DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 2 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 21, 29, and 30 are currently amended; claim 6 is cancelled; claims 2-5, 7-20, and 22-28 are previously presented; no claims have been added. Claims 1-5 and 7-30 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113992314 A in view of Suh et al. (US 2017/0070315 A1), hereafter referred Suh, further in view of Mallik et al. (US 2016/0173232 A1), hereafter referred Mallik. A machine translation of CN 113992314 A is provided and hereafter referred as Chen. Chen and Suh were both cited by applicant’s IDS filed 20 October 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one processor; memory coupled to the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to (Chen, p. 7, paragraph 8; a computer readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the steps of the method):
determine, based at least in part on the monitoring, a number of parity checks of the set of parity bits that either failed a parity check procedure or satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of the parity check);
identify, based at least in part on the monitoring and at least a subset of the number of parity checks, a feedback status indicator for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; HARQ-ACK); and
transmit a feedback message that includes the feedback status indicator and additional information identifying the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Chen does not expressly teach monitor for a downlink transmission from a network device, the downlink transmission comprising a set of parity bits.
However, Suh teaches monitor for a downlink transmission from a network device, the downlink transmission comprising a set of parity bits (Suh, Fig. 4, [0043]-[0045]; the received field includes ordinary bits and a parity bits 408).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen to include the above recited limitations as taught by Suh in order to improve packet retransmission procedures with minimal additional overhead (Suh, [0075]).
Chen in view of Suh does not expressly teach wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations.
However, Mallik teaches wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations (Mallik, [0092]-[0096]; the number of parity check code blocks to generate may be based, at least in part, on decoding statistics associated with a decoder at the mobile device, where the statistics may be long term statistics indicating the fraction of code blocks that decode successfully without using parity check code blocks (a positive acknowledgement), and the number of parity check code blocks may be dynamically adjusted based on ACK/NACK signals that is likely to interfere with communications).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen in view of Suh to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mallik in order to improve decodability of transmitted transmission blocks (Mallik, [0096]).
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network device, comprising:
at least one processor; memory coupled to the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to (Chen, p. 7, paragraph 8; a computer readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the steps of the method):
receive a feedback message (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR) from the UE that includes a feedback status indicator and additional information identifying a number of parity checks associated with the set of parity bits (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; HARQ-ACK), the number of parity checks based at least in part on parity checks of the set of parity bits that either failed a parity check procedure or satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of the parity check); and
select a modulation and coding scheme for communications with the UE based at least in part on the feedback message (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 7; after receiving the report, the base station determines the adaptive MCS value of the outer ring link based on the delta-MCS in the received HARQ-ACK codebook and notifies the UE in the DCI information).
Chen does not expressly teach transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink transmission that comprises a set of parity bits.
However, Suh teaches transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink transmission that comprises a set of parity bits (Suh, Fig. 4, [0043]-[0045]; the received field includes ordinary bits and a parity bits 408).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen to include the above recited limitations as taught by Suh in order to improve packet retransmission procedures with minimal additional overhead (Suh, [0075]).
Chen in view of Suh does not expressly teach Chen in view of Suh does not expressly teach wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations.
However, Mallik teaches wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations (Mallik, [0092]-[0096]; the number of parity check code blocks to generate may be based, at least in part, on decoding statistics associated with a decoder at the mobile device, where the statistics may be long term statistics indicating the fraction of code blocks that decode successfully without using parity check code blocks (a positive acknowledgement), and the number of parity check code blocks may be dynamically adjusted based on ACK/NACK signals that is likely to interfere with communications).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen in view of Suh to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mallik in order to improve decodability of transmitted transmission blocks (Mallik, [0096]).
Regarding claim 29, Chen teaches a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the monitoring, a number of parity checks of the set of parity bits that either failed a parity check procedure or satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of the parity check);
identifying, based at least in part on the monitoring and at least a subset of the number of parity checks, a feedback status indicator for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; HARQ-ACK); and
transmitting a feedback message that includes the feedback status indicator and additional information identifying the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Chen does not expressly teach monitoring for a downlink transmission from a network device, the downlink transmission comprising a set of parity bits.
However, Suh teaches monitoring for a downlink transmission from a network device, the downlink transmission comprising a set of parity bits (Suh, Fig. 4, [0043]-[0045]; the received field includes ordinary bits and a parity bits 408).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen to include the above recited limitations as taught by Suh in order to improve packet retransmission procedures with minimal additional overhead (Suh, [0075]).
Chen in view of Suh does not expressly teach wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations.
However, Mallik teaches wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations (Mallik, [0092]-[0096]; the number of parity check code blocks to generate may be based, at least in part, on decoding statistics associated with a decoder at the mobile device, where the statistics may be long term statistics indicating the fraction of code blocks that decode successfully without using parity check code blocks (a positive acknowledgement), and the number of parity check code blocks may be dynamically adjusted based on ACK/NACK signals that is likely to interfere with communications).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen in view of Suh to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mallik in order to improve decodability of transmitted transmission blocks (Mallik, [0096]).
Regarding claim 30, Chen teaches a method for wireless communication at a network device, comprising:
receiving a feedback message (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR) from the UE that includes a feedback status indicator and additional information identifying a number of parity checks associated with the set of parity bits (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; HARQ-ACK), the number of parity checks based at least in part on parity checks of the set of parity bits that either failed a parity check procedure or satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of the parity check); and
selecting a modulation and coding scheme for communications with the UE based at least in part on the feedback message (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 7; after receiving the report, the base station determines the adaptive MCS value of the outer ring link based on the delta-MCS in the received HARQ-ACK codebook and notifies the UE in the DCI information).
Chen does not expressly teach transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink transmission that comprises a set of parity bits.
However, Suh teaches transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink transmission that comprises a set of parity bits (Suh, Fig. 4, [0043]-[0045]; the received field includes ordinary bits and a parity bits 408).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen to include the above recited limitations as taught by Suh in order to improve packet retransmission procedures with minimal additional overhead (Suh, [0075]).
Chen in view of Suh does not expressly teach wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations.
However, Mallik teaches wherein the number of parity checks is based at least in part on whether the feedback status indicator indicates a positive acknowledgement or a negative acknowledgement for the downlink transmission, the positive acknowledgement corresponding to a first number of parity checks associated with a first quantity of parity check procedure iterations and the negative acknowledgement corresponding to a second number of parity checks associated with a second quantity of parity check procedure iterations (Mallik, [0092]-[0096]; the number of parity check code blocks to generate may be based, at least in part, on decoding statistics associated with a decoder at the mobile device, where the statistics may be long term statistics indicating the fraction of code blocks that decode successfully without using parity check code blocks (a positive acknowledgement), and the number of parity check code blocks may be dynamically adjusted based on ACK/NACK signals that is likely to interfere with communications).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Chen in view of Suh to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mallik in order to improve decodability of transmitted transmission blocks (Mallik, [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
map the number of parity checks to a signal-to-noise ratio associated with a channel used for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; according to the relation between the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve, determine the value of the delta-MCS); and
identify a modulation and coding scheme based at least in part on the signal-to- noise ratio, wherein the additional information in the feedback message further identifies the modulation and coding scheme (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 7; after receiving the report, the base station determines the adaptive MCS value of the outer ring link based on the delta-MCS in the received HARQ-ACK codebook and notifies the UE in the DCI information).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 2 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions to map the number of parity checks are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
correlate the number of parity checks to a signal-to-noise ratio reference based at least in part on one or more iterations of the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; according to the relationship between the ratio of the total number of the parity check and the SNR, determine the value of the delta-MCS for the decoding iteration times).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 2 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions to identify the modulation and coding scheme are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify a highest modulation and coding scheme supported by the signal-to-noise ratio (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; IMCS-tgt is the maximum MCS index of the target BLER estimation for the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 2 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions to identify the modulation and coding scheme are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify an estimated block error rate for the downlink transmission based at least in part on the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; IMCS-tgt is the maximum MCS index of the target BLER estimation for the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
perform one or more iterations of the parity check procedure on the set of parity bits of the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; select a certain LDPC decoding iteration times when the terminal decodes the PDSCH service channel).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 7 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks after each iteration of the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 7 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks after a final iteration of the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 7 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks at an intermediate iteration of the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on parity checks that failed the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure to parity checks that failed the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure to a total number of parity checks for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that failed the parity check procedure to a total number of parity checks for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify, based at least in part on signaling exchanged with the network device, a set of indicator values associated with the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 16 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the set of indicator values comprise indicator values corresponding to a quantization of the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 16 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication of the set of indicator values from the network device using at least one of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message, a downlink control information (DCI) message, a UE-assistance information message, or a combination thereof (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 7; the base station determines the adaptive MCS value of the outer ring link based on the delta-MCS in the received HARQ-ACK codebook and notifies the UE in the DCI information).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on a number of layers, a transport-block size (TBS), a target block level error rate (BLER), or any combination thereof, associated with the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; IMCS-tgt is the maximum MCS index of the target BLER estimation for the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the downlink transmission comprises a cellular-based downlink transmission received from a network device or a sidelink- based downlink transmission received from a neighboring UE (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; when the terminal decodes the PDSCH service channel from the base station).
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the modulation and coding scheme based at least in part on a signal-to- noise ratio associated with a channel used for the downlink transmission, wherein the additional information in the feedback message further identifies the modulation and coding scheme (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Regarding claim 23, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify the number of parity checks based at least in part on the additional information in the feedback message (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 5; according to the relation between the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve, determine the value of the delta-MCS); and
identify the modulation and coding scheme based at least in part on the number of parity checks (Chen, p. 18, paragraph 4; the delta-MCS information and the HARQ-ACK codebook feedback together, where the value of the delta-MCS is according to the relationship between the ratio of the parity check failure and the total number of parity check and the SNR).
Regarding claim 24, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the number of parity checks is identified based at least in part on parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 25, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the number of parity checks is identified based at least in part on the parity checks that failed the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 26, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the number of parity checks is identified based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure to parity checks that failed the parity check procedure (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 27, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the number of parity checks is identified based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that satisfied the parity check procedure to a total number of parity checks for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Regarding claim 28, Chen in view of Suh further in view of Mallik teaches the apparatus of claim 21 above. Further, Chen teaches wherein the number of parity checks is identified based at least in part on a ratio of parity checks that failed the parity check procedure to a total number of parity checks for the downlink transmission (Chen, p. 30, paragraph 2; when the terminal selects a certain LDPC decoding iteration times, the terminal determines the value of the delta-MCS based on the ratio of the parity check failure and the parity check sum and the SNR curve).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights