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
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements, filed from 12/09/2025 have been received, and entered into the record. However, it is impractical for the examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references cited in this case. By initializing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references.
MPEP § 2004.13 states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aft'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (Sth Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Further, it should be noted that an applicant’s duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant material from which he is presumed to have been able, with his experience and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; see Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 180i (N~D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. eta!., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI. 1972).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated by par. 95-100, 121, the UE using the scaling factor, coding rate, the modulation order, and the number of layers to determine the modified intermediate number of information bits (N.sub.info.) and using the modified intermediate number of information bits (N.sub.info.) to determine the quantized intermediate number of information bits (N’.sub.info.). The quantized intermediate number of information bits (N’.sub.info.) used as in index to find the TB size from the Table. There is no indication or support for “determining an index value based, at least in part, on the indicated number of slots configured for the TB; determining a size of a TB for an uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the determined index value and a table for determining the size of the TB”.
As further indicated by par. 148, “the scale factor is determined based on the slot aggregation factor, and the slot aggregation factor is associated with a number of repetitions configured for uplink transmissions on an uplink shared channel”, the scale factor is determined based on the slot aggregation factor but does not indicate how to obtain the scale factor based on the slot aggregation factor associated with a number of repetitions configured for uplink transmissions on an uplink shared channel and apply to the “determining an index value based, at least in part, on the indicated number of slots configured for the TB; determining a size of a TB for an uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the determined index value and a table for determining the size of the TB”.
As further indicated by par. 87, 150 and table 1, “the UE 404 may receive, from the base station 402, other signaling for configuration of a set of entries in the table, each entry of the set of entries including at least a respective index value corresponding with a respective scale factor greater than or equal to one (1)”, which would indicating the list of values corresponding to the scale factor and not the number of slots and does not provide the support for the “receiving signaling to configure a list of values, with each value in the list of values a corresponding to a number of slots configured for a transport block (TB)”.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, 22, 28 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 2, 13, 23, 29, as indicated by par. 92, 93, 94, 96, the total number of REs allocated is determined based on the total number of PRBs assigned to the UE and the number of REs and using the total number of REs to determine the modified intermediate number of information bits and then determine the quantized intermediate number of information bits as an index value to find the TB size. There is no indication or support for “a total number of REs allocated to the uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the number of slots configured for the TB.” Therefore, claims 2, 13, 23, 29 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 22, 28, as indicated from above, the specification does not enable one skilled in the art would able to obtain the scale factor based on the slot aggregation factor associated with a number of repetitions configured for uplink transmissions on an uplink shared channel and apply to the “determining an index value based, at least in part, on the indicated number of slots configured for the TB; determining a size of a TB for an uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the determined index value and a table for determining the size of the TB” from par. 148, “the scale factor is determined based on the slot aggregation factor, and the slot aggregation factor is associated with a number of repetitions configured for uplink transmissions on an uplink shared channel”. The scale factor is determined based on the slot aggregation factor but does not indicate how to obtain the scale factor based on the slot aggregation factor associated with a number of repetitions configured for uplink transmissions on an uplink shared channel and apply to the “determining an index value based, at least in part, on the indicated number of slots configured for the TB; determining a size of a TB for an uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the determined index value and a table for determining the size of the TB”.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHANG et al. (US 20180249370) teaches receiving, prior to receiving the indication of the index value (par. 52, 53, 54, 105, one set of tables are scaled versions of another set of tables… the information of N can be notified… N…any other relevant scaling factor on TBS for URLLC… When UE receives the scaling factor N, it scales the TBS looked up at the existing TBS table and scales it in a way described above), signaling for configuration of a set of entries in the table including the plurality of index values, each with a respective scale factor (abstract, par. 32).
LIN et al. (US 20230140970) teaches ra gNB may configure a set of possible values for S, e.g. 2 possible values as shown in Table 2 (table 1, table 2; par. 110); The UE may select one value from the set and apply it for a given MsgA transmission. For instance, the UE may select the scaling factor S according to an estimate of channel quality such as reference signal receiving power (RSRP) (table 1, table 2; par. 110);
BEHRAVAN et al. (US 20220271874) teaches the indication may index and/or represent one or more configured or configurable or predefined table/s of scaling factors. The table may be configurable to comprise and/or comprise different scaling factors for different types of control information and/or transmission qualities. (par. 15);
Li et al. (US 20210050930) teaches determining a size of a TB for an uplink transmission based, at least in part, on the determined index value and a table for determining the size of the TB (par. 148, 149, the third determination module 68 is configured to select a TBS from a one-dimensional TBS table according to the quantized intermediate number N′.sub.info…the intermediate number N.sub.info of the information bits is quantized to obtain the quantized intermediate number N′.sub.info; and the transport block size (TBS) is determined according to the quantized intermediate number N′.sub.info.);
KIM et al. (US 20180146439) teaches the slot aggregation method 3 by which one TBS is transmitted over N slots should further consider, as factors for determining the TBS, the number (N) of slots in addition to the TBS index (I.sub.TBS) and the number of RBs (N.sub.PRB) for data transmission (par. 257); when the TBS index (I.sub.TBS) being 9, the number of RBs (N.sub.PRB) for data transmission being 9, and the number (N) of aggregated slots being 3 are acquired from the scheduling information of the base station, the terminal temporarily determines the TBS to be 1416 bits according to Table 2. Then, the terminal finally determines the TBS to be 4248 bits (i.e., 1416×3) by reflecting the number (N) of aggregated slots (par. 258).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THINH D TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3934. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 9-6.
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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/THINH D TRAN/for /Thinh Tran/, Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2466 03/20/2026