing unit being configured to:”.
Claim 13, line 4 the recited “comprises the processing unit is configured to:” should be “comprises the processing unit being configured to:”.
Claim 14, lines 2-3 the recited “comprises the transceiver unit is configured to:” should be “comprises the transceiver unit being configured to:”.
Claim 15, lines 2-3 the recited “comprises the processing unit is configured to:” should be “comprises the processing unit being configured to:”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is : “a processing unit” in (independent claim 11 (refer to the limitations of lines 7-12 “a processing unit, configured to: determine…determine…attempt…”).
(Examiner note: the claimed “transceiver unit” is not interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the generic placeholder “unit” is preceded by a structural modifier “transceiver”).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Instant application specification [00131] discloses “processor 610 implements a function of the foregoing processing unit 510...” and [00133] discloses examples of the processor (e.g. CPU etc).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 4, 14 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 4 further limits claim 1. It claims that level signals indicate the first cyclic
sequence and “wherein a first-type level signal that lasts for a first duration and a second-type level signal that lasts for a second duration in the level signals indicate first information, and a first-type level signal that lasts for a third duration and a second-type level signal that lasts for a fourth duration in the level signals indicate second information; and the first information is different from the second information, and the first duration is different from the third duration.” Emphasis added.
Per claim 1 a first cyclic class corresponding to the first cyclic sequence comprises at least one first subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the first cyclic sequence , and M is an integer greater than 1.
The “at least one” at a minimum claims one first subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the first cyclic sequence and M is an integer greater than 1.
In light of [0064] (and/or [0077]) and at least Fig. 3 and Fig. 4A of the instant application disclosure, “one” first cyclic subsequence is disclosed for class 1 (refer to the disclosed {0000} and class 6 (refer to the disclosed {1111}). For the 0000 and the 1111, only a “first information” or “second information” of 0 or 1 are indicated using level signals (Fig. 3 and 4B) not both first information and second information as currently claimed.
Based on the above, it is not clear how the first information and second information are indicated using level signals to indicate the first cyclic sequence.
Claim 14 claims subject matter corresponding to that claimed by claim 4 above. Claim 14 is also 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, based on the reasoning presented to reject claim 4 above.
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 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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2004/0223474).
With respect to claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose: receiving a first cyclic sequence from a first apparatus (Fig. 2, refer to the reception of RIS “1010” (from the mobile station) corresponds to the claimed first cyclic sequence (e.g. “10” is cyclic or repeated in “1010”), [0055], [0058] and at least lines 1-4 of [0059]), wherein a first cyclic class (refer to Table 1 in [0014] also applicable to Fig. 2, e.g. last sentence of [0050]. In Table 1 the matching entry corresponding to RIS “1010” corresponds to the claimed first cyclic class) corresponding to the first cyclic sequence (the RIS of “1010”) indicates a first transmission rate (rate of 614.4 Kbps) in transmission rates supported by the first apparatus (it indicates the possible maximum transmission rate (a first transmission rate) supported by the mobile station, lines 1-4 of [0058] and Table 3 and [0049], [0057]), the first cyclic class comprises at least one first subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the first cyclic sequence, and M is an integer greater than 1 (the first cyclic class comprises one subsequence (same as the first cyclic sequence) “1010”, M=4 consecutive bits, or the “1010” is interpreted a corresponding to two first subsequences each being “10” M=2); determining the first transmission rate based on the first cyclic sequence (Fig. 2, the BS receives the first cyclic sequence “10101” transmitted by the MS, and determines the possible maximum data rate 614.4Kbps, [0057], [0049]) ; determining a to-be-negotiated transmission rate ([0059]-[0061], the determining is performed by the base station and the transmission rate of 460.8kbps (indicated using 203) corresponds to the claimed “to-be negotiated” transmission rate, it is a data rate that will be negotiated (to be adapted) between the first apparatus (MS) and the second apparatus (BS) according to MSS(s) transmitted by the first apparatus e.g. UP, DOWN requests, [0063]) based on the first transmission rate (the possible maximum transmission rate) and transmission rates supported by a second apparatus (the rates of Table 1 supported by the BS); and attempting to establish a link with the first apparatus based on the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (Fig. 2 refer to the data transmissions of frames (frame 3 and/or frame 4 and/or frame 5 and/or frame 6) based on the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (460.8kbps). The frame transmissions are interpreted as attempting to establish a link (successful attempting)).
With respect to claim 2, Kwon et al. disclose: wherein determining the first transmission rate (the possible maximum transmission rate) comprises: obtaining M bits in the first cyclic sequence (for example the M=4 “1010” bits are used to index or point to the associated rate of Table 1); and determining the first transmission rate based on the first cyclic class to which the M bits belong (refer to the matching entry (first cyclic class) to the received“1010” in Table 1).
With respect to claim 5, Kwon et al. disclose: wherein attempting to establish the link with the first apparatus comprises: when the second apparatus successfully establishes the link with the first apparatus based on the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (refer to Fig. 2, successful establishment of link between the MS and BS), determining the to-be-negotiated transmission rate as a transmission rate between the second apparatus and the first apparatus (the to-be negotiated transmission rate 460.8kbpsindiated using 203 is used at the transmission rate between the MS and BS for at least one frame).
With respect to claim 10, Kwon et al. disclose: wherein the first apparatus is a baseband unit (BBU), an adaptive antenna unit (AAU), or a remote radio unit (RRU) (the mobile station corresponds to the claimed baseband unit (e.g. refer to Fig. 11, [0109]-[0111]) or the claimed radio remote unit e.g. Fig. 11 and is remote with respect to the base station), and the second apparatus is a BBU, an AAU, or an RRU (the base station corresponds to the claimed baseband unit (Fig. 12, [0114]-[0116]) or a remote radio unit (Fig. 12, the base station is remote with respect to the mobile station).
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.
Claims 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2004/0223474).
With respect to claim 3, Kwon et al. disclose: wherein the first
transmission rate is a largest transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the first apparatus (the first transmission rate indicated by RIS “1010” is the maximum possible transmission rate (of Table 1) supported by the MS);
and determining the to-be-negotiated transmission rate comprises: when the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus comprise the first transmission rate, determining (a supported) transmission rate as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (the BS supports the first transmission rate (the indicated possible maximum) per Table 1 and the frame 4 or frame 7 614.4 kbps speeds. However the BS determines the indicated (203) 460.8kbps as the to-be-negotiated rate not the 614.4kbps (the first transmission rate));
or when the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus do not comprise the first transmission rate, determining, as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate, a largest transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus.
Kwon et al. do not expressly disclose: determining the first transmission as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate.
However, [0060] of Kwon et al. discloses that the BS of Kwon determines that the data rate for the MS is higher than 19.2Kbps and indicates a particular data rate using 203 over F-SCH 201. “For example….the scheduling result indicates a data rate of 460.8 kbps…RIS field becomes “1001”).
Based on the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first transmission rate (614.4 Kbps) is higher than 19.2Kbps ([0060]) and is one of the possible data rate options available to be signaled to the MS (e.g. refer to Table 1) and therefore a suitable alternative to the disclosed 460.8Kbps ([0060]) and would allow the MS to use its highest possible data rate to perform data transmission to the BS.
With respect to claim 8, Kwon et al. do not disclose: sending a second cyclic sequence to the first apparatus, wherein a second cyclic class corresponding to the second cyclic sequence indicates a second transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus, the second cyclic class comprises at least one second subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the second cyclic sequence.
However, Kwon et al. discloses: the first apparatus performing sending of an RIS sequence when data arrives (or in input in) at the MS buffer (at 216) ([0046]) and completing the transmission by the MS by transmitting MSS=10 (no data in buffer of MS per Table 2).
Based on the above, and portions of Kwon et al. already cited it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when subsequent data arrive at the buffer of the MS and a second exchange as described in Fig. 2 takes place, the BS performs the claimed sending a second sequence (the RIS in 203 of the subsequent performing of Fig. 2) to the first apparatus (the mobile), wherein a second class corresponding to the second sequence indicates a second transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus (supported by the BS), the second class comprises at least one second subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the second sequence (as function of at least the possible maximum data rate indicated by the RIS in 211, the BS determines a data rate to be assigned to the mobile [0059]-[0060] and according to the class and at least one subsequence of Table 1, the subsequence comprising 4 consecutive bits or two subsequences each comprising 2 consecutive bits).
Modified Kwon et al. do not disclose: cyclic sequence or cyclic class. Table 1 of
Kwon et al. discloses: a cyclic sequence and a cyclic class (corresponding the cyclic
sequence) for example refer to 0011 (38.4 Kbps rate) corresponding to the claimed
cyclic sequence (repeated 0 and repeated 1) and cyclic class (the corresponding entry).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the BS of Kwon et al. to transmit “0011” (RIS at 203) as a second cyclic sequence, wherein a second cyclic class (matching entry in Table 1) corresponding to the second cyclic sequence (0011), as a matter of selecting one of suitable options for transmission rates higher than 19.2Kbps ([0060]) determined by the scheduler of the BS of Kwon et al.
Claims 11-13, 15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2004/0223474) in view of Laroia et al. (US 7,885,293).
With respect to claim 11, Kwon et al. disclose: a transceiver unit (implicit
transceiver of the disclosed base station (BS) which performs the rate control of Fig. 2 [0033], [0047], which receives the wireless transmission from the MS and transmits (at least) 203 wirelessly) receive a first cyclic sequence from a first apparatus (refer to the reception of RIS “1010” (from the mobile station) corresponds to the claimed first cyclic sequence (e.g. “10” is cyclic or repeated in “1010”), [0055], [0058] and at least lines 1-4 of [0059]), wherein a first cyclic class corresponding to the first cyclic sequence indicates a first transmission rate in transmission rates supported by the first apparatus, the first cyclic class comprises at least one first subsequence comprising M consecutive bits in the first cyclic sequence, and M is an integer greater than 1 (the first cyclic class comprises one subsequence (same as the first cyclic sequence) “1010”, M=4 consecutive bits, or the “1010” is interpreted a corresponding to two first subsequences each being “10” M=2. A first transmission rate of 614.4 Kbps is indicated); and (the first apparatus, the BS of Fig. 2) configured to: determine the first transmission rate based on the first cyclic sequence (Fig. 2, the BS receives the first cyclic sequence “10101” transmitted by the MS, and determines the possible maximum data rate 614.4Kbps, [0057], [0049]); determine a to-be-negotiated transmission rate ([0059]-[0061], the determining is performed by the base station and the transmission rate of 460.8kbps (indicated using 203) corresponds to the claimed “to-be negotiated” transmission rate, it is a data rate that will be negotiated (to be adapted) between the first apparatus (MS) and the second apparatus (BS) according to MSS(s) transmitted by the first apparatus e.g. UP, DOWN requests, [0063]) based on the first transmission rate (the possible maximum transmission rate) and transmission rates supported by a second apparatus (the rates of Table 1 supported by the BS); and attempt to establish a link with the first apparatus based on the to-be-negotiated transmission rate. ((Fig. 2 refer to the data transmissions of frames (frame 3 and/or frame 4 and/or frame 5 and/or frame 6) based on the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (460.8kbps). The frame transmissions are interpreted as attempting to establish a link (successful attempting)).
Kwon et al. do not expressly disclose: a processing unit.
In the same field of endeavor (transmission rate control in a wireless communication system), Laroia et al. disclose: a processing unit (e.g. refer to the base station of Fig. 2, and processor 206 (e.g. a CPU refer to column 7, lines 43-45, column 8, lines 3-15, “….a CPU, executes the routines 218 and uses the data/information 220 in memory 210 to operate the BS 200 and implement methods of the present invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the BS of Kwon et al. a processing unit (e.g. a CPU) and routines in a memory, as taught by Laroia et al. to execute the routines in the memory and operate the BS and implement methods of Kwon et al. using known and suitable components (the CPU, memory with routines stored in it).
Modified Kwon et al. disclose the limitations claimed by claims 12, 15, and 20. Refer to the limitation mapping and explanations used to reject claims 2, 5 and 10 above.
With respect to claim 13, modified Kwon et al. disclose: wherein the first
transmission rate is a largest transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the first apparatus (the first transmission rate indicated by RIS “1010” is the maximum possible transmission rate (of Table 1) supported by the MS);
and the processing unit is configured to determine the to-be-negotiated transmission rate comprises the processing unit is configured to: when the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus comprise the first transmission rate, determining (a supported) transmission rate as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate (the BS supports the first transmission rate (the indicated possible maximum) per Table 1 and the frame 4 or frame 7 614.4 kbps speeds. However the processing unit of the BS determines the indicated (203) 460.8kbps as the to-be-negotiated rate not the 614.4kbps (the first transmission rate));
or when the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus do not comprise the first transmission rate, determining, as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate, a largest transmission rate in the transmission rates supported by the second apparatus.
Modified Kwon et al., Laroia et al. do not expressly disclose: determine the first transmission as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate.
However, [0060] of Kwon et al., discloses that the processing unit of the BS of Kwon determines that the data rate for the MS is higher than 19.2Kbps and indicates a particular data rate using 203 over F-SCH 201. “For example….the scheduling result indicates a data rate of 460.8 kbps…RIS field becomes “1001”).
Based on the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first transmission rate (614.4 Kbps) is higher than 19.2Kbps ([0060]) and is one of the possible data rate options available to be signaled to the MS (e.g. refer to Table 1) by the processing unit (of the BS) of modified Kwon et al. and is therefore a suitable alternative to the determined 460.8Kbps ([0060]). The first transmission rate being determined (and signaled at 203 by the processing unit of modified Kwon et al.) as the to-be-negotiated transmission rate would allow the MS to use its highest possible data rate to perform data transmission to the BS.
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7,9, 16-17, 19 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.
Dong et al. (US 2019/0149263) refer to background section disclosing CQI based transmission rate adaptation.
Katano et al. (US 2007/0124627) refer to at least the flow charts of Fig. 4, Fig. 8, Fig. 10.
Stracwczynski et al. (US 6,917,603) refer to at least Fig. 8-9.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights