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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 5-32 are pending in the application. Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims along with other remarks. Applicant’s amendments regarding 112(d) have overcome the rejection; however, the 112(d) rejection is maintained on a separate basis. Claims 1-2, and 5-32 are still rejected by prior art references, refer to the following rejection for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pp. 9-15 of the response, filed December 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, and 5-32 under § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see the rejection for details.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended to specifically require “combining, based at least in part on receiving the retransmission . . . [and] combin[ing] based at least in part on the capability of the UE and on a set of contextual factors.”
Applicant first attacks Sahin, individually, in that “it does not teach or suggest . . . the capability of the UE.” Remarks at 13.
This is improper under MPEP § 2145(IV), as the rejection admitted that Sahin does not teach these elements and instead relied on a combination of Sahin and Wang. Rejection at 7 (“Sahin does not teach . . . the capability . . . however . . . Wang teaches: transmitting capability signaling . . . .”). Wang also teaches similar elements in [0007], [0018], [0052]. For example, in [0052] Wang teaches: [0052] At 470, the base station 120 optionally (and iteratively) transmits common messages and/or private messages to the UE 111 and/or the UE 112 as shown at 435, 440, 445, and/or 450. This can include new rate splitting communications (e.g., a new common message, a new private message), retransmissions of prior rate splitting communications (e.g., a retransmission of a common message, a retransmission of a private message), or a combination of new messages and retransmissions of prior messages (e.g., a new common message transmission, a retransmission of a private message).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-8 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites alternatives (e.g., “receiving . . . a retransmission of at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword”). These dependent claims seek to further limit an unselected option, which does not further limit the claims (e.g., if “the private codeword” is selected then “the retransmission being a transmission thereof” does not further limit the claim with regard to the “set of contextual factors are based at least in part on the common codeword having comprised information for the UE”).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 5-8, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 26, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0146756 (hereinafter “Sahin”) in view of WIPO Publication No. WO 2023122097 A1 (hereinafter “Wang”)
Regarding claim 1, Sahin teaches: A method of communication at a user equipment (UE) (UE 102) comprising: receiving an initial transmission of a common codeword and a private codeword ([0088] where x1c and x2c are the codewords to be decoded at both users whereas x1p and x2p are desired to be decoded only at their dedicated users (“destinations”), D1 (“the 1st user”) and D2 (“the 2nd user”) respectively, where “D” stands for destination), wherein the common codeword is common to the UE and at least one other UE and is received in a first stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2), and the private codeword is private to the UE and is received in a different stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2); and transmitting an acknowledgement indicative of decoding results of the common codeword and the private codeword based at least in part on results of whether the common codeword was successfully decoded and whether the private codeword was successfully decoded (0139] Each WTRU first decodes the common parts (both its own and the interfering data), and cancels them from the received signal. Finally, its private data is decoded. CRC checking is applied to each decoded data stream. Accordingly, one or more positive acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (“ACK/NACK”) signal is fed back to the WTRU's serving eNB, which will take ACK/NACK feedback as input in scheduling.); and receiving, based at least in part on transmission of the acknowledgement, a retransmission of at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword; and combining, based at least in part on receiving the retransmission, the initial transmission and the retransmission to decode an undecoded one of the common codeword or the private codeword, wherein the initial transmission and the retransmssion are combined based at least in part on the capability of the UE and on a set of contextual factors ([0137] Based on the CSI, the network (or more particularly, one or more network scheduling nodes) makes generalized scheduling decisions, including selecting one or more WTRUs to receive data, and transmit parameters, (such as the precoding matrices, power allocations, information whether the WTRU will employ MS, and MCS for both the common and private parts), are determined).
Sahin does not explicitly teach: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication ([0037] In aspects, each UE capability message indicates support for rate splitting, such as through the inclusion of a toggle field, a Boolean value, an enumerated value, and so forth. [0077], [0086]) . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling (FIG. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting and a combination of Sahin with Wang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting).
Regarding claim 2, Sahin does not teach: where transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on one or more configuration parameters received from a network entity related to rate splitting communication.
However, Wang teaches: where transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on one or more configuration parameters received from a network entity related to the rate splitting communication ([0043] At 425, the base station 120, by way of the BS rate-splitting manager 264), selects and communicates one or more rate-splitting configurations to the UE 111 and the UE 112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of transmitting an acknowledgement based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting and a combination of Sahin with Wang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., transmitting an acknowledgement based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting).
