DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example, the independent claims 5, 11, and 17, have been amended to recite, in part:
“transmitting the CQI through Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) using a first layer with a first Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) level; and
transmitting the RI through PUSCH using a second layer, with a second MCS, wherein;
the first MCS level is higher than the second MCS level”.
It appears that the Applicant is improperly characterizing embodiments of the claims which, when viewed as a whole contradict the amendments to the claims. In one example UCI may be transmitted on a first and second layer, in another UCI is only sent on first layer, and not the second layer.
With regard to the RI being transmitted on the second layer without the UCI, the Applicant relies on two different unrelated sections of disclosure. The disclosure teaches CQI/PMI/RI is not transmitted in specific resource positions within a second layer. For example, Applicant points to fig(s). 4-5, wherein the fig.4 element 403 depicts a second layer comprising only DM-RS with no UCI (e.g. CQI/PMI/RI) being transmitted. A reproduction of fig.4 is shown below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen, the reproduction of fig.4 teaches a scenario wherein the DM-RS is sent along with data and no UCI, and thus does not provide for RI on the second layer. Fig.5 teaches that the UCI may be transmitted on the first layer, and UCI layers are nulled out on the second layer, however, it doesn’t appear to show that Rank Indication are transmitted in their original resources as RI is a form of UCI. For example, the Applicant recites in the response:
Pg.8 “Also, for example, paragraphs [0089 – 0091] and figs. 4-5 explicitly teach layer-specific control information transmission, showing Layer 1 transmitting CQI/PMI using resources 402/502, while Layer 2 transmits either data or nothing in the corresponding resource positions”. Because the disclosure of par.[0086] teaches the transmission of RI on multiple contradicts explicitly with the disclosure of par.[0089 – 0091] wherein the CQI is transmitted on the first layer which happens to have the higher MCS level, and the other layers have data or nothing, would break the rules established in par.[0089 – 0091].
Additionally, Applicants specification at par.[0092] recites, in part:
“In another method of transmitting a CQI/PMI through a PUSCH according to still other example embodiments of the present invention, Layer 1 transmits a CQI/PMI using the same resources as specified in 3GPP TS 36.211 V.8.6.0, and other layers do not transmit anything. In other words, only one layer operates.”
As can be seen the portions disclosures suggested by the applicant as supporting the above amended claims, do not disclose and/or reasonably suggest transmitting the RI on multiple layers or only a second layer with MCS as claimed, and transmitting the CQI on a first layer with the highest MCS, as the disclosures oppose one another and would irreversibly break the disclosure that when the CQI is transmitted on the first layer, the second layer contains only data or nothing.
The office agrees that the resource positions usually occupied by RI or other types of UCI, are either occupied by data or nothing in fig(s).4-5, thus, as stated above, it appears that the Applicant is improperly combining embodiments. As noted above, and as well by the Applicant, the transmission resources for RI and other UCI (e.g. CQI and PMI), already correspond to configured resource positions, such that, only one layer is operative to transmit data, RI, and other UCI, as expressly discussed in the Applicant specification.
The disclosure of fig(s).4-5 cannot be performed with disclosure of par.[0086] as it would erode the teachings of par.[0086] which teaches transmitting RI over a plurality of layers, because the disclosure of fig(s).4-5 explicitly disclose that only one layer is used which naturally contradicts with the disclosure of multiple layers being used in par.[0086]. Again, the disclosure of fig(s). teaches that data or nothing is used to fill the resource positions on the second layer normally occupied by RI, or other UCI, on the second layer. Thus, the claims are rejected in view of the newly filed amendment.
Also, the disclosure originally taught that the layer with the higher MCS comprises the Uplink Control Information (UCI), see e.g. “wherein the first MCS level is higher than the second MCS level”. It is unclear why the control information is now being sent on a second layer with a lower MCS level, when the Applicants specification teaches that it is better for control information to be sent on the layer with higher MCS level, see e.g. par.[0115] which recites, in part:
“In a first method, when there are layers having a high modulation and coding scheme (MCS) level and a low MCS level, control information is transmitted through a layer having the high MCS level. Since the layer having the high MCS level represents a good channel state, it is highly likely that control information will be transmitted without an error. Also, a PUSCH uses fewer resources due to the high MCS level, and thus the number of resources capable of transmitting data increases.”. It is unclear how the Applicants have derived sending RI, which is UCI, on a layer with lower MCS level, when the disclosure teaches that the UCI should be transmitted on layers with a higher MCS, especially when the specification as filed does not concern itself at all with criticality of different types of uplink control information.
The applicant additionally points to par.[0086] as supporting the disclosure that RI is sent on a second layer with lower MCS level. This assertion contradicts the reasoning for transmitting UCI on the higher layer as the higher layer supports better transmission receptibility. The lack of a recitation of CQI does not mean that the UE sends the RI on a layer which has a lower MCS as the par.[0086] does not describe the layers as supporting different MCS levels. Additionally par.[0085 – 0086] as discussed by the Applicant does not describe the RI being transmitted with the CQI, see Applicant remarks dated 09/17/2025, pg.9, which recite, in part:
“describes transmitting RI symbols through a separate layer without any reference to CQI being included in that layer.”.
The office notes that fig(s).4-5 and par.[0089 – 0091] describe the CQI being transmitted on the first layer, and no discussion regarding the RI being transmitted on the second layer. In fact, as discussed above, data or nothing is transmitted on the second layer as discussed above, in the embodiments of fig(s).4-5 and par.[0089-0091], thus, it does not appear that the disclosure of par.[0086] can be reasonably combined with the disclosure of par.[0089 – 0091] based on the teachings contradicting each other.
Thus, the recitation that the RI is transmitted on a second layer with with lower MCS, and the CQI being transmitted on the first layer with higher MCS, are not discussed in any reasonable way in the originally filed specification.
Thus, it appears that the claims have departed from the disclosure in such a way that the Office must reject under 112(a).
The office notes that claims 10,16, and 22, which describe transmitting RI and Data on a second set of resource elements with no CQI are similarly rejected for the reasons given above.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2010/0195624 A1), in view of Beluri et al. (US 2010/0239040 A1).
Regarding claim 5, 11, and 17, Zhang discloses:
a user equipment, communications device for a user equipment (par.[0005] describes a mobile station), comprising:
a circuitry (par.[0005] describes a user equipment, implicit that the UE comprises circuitry) which is configured to perform:
a communication method performed by a User Equipment (par.[0005] discloses a mobile station), the method comprising:
generating a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) (fig.2 depicts hardware capable of generating a CQI for uplink transmission);
generating Rank Information (RI) (fig.2 depicts hardware capable of generating a RI for uplink transmission);
transmitting the CQI through the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) (par.[0083 – 0084] describe the layer with largest MCS level, which in this case is the first layer has the control information mapped thereto, fig.8 depicts a first layer with a first set of resource elements on the first layer comprising CQI, wherein the first layer comprises a first set of resource elements) using a first layer (par.[0084] describes a first layer) with a first Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) level (par.[0084] describes the highest MCS value, e.g. highest MCS level. Par.[0083] discloses that the layer that has the largest MCS value is selected to carry the uplink control information); and
transmitting PUSCH using a second layer with a second MCS level (par.[0083] as discussed above, teaches N layers, wherein each of the N layers comprises a different MCS level. The Office notes that the second layer comprises its own set of resource elements in the frequency domain), wherein:
the first MCS level is higher than the second MCS level (par.[0083-0084] describes the N layers as comprising different MCS levels wherein the first layer which is configured to carry the control information is configured to carry the UCI, and has the highest MCS level).
While the disclosure of Zhang substantially discloses the claimed subject matter, it does not explicitly disclose:
transmitting the RI on the PUSCH using a second layer with a second MCS level, wherein the second layer does not comprise/carry the CQI.
However, the technique for transmitting CQI on a first layer and other UCI on a second layer was known in the art prior to the date of the invention.
For example, the disclosure of Beluri teaches:
transmitting the RI on the PUSCH using a second layer with a second MCS level, wherein the second layer does not comprise/carry the CQI (par.[0057] describes the CQI being transmitted on a first layer see e.g. fig.7 and a second layer with just RI. Par.[0100] wherein the CQI/PMI are mapped to a layer with high MCS and RI is mapped to the layer with lower MCS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Zhang for UCI transmission on PUSCH with the disclosure of Beluri which teaches that the UCI may be transmitted on separate layers. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the CQI/PMI reception can be improved as opposed to the RI.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Zhang discloses:
wherein both the first set of resource elements and the second set of resource elements include data (fig.6 depicts the first layer and second layer resource elements including data).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 19, Zhang discloses:
wherein the first set of resource elements further comprise Precoding Matrix Indicator but the second set of resource elements comprise no PMI (fig.7 depicts a second set of resource elements less the PMI).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20, Zhang discloses:
wherein the first layer comprises a first set of symbols arranged in the time domain (fig.3 depicts an exemplary layer for multiplexing, wherein the layer comprises a plurality of symbols in the time domain, see e.g. element 330. Fig.6 depicts a first layer comprising a plurality of symbols in the time domain)
wherein a fourth symbol among the first set of symbols in the time domain comprises a first reference signal (fig.6 depicts the 4th symbol comprising the DM-RS, which is a reference signal)
wherein a first symbol among the first set of symbols in time domain comprises a first set of subcarriers arranged in frequency domain, wherein the CQI in the first symbol occupies some subcarriers having higher frequencies in frequency domain, and data occupies remaining subcarriers in frequency domain (fig.6 layer 1 depicts the CQI being carried in the highest subcarriers in the frequency domain, the first symbol period comprises the CQI in the highest subcarrier).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 21, Zhang discloses:
wherein the fourth symbol among the first set of symbols in time domain comprises a second set of subcarriers arranged in frequency domain, wherein the first reference signal occupies all the second set of subcarriers (fig.6 layer 1 and layer 2 wherein the RS (e.g. “S”) in the fourth symbol occupies all of the subcarriers).
Claim 10, 16, and 22, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang and Beluri as applied to claim(s) 5, 11, and 17, above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0013615 A1).
Regarding claims 10, 16, and 22, Zhang and Beluri discloses:
mapping control information to a first layer or a second layer wherein the first layer has a higher MCS level than the second layer, and the control information is multiplexed with data in some situations. However, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first set of resource elements comprise data and CQI but no RI, and the second set of resource elements comprise data and RI but no CQI.
However, the particular arrangement of control information on different layers was known in the art prior to the disclosed claims. For example, in an analogous art, the disclosure of Lee teaches:
wherein the first set of resource elements comprise data and CQI but no RI, and the second set of resource elements comprise data and RI but no CQI (par.[0145 – 0146] which recites, in part, “For example, among the plurality of pieces of control information, the ACK/NACK and the RI may require higher transmission reliability than that of the CQI/PMI. Therefore, the same modulation scheme as that used for data can be used for a specific type of control information (e.g., CQI/PMI), and a modulation scheme having a lower modulation order than that used for data may be used for another type of control information (e.g., ACK/NACK and RI).” And par.[0061] describes multiplexing of the UCI with data. Thus, it is shown that CQI and data may use a higher MCS and transmitted together while the RI may transmit using a lower MCS along with data that uses a higher MCS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Zhang and Beluri which describe multiplexing of UCI and data on multiple layers with the transmission reliability of specific types of UCI as discussed in Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been that ACK/NACK and RI require a more robust transmission reliability, which provides for a more robust communications which when transmitting UCI and data on higher and lower layers wherein the higher layer MCS has a better opportunity to be decoded at the receiver.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see 112 Rejections, filed 02/28/2025, with respect to claims 5-22 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for reasons given in the rejection above. The claims are rejected under 112(a) as discussed above..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see 105 Rejections, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to claims 5-22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With regard to Zhang, the applicant alleges that Zhang (US 2010/0195624 A1) does not disclose a first layer and a second layer, and does not disclose a configuration wherein the CQI is not transmitted on the second layer. Respectfully, these allegations are unfounded. For example, the disclosure of Zhang is directed to multiplexing data and control information. Additionally, the disclosure also teaches that the CQI may not be transmitted on a second layer as shown in fig.6. Beluri (US 2010/0239040 A1) describes separation of UCI on the PUSCH wherein the UCI may be transmitted on different layers. For example, as discussed above par.[0057] describes the CQI being transmitted on a first layer, and the RI being transmitted on a second layer, as discussed in applicants remarks. With regard to the CQI being carried on a higher MCS, the disclosure of Zhang substantially discloses that the CQI is carried on the higher MCS as discussed above. Additionally Beluri teaches that the CQI can be carried on a higher layer or a lower layers, and the same for the RI based on the want for improving reception reliability of each or both types of UCI. With the foregoing arguments the rejection is sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2011/0274075 A1) “Apparatus for Transmitting Uplink Signal in MIMO Wireless Communication System and Method Thereof”
Nam et al. (US 2010/0208680 A1) “Apparatus and Method for Codeword to Layer Mapping in MIMO Transmission Wireless Systems”
Earnshaw et al. (US 2010/0135181 A1) “Control Information Feedback Over the Long-Term Evolution Physical Uplink Shared Channel”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411