DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE filed 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Amendment filed 10/15/2025 is entered.
Claims 7 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20190356451A1; Zhang), in view of Maki et al. (US20210273759A1), hereafter Maki, and Ren et al. (US20160205564A1), hereafter Ren.
Regarding claims 7 and 9,
Zhang discloses a terminal comprising a receiver configured to receive, from another terminal, first control information in communication between terminals (Fig. 4, receiving module) and a processor (Fig. 4, determining/detection modules; Fig. 7-8; paragraph 16-24) configured to calculate a size of a transport block to be received from the other terminal, based on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index that is included in the first control information, the MCS index being other than an MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in a table is reserved, the table in which MCS indexes, modulation orders, and target code rates are associated with each other, wherein the receiver does not receive the first control information including an MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in the table is reserved, is to be received from the other terminal (Tables 2-1 and 2-2; Abstract; paragraphs 11, 54, 65-79, 275; Transport Block Size mapping determined based on MCS indexes and corresponding code rates for index 0-28, with 29-31 reserved/not used PSSCH).
Zhang discloses how sidelink control channel information is similar to downlink control information (paragraphs 5, 7, 11) but does not expressly disclose the receiver receives second control information in DCI for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) from a base station, or that a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8, and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8.
Maki discloses analogous art of transmission/reception based on MCS index dynamically indicated by DCI (Title; Abstract; paragraph 40, 55, 97) for PDSCH (paragraph 306). Maki further shows a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8 (Fig. 2; index 28-31 reserved when modulation order 8 can be configured and corresponding target code rate in the table is reserved), and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8 (Fig. 1, 3; index 29-31 reserved when modulation 8 cannot configured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the TBS calculations in Zhang based on receiving DCI control information for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) from a base station and, for a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate is reserved in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8, and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8, as shown by Maki, thereby providing for MCS indexes used for retransmission under different network conditions having efficient PT-RS density.
Although Zhang discloses 256 QAM (paragraph 301) and Maki discloses modulation order 8 (Fig. 1-3 as noted above), the combination of Zhang and Maki does not expressly disclose 256 QAM configured in which modulation order 8 is configured.
Ren disclose analogous art including 256 QAM configured in which modulation order 8 is configured (paragraph 119; modulation order 8 represents 256 QAM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Zhang and Maki by providing for 256 QAM to be configured in which modulation order 8 is configured, as shown by Ren, thereby maximizing spectrum efficiency and improving system throughput.
Regarding claim 11,
Zhang discloses a communication method of a terminal (Fig. 1, 7-8) comprising receiving, from another terminal, first control information in communication between terminals (paragraph 16-24) and calculating a size of a transport block to be received from the other terminal, based on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index that is included in the first control information, the MCS index being other than an MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in a table is reserved, the table in which MCS indexes, modulation orders, and target code rates are associated with each other, wherein the calculating does not receive the first control information including an MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in the table is reserved, is to be received from the other terminal (Tables 2-1 and 2-2; Abstract; paragraphs 54, 65-79, 275; Transport Block Size mapping determined based on MCS indexes and corresponding code rates for index 0-28, with 29-31 reserved/not used PSSCH).
Zhang discloses how sidelink control channel information is similar to downlink control information (paragraphs 5, 7, 11) but does not expressly disclose the receiver receives second control information in DCI for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) from a base station, or that a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8, and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8.
Maki discloses analogous art of transmission/reception based on MCS index dynamically indicated by DCI (Title; Abstract; paragraph 40, 55, 97) for PDSCH (paragraph 306). Maki further shows a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate is reserved in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8 (Fig. 2; index 28-31 reserved when modulation order 8 can be configured and corresponding target code rate in the table is reserved), and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8 (Fig. 1, 3; index 29-31 reserved when modulation 8 cannot configured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the TBS calculations in Zhang based on receiving DCI control information for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) from a base station and, for a value of the MCS index whose corresponding target code rate is reserved in the table includes 28, 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order can be configured to 8, and the value includes 29, 30, and 31 in a case of using the table in which the modulation order cannot be configured to 8, as shown by Maki, thereby providing for MCS indexes used for retransmission under different network conditions having efficient PT-RS density.
Although Zhang discloses 256 QAM (paragraph 301) and Maki discloses modulation order 8 (Fig. 1-3 as noted above), the combination of Zhang and Maki does not expressly disclose 256 QAM configured in which modulation order 8 is configured.
Ren disclose analogous art including 256 QAM configured in which modulation order 8 is configured (paragraph 119; modulation order 8 represents 256 QAM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Zhang and Maki by providing for 256 QAM to be configured in which modulation order 8 is configured, as shown by Ren, thereby maximizing spectrum efficiency and improving system throughput.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 6-7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the claim limitations should be consider in combination as part of an integrated system rather than being interpreted as separate inter-terminal processing covered by claim limitations (i)-(iii) and terminal to base station processing covered by claim limitations (iv)-(v), concluding that the combination of Zhang, Maki, and Ren fail to disclose or suggest limitations (i)-(v) within “a system where different control methodologies are applied to the inter-terminal processing and the terminal-to-base station processing when viewed as integral parts of such an overall, combined operation”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a system where different control methodologies are applied to the inter-terminal processing and the terminal-to-base station processing when viewed as integral parts of such an overall, combined operation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, and contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the rejection addresses the expressly claimed limitations in combination with each other, but this does not require that each limitation be shown within a single prior art reference or that each cited prior art reference disclose the same teachings relied upon by other references. Zhang, Maki, and Ren are all cited in showing the communication of control information according to an MCS indexed table associated multiple, commonly known communication parameters. While not all of these tables show the exact same configurations, they are all clearly disclosed in the same environment for the same purpose as Applicant’s claimed/disclosed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the different advantages of each could be combined in the way claimed/disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, the rejections based on the combination of Zhang, Maki, and Ren are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Table 2-1 cited in the rejection is silent with respect to index 0-28 with 29-31 reserved/not used for PSSCH.
Applicant’s argument is moot based on the updated rejection citing both Tables 2-1 and 2-2, which is clearly a continuation/extension of Table 2-1.
In the Remarks on pg. 7 of the Amendment, Applicant addresses Table 2-2 but asserts that Zhang fails to teach TBS mapping determined based on MCS indexes and corresponding code rates for index 0-28 with 29-31 reserved. Applicant contends Zhang only shows corresponding modulation order rather than target code rate, as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection clearly admits that Zhang fails to teach the corresponding target code rates in the table of indexes 0-31, but relies on Maki for such disclosure, illustrating a similar MCS-indexed table that does provide for the corresponding target code rates for index 0-28 with 29-31 and their corresponding target code rates being reserved, as now claimed. The combination of Zhang with Maki is proper based on their analogous use of MCS-indexed tables for controlling communication including retransmissions under various network conditions for efficient PT-RS density. Therefore, the rejections based on the combination of Zhang, Maki, and Ren are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-11 of the Amendment, Applicant contends the differences between the variously-cited MCS tables of Zhang, Maki, and Ren would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to not consider combining those tables, noting that Maki shows the corresponding target code rates but without modulation orders being reserved, whereas Ren fails to teach 256 QAM configured when the modulation order can be configured to 8 and in which a TBS index is reserved or in which the target code rate is configured to be reserved.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As also noted above, Zhang, Maki, and Ren are all cited in showing the communication of control information according to an MCS indexed table associated multiple, commonly known communication parameters, rather than relying on any of Zhang, Maki, or Ren individually in meeting the contested claim limitations. While not all of the tables shown in Zhang, Maki, and Ren contain the same configurations, they are all clearly disclosed in the same environment for the same purpose as Applicant’s claimed/disclosed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the different advantages of each could be combined in the way claimed/disclosed by Applicant. Considered in combination, the MCS tables of Zhang, Maki, and Ren show an obvious combination of disclosures enabling the calculating of a TBS of the PDSCH based on MCS (Zhang) whose corresponding target code rate is reserved (Maki) and when 256 QAM is configured in which the modulation order can be configured to 8 (Ren) and in which the target code rate is configured to be reserved (as already shown in Maki), for the purposes of maximizing spectrum efficiency and improving system throughput under various network conditions. Therefore, the rejections based on the combination of Zhang, Maki, and Ren are properly maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477