Regarding claim 5, Sahin teaches: wherein decoding the private codeword is skipped if the common codeword is the undecoded one of the common codeword or the private codeword ([0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Sahin teaches: wherein the set of contextual factors are based at least in part on the common codeword having comprised information for the UE, and the retransmission being a retransmission thereof ([0252] Once the retransmitted layer is received and combined with previous transmission(s), it is likely that it can be decoded correctly and cancelled from receive signals.).
Regarding claim 7, Sahin teaches: wherein the set of contextual factors are based at least in part on the common codeword having comprised no information specifically intended for the UE, and wherein the combining comprises using the retransmission for decoding the private codeword ([0252]).
Regarding claim 8, Sahin teaches: wherein the set of contextual factors are based at least in part on not receiving a retransmission of the common codeword when the common codeword did not comprise information specifically intended for the UE ([0252]).
Regarding claim 10, Sahin teaches: soft combining the retransmission of the private codeword with the initial transmission of the private codeword when the initial transmission of the private codeword is not decoded ([0252] Once the retransmitted layer is received and combined with previous transmission(s), it is likely that it can be decoded correctly and cancelled from receive signals.).
Regarding claim 16, Sahin teaches: wherein the acknowledgement comprises one of three states that correspond to: acknowledge decoding of both the common codeword and the private codeword; acknowledge decoding of the common codeword and negative acknowledge of the private codeword; and negative acknowledge of the common codeword and the private codeword ([0250-251] UE Detection Results).
Regarding claim 17, Sahin teaches: combining acknowledgement states for plural channels to provide compression of acknowledgements ([0250-251] Feedback).
Regarding claim 18, Sahin teaches: signaling a second capability of the UE to a network entity prior to receiving the initial transmission ([0123], [0141] Since MS transmission requires certain WTRU receiver capability, such as ML or MMSE-SIC, to ensure successful data detection, the WTRU may inform the network of its capability).
Regarding claim 20, Sahin teaches: An apparatus at a user equipment (ULE) comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor being configured to: receive an initial transmission of a common codeword and a private codeword ([0088] where x1c and x2c are the codewords to be decoded at both users whereas x1p and x2p are desired to be decoded only at their dedicated users (“destinations”), D1 (“the 1st user”) and D2 (“the 2nd user”) respectively, where “D” stands for destination), wherein the common codeword is common to the UE and at least one other UE and is received in a first stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2), and the private codeword is private to the UE and is received in a different stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2); and transmit an acknowledgement indicative of decoding results of the common codeword and the private codeword based at least in part on results of whether the common codeword was successfully decoded and whether the private codeword was successfully decoded (0139] Each WTRU first decodes the common parts (both its own and the interfering data), and cancels them from the received signal. Finally, its private data is decoded. CRC checking is applied to each decoded data stream. Accordingly, one or more positive acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (“ACK/NACK”) signal is fed back to the WTRU's serving eNB, which will take ACK/NACK feedback as input in scheduling.); and receiving, based at least in part on transmission of the acknowledgement, a retransmission of at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword; and combining, based at least in part on receiving the retransmission, the initial transmission and the retransmission to decode an undecoded one of the common codeword or the private codeword, wherein the initial transmission and the retransmssion are combined based at least in part on the capability of the UE and on a set of contextual factors ([0137] Based on the CSI, the network (or more particularly, one or more network scheduling nodes) makes generalized scheduling decisions, including selecting one or more WTRUs to receive data, and transmit parameters, (such as the precoding matrices, power allocations, information whether the WTRU will employ MS, and MCS for both the common and private parts), are determined).
Sahin does not explicitly teach: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication ([0037] In aspects, each UE capability message indicates support for rate splitting, such as through the inclusion of a toggle field, a Boolean value, an enumerated value, and so forth. [0077], [0086]) . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling (FIG. 4, step 425, 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting and a combination of Sahin with Wang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to provide a soft combine buffer for combining the initial transmission of at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword with a retransmission of the initial transmission. ([0252] Once the retransmitted layer is received and combined with previous transmission(s), it is likely that it can be decoded correctly and cancelled from receive signals.)
Regarding claim 26, Sahin teaches: A method of communication at a network entity (e.g., Fig. 4 eNB1, eNB2), comprising: sending an initial transmission of a common codeword and a private codeword ([0088] where x1c and x2c are the codewords to be decoded at both users whereas x1p and x2p are desired to be decoded only at their dedicated users (“destinations”), D1 (“the 1st user”) and D2 (“the 2nd user”) respectively, where “D” stands for destination), wherein the common codeword is common to a first (e.g., FIG. 4 UE1) UE and at least a second UE (e.g., FIG. 4 UE2) and is sent in a first stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2), wherein the private codeword is private to the first lE and is sent in a different stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2); receiving an acknowledgement indicative of decoding results of the common codeword and the private codeword ([0139] Each WTRU first decodes the common parts (both its own and the interfering data), and cancels them from the received signal. Finally, its private data is decoded. CRC checking is applied to each decoded data stream. Accordingly, one or more positive acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (“ACK/NACK”) signal is fed back to the WTRU's serving eNB, which will take ACK/NACK feedback as input in scheduling.); and retransmitting at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword depending on the acknowledgement received ([0252]).
Sahin does not explicitly teach: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication ([0037] In aspects, each UE capability message indicates support for rate splitting, such as through the inclusion of a toggle field, a Boolean value, an enumerated value, and so forth. [0077], [0086]) . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling (FIG. 4, step 425, 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting and a combination of Sahin with Wang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting).
Regarding claim 30, Sahin teaches: An apparatus at a network entity (e.g., Fig. 4 eNB1, eNB2) comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to (See Fig. 1E): send an initial transmission of a common codeword and a private codeword, wherein the common codeword is common to a first user equipment ([0088] where x1c and x2c are the codewords to be decoded at both users whereas x1p and x2p are desired to be decoded only at their dedicated users (“destinations”), D1 (“the 1st user”) and D2 (“the 2nd user”) respectively, where “D” stands for destination), UE, and at least a second UE and is sent in a first stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2), and the private codeword is for the first UE and is sent in a different stream (FIG. 2, S1 and S2); receive an acknowledgement indicative of decoding results of the common codeword and the private codeword (0139] Each WTRU first decodes the common parts (both its own and the interfering data), and cancels them from the received signal. Finally, its private data is decoded. CRC checking is applied to each decoded data stream. Accordingly, one or more positive acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (“ACK/NACK”) signal is fed back to the WTRU's serving eNB, which will take ACK/NACK feedback as input in scheduling.); and retransmit at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword depending on the acknowledgement received ([0252]); and receiving, based at least in part on transmission of the acknowledgement, a retransmission of at least one of the common codeword or the private codeword; and combining, based at least in part on receiving the retransmission, the initial transmission and the retransmission to decode an undecoded one of the common codeword or the private codeword, wherein the initial transmission and the retransmssion are combined based at least in part on the capability of the UE and on a set of contextual factors ([0137] Based on the CSI, the network (or more particularly, one or more network scheduling nodes) makes generalized scheduling decisions, including selecting one or more WTRUs to receive data, and transmit parameters, (such as the precoding matrices, power allocations, information whether the WTRU will employ MS, and MCS for both the common and private parts), are determined).
Sahin does not explicitly teach: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches: transmitting capability signaling indicating a capability ofthe UE to support rate splitting communication ([0037] In aspects, each UE capability message indicates support for rate splitting, such as through the inclusion of a toggle field, a Boolean value, an enumerated value, and so forth. [0077], [0086]) . . . wherein transmitting the acknowledgement is based at least in part on the capability of the UE to support rate splitting communication as indicated in the transmitted capability signaling (FIG. 4, step 425, 430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting and a combination of Sahin with Wang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., transmitting data based on a capability indication regarding rate splitting).
Regarding claim 31, Sahin teaches: wherein the set of contextual factors are based at least in part on a network configuration ([0137] Based on the CSI, the network (or more particularly, one or more network scheduling nodes) makes generalized scheduling decisions, including selecting one or more WTRUs to receive data, and transmit parameters, (such as the precoding matrices, power allocations, information whether the WTRU will employ MS, and MCS for both the common and private parts), are determined.).
Regarding claim 32, Sahin teaches: wherein the set of contextual factors are based at least in part on one or more messages ([0013] In additional embodiments, the demodulation information includes precoder information and/or power allocations. Still further additional embodiments may further comprise transmitting a Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) indicator message; or may further comprise processing a signal retransmitted in response to the multipart HARQ message, using successive interference cancellation.), whether the common codeword included information for the UE, whether the common codeword lacks information for the UE, or any combination thereof.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Korean Publication No. KR20090105294A (hereinafter “Ryu”; translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Sahin does not explicitly teach: including attempting to decode the private codeword regardless of whether the common codeword is decoded.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ryu teaches: including attempting to decode the private codeword regardless of whether the common codeword is decoded (Line 507 “ Thereafter, the repeater proceeds to step 507 and jointly decodes common information codewords among the codewords received from the base station. The above common information codeword is decrypted without being considered noise in all devices because there is no target device. Thereafter, the repeater proceeds to step 509 and decrypts the non-public information codewords among the codewords received from the base station. At this time, the above-mentioned private codeword is regarded as interference or noise in devices other than the target device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of “attempting to decode the private codeword regardless of whether the common codeword is decoded” and a combination of Sahin with Ryu renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., the codeword may be decoded regardless of the other codewords to determine the quality of the signal or measure background noise.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Korean Publication No. KR20110096482A (hereinafter "Lee"; translation attached).
Regarding claim 11, ---Sahin does not explicitly teach: upon sending a negative acknowledgement in respect of at least the common codeword, the UE receives an indication permitting the UE to flush a soft combine buffer at the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches: upon sending a negative acknowledgement in respect of at least the common codeword, the UE receives an indication permitting the UE to flush a soft combine buffer at the UE ([0128] Case-2 ACK or NACK Toggle / Non-toggle The NDI clears the buffer for the toggled codeword and performs a new transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of “an indication permitting the UE to flush a soft combine buffer at the UE” and a combination of Sahin with Lee renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., flushing the buffer).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0016459A1 (hereinafter "Kim") and further in view of WO2018/031135A1 (hereinafter “Phuyal”).
Regarding claim 12, Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined factor includes whether the UE is provided with a capability of storing in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches: wherein the predetermined factor includes whether the UE is provided with a capability of storing in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission. ([0049] In accordance with one embodiment, complex orthogonal modulation . . . The constellation can be expanded from binary to quaternary, and one subset of bits can be transmitted for the in-phase (I-phase) and another subset of bits can be transmitted for the quadrature-phase (Q-phase), such that the respective sequences of control channel information can be modulated using a high order modulation (e.g., QPSK) and can be transmitted over the specified number of tones. [0086] The apparatus 202 can further include the data store 210 that can be operatively coupled to the processor 208 and can store data to be transmitted, received data, information related to the generation of codewords, the expurgation of codewords, the transmission or reception of control channel information (e.g., information related to complex orthogonal modulation)).
The combination of Sahin and Kim does not explicitly teach that the “predetermined factor includes whether the UE is provided with [the capability].”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Phuyal teaches that UE capability signaling can be provided ([0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Kim and Phuyal and a combination of Sahin with Kim and Phuyal renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an indication of storage capability or other capabilities and storing transmissions to reduce retransmissions).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Kim, and further in view of NPL - Physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (hereinafter “NPL”).
Regarding claim 13, although inherent, Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein the UE has a capability of storing I and Q samples of the initial transmission the method further comprising combining I and Q samples of the initial transmission and I and Q samples of the retransmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches: wherein the UE has a capability of storing I and Q samples of the initial transmission ([0049] In accordance with one embodiment, complex orthogonal modulation . . . The constellation can be expanded from binary to quaternary, and one subset of bits can be transmitted for the in-phase (I-phase) and another subset of bits can be transmitted for the quadrature-phase (Q-phase), such that the respective sequences of control channel information can be modulated using a high order modulation (e.g., QPSK) and can be transmitted over the specified number of tones. [0086] The apparatus 202 can further include the data store 210 that can be operatively coupled to the processor 208 and can store data to be transmitted, received data, information related to the generation of codewords, the expurgation of codewords, the transmission or reception of control channel information (e.g., information related to complex orthogonal modulation)).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, NPL teaches: wherein the combining is performed with I and Q samples of the initial transmission and I and Q samples of the retransmission (Table on page 4 of 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Kim and NPL and a combination of Sahin with Kim and NPL renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., combining stored transmitted and retransmitted information to reduce retransmissions).
Regarding claim 14, Sahin teaches: wherein the combining is performed on the common codeword ([0252]).
Regarding claim 15, Sahin teaches: wherein the combining is performed on the private codeword ([0252]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Phuyal.
Regarding claim 19, Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein the second capability comprises one or more of: whether the UE stores in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples for the initial transmission; a buffer size for the UE; and a number of retransmissions the UE supports for soft combining.
However, Phuyal teaches: wherein the capability comprises one or more of: whether the UE stores in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples for the initial transmission; a buffer size for the UE; and a number of retransmissions the UE supports for soft combining. ([0039] In some embodiments, the UE capability signaling can include (1) the supported MAC configurations information. In one option, the information can include a set of one or more values corresponding to or indicating, but not limited to, the maximum number of HARQ retransmissions, BSR timers, DRX and eDRX configurations, time alignment timers, PHR configurations, SR prohibit timer, DC related parameters such as SCell deactivation timer, extended BSR, extended PHR, SCell TAG configurations, etc.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Phuyal and a combination of Sahin with Phuyal renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing capability signaling to ensure proper communications, functionality, etc.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0137827 (hereinafter “Cariou”).
Regarding claim 22, Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein the soft combine buffer is configured to store log- likelihood ratios, LLRs, for decoding of the initial transmission and to combine these with LLRs of the retransmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cariou teaches: wherein the soft combine buffer is configured to store log- likelihood ratios, LLRs, for decoding of the initial transmission and to combine these with LLRs of the retransmission ([0157] In one or more embodiments, a HARQ scrambling system may facilitate performing scrambling after the low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoder in the transmitter block diagram when HARQ is intended, as shown in FIG. 10. The scrambler, therefore, applies to the coded bits, and not to the un-coded bits as done today. That means that on the receiver side, the descrambler needs to be performed before the LDPC decoder. This has the advantage that the receiver can store the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codewords as is, and will be able to combine them without other scrambling-related processing. This also allows the transmitter to store previously transmitted codewords for future retransmissions, or to store uncoded codewords for future retransmissions, without further scrambling-related processing. This also allows the transmitter to apply a single scrambling on each PPDU, and not apply different scrambling on a different part of the PPDU transmission. [0158] In one or more embodiments, it should be noted that it is also possible to keep current architecture at the transmitter side (meaning scrambler before the LDPC encoding), and just have an implementation at the receiver side to perform scrambling before the LDPC decoding. In this case, the descrambling sequence has to be based on the scrambling sequence applied at the transmitter which is encoded with the same LDPC coding in order to be corresponding to the scrambling sequence applied on the coded bits. This allows similarly the receiver to store the LLR and combine them independently of the scrambling sequences. This also allows the transmitter to apply scrambling on the entire PPDU. This, however, creates some slight architecture restrictions on the transmitter side for storage perspectives to be ready in case of CW retransmissions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Cariou and a combination of Sahin with Cariou renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., storing LLR to ensure recalculation or transmission is not required).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Cariou and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 23, ---Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor is further configured to receive an indication permitting the UE to flush the soft combine buffer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches: upon sending a negative acknowledgement in respect of at least the common codeword, the UE receives an indication permitting the UE to flush a soft combine buffer at the UE ([0128] Case-2 ACK or NACK Toggle / Non-toggle The NDI clears the buffer for the toggled codeword and performs a new transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the feature of “an indication permitting the UE to flush a soft combine buffer at the UE” and a combination of Sahin with Lee renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., flushing the buffer).
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 24, Sahin does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to store in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission and is arranged to signal to a network entity that it is has capability to store such samples.
However, Kim teaches: wherein the processor is configured to store in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission and is arranged to signal to a network entity that it is has capability to store such samples ([0049] In accordance with one embodiment, complex orthogonal modulation . . . The constellation can be expanded from binary to quaternary, and one subset of bits can be transmitted for the in-phase (I-phase) and another subset of bits can be transmitted for the quadrature-phase (Q-phase), such that the respective sequences of control channel information can be modulated using a high order modulation (e.g., QPSK) and can be transmitted over the specified number of tones. [0086] The apparatus 202 can further include the data store 210 that can be operatively coupled to the processor 208 and can store data to be transmitted, received data, information related to the generation of codewords, the expurgation of codewords, the transmission or reception of control channel information (e.g., information related to complex orthogonal modulation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Kim and a combination of Sahin with Kim renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., storing transmitted information to reduce retransmissions).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 25, Sahin does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to store in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission, and the combining is performed with I and Q samples of the initial transmission and I and Q samples of the retransmission.
However, Kim teaches: wherein the processor is configured to store in-phase and quadrature, I and Q, samples of the initial transmission, and the combining is performed with I and Q samples of the initial transmission and I and Q samples of the retransmission ([0049] In accordance with one embodiment, complex orthogonal modulation . . . The constellation can be expanded from binary to quaternary, and one subset of bits can be transmitted for the in-phase (I-phase) and another subset of bits can be transmitted for the quadrature-phase (Q-phase), such that the respective sequences of control channel information can be modulated using a high order modulation (e.g., QPSK) and can be transmitted over the specified number of tones. [0086] The apparatus 202 can further include the data store 210 that can be operatively coupled to the processor 208 and can store data to be transmitted, received data, information related to the generation of codewords, the expurgation of codewords, the transmission or reception of control channel information (e.g., information related to complex orthogonal modulation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Kim and a combination of Sahin with Kim renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., storing transmission information to prevent retransmissions).
Claim 27-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of Phuyal.
Regarding claim 27, Sahin does not teach: further comprising receiving, from the first UE, an indication of a capability of the UE and, in response thereto, deciding whether to retransmit the common codeword in response to receipt of a negative acknowledgement for the common codeword
However, Phuyal teaches: further comprising receiving, from the first UE, an indication of a capability of the UE and, in response thereto, deciding whether to retransmit the common codeword in response to receipt of a negative acknowledgement for the common codeword ([0039] In some embodiments, the UE capability signaling can include (1) the supported MAC configurations information. In one option, the information can include a set of one or more values corresponding to or indicating, but not limited to, the maximum number of HARQ retransmissions, BSR timers, DRX and eDRX configurations, time alignment timers, PHR configurations, SR prohibit timer, DC related parameters such as SCell deactivation timer, extended BSR, extended PHR, SCell TAG configurations, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Phuyal and a combination of Sahin with Phuyal renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., reduce the need to retransmit communications).
Regarding claim 28, Sahin does not teach: further comprising receiving, from the first UE, an indication of a number of retransmissions supported by the first UE and, in response thereto, deciding whether to retransmit one of the common codeword or the private codeword.
However, Phuyal teaches: further comprising receiving, from the first UE, an indication of a number of retransmissions supported by the first UE and, in response thereto, deciding whether to retransmit one of the common codeword or the private codeword. ([0039] In some embodiments, the UE capability signaling can include (1) the supported MAC configurations information. In one option, the information can include a set of one or more values corresponding to or indicating, but not limited to, the maximum number of HARQ retransmissions, BSR timers, DRX and eDRX configurations, time alignment timers, PHR configurations, SR prohibit timer, DC related parameters such as SCell deactivation timer, extended BSR, extended PHR, SCell TAG configurations, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of Phuyal and a combination of Sahin with Phuyal renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., reduce the need for retransmissions).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin in view of Wang and further in view of NPL.
Regarding claim 29, although inherent, Sahin does not explicitly teach: wherein common codewords for the first and second UEs are concatenated together and sent in one set of spatial layers and private codewords for the first and second UEs are sent in other different sets of spatial layers.
However, NPL teaches: wherein common codewords for the first and second UEs are concatenated together and sent in one set of spatial layers and private codewords for the first and second UEs are sent in other different sets of spatial layers. (Table p. 4/4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the features of the NPL and a combination of Sahin with the NPL renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing codewords on particular spatial layers).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 7,869,417 (Damnjanovic) teaches multiplexing and feedback support for wireless communication systems.
U.S. Publication No. 2011/0310853 (Yin) teaches selecting a codeword and determining a symbol length for uplink control information.
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0234820 (Malik) teaches multiple tri-state harq processes.
U.S. Publication No. 2017/0222662 (Kumar) teaches data dependency mitigation in decoder architecture for generalized product codes for flash storage.
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 JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm EST.
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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643