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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pinayour et al. (US 20200304251).
Regarding claim 1, Pinayour discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a transmitting device, comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory (FIG. 10 shows a block diagram 1000 of a device 1005 that supports regrouping of code blocks during retransmissions. The device 1005 may be an example of aspects of a UE 115 as described herein. The device 1005 may include a receiver 1010, a communications manager 1015, and a transmitter 1020. The device 1005 may also include a processor; [0097]), the at least one processor is configured to:
generate a plurality of code blocks (CBs), the plurality of CBs being grouped into a plurality of code block groups (CBGs) (transport block is split into 36 code blocks shown as CB.sub.0 through CB.sub.35. Code blocks are combined to form code block groups shown as CBG-0 through CBG-7; [0077]);
interleave the plurality of CBs across the plurality of CBGs to construct a channel (beginning from a first retransmission, code blocks may be re-assigned or regrouped to different code block groups. Failed CB.sub.0 may remain assigned to CBG-0, failed CB.sub.5 may be re-assigned to CBG-2 and failed CB.sub.10 may be re-assigned to CBG-5. Thus, regrouped CBG-0 comprises CB.sub.0 and CB.sub.1; regrouped CBG-1 comprises CB.sub.2 and CB.sub.3; regrouped CBG-3 comprises CB.sub.6 and CB7; regrouped CBG-4 comprises CB8 and CB.sub.9; regrouped CBG-5 comprises CB.sub.10 and CB.sub.11; regrouped CBG-6 comprises CB12 and CB.sub.13; and regrouped CBG-7 comprises CB.sub.14. Retransmission of failed CBGs may continue until all PUCCH HARQ are ACK'd; [0079-0080]);
map the channel to one or more time-frequency resources associated with an allocation; and transmit, for a receiving device, the mapped channel using the one or more time-frequency resources (a transport block is split into 36 code blocks, corresponding to 319784 bits transmitted on PDSCH. The size of PUCCH HARQ feedback on each CBG is 8 bits. Assuming 3 CBs fail on an initial transmission, the number of code blocks across NACK'd CBGs (C) may be set to 15 and a maximum code block group per transport block value (N) may be set to 8. Additional feedback provided for regrouped CBGs allows for transmission of just 6CBs on a first PDSCH retransmission (as opposed to 15 CBs); [0091]).
Regarding claim 2, Pinayour discloses wherein the plurality of CBs is interleaved based on one of a sub-CB granularity, a single-CB granularity, or a multiple-CB granularity (code blocks may be re-assigned or regrouped to different code block groups. In particular, failed code blocks may be re-grouped to different code block groups; [0080]).
Regarding claim 4, Pinayour discloses wherein the interleaving is based on a preconfigured interleaver (re-assign code blocks to different code block groups according to a total number of code blocks across the at least one failed code block group and a maximum number of code block groups per transport block, and configure a retransmission based on the re-assigned code blocks; [0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Pinayour discloses wherein the interleaving is enabled or disabled based on one or more of a radio resource control (RRC) configured parameter, a dynamic indication in a downlink control information (DCI) message, a slot type, the allocation, or a bandwidth of the allocation (the number of code blocks across NACK'd CBGs (C) may be set to 15 and a maximum code block group per transport block value (N) may be set to 8. Additional feedback is provided for regrouped CBGs. Thus, a UE reading DCI knows CBGs that failed and may regroup the CBs into CBGs a UE may thus perform retransmission for CBGs corresponding to 6 CBs (as opposed to 15 CBs); [0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Pinayour discloses wherein the channel is a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (A CBG transmission indicator (CBGTI) denotes whether retransmission of a CBG is required. CBGTI is a field present in DCI that schedules PDSCH/PUSCH transmissions; [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, Pinayour discloses transmit, for the receiving device, information associated with the interleaving (tables 710 and 715 of FIG. 7 transport block retransmissions with code blocks regrouped. In table 710, a transport block is split into 36 code blocks, corresponding to 1, 319784 bits transmitted on PDSCH. The size of PUCCH HARQ feedback on each CBG is 8 bits. Assuming 3 CBs fail on an initial transmission, the number of code blocks across NACK'd CBGs (C) may be set to 15 and a maximum code block group per transport block value (N) may be set to 8. 15 CBs may be retransmitted on a first retransmission, corresponding to 133244 bits transmitted on PDSCH; [0090]).
Regarding claim 15, Pinayour discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to transmit the mapped channel using the one or more time-frequency resources (FIG. 10, device 1005 may include a receiver 1010, a communications manager 1015, and a transmitter 1020. The device 1005 may also include a processor; [0097].
UE reading DCI knows CBGs that failed and may regroup the CBs into CBGs a UE may thus perform retransmission for CBGs corresponding to 6 CBs (as opposed to 15 CBs). This corresponds to 53292 bits transmitted on PUSCH (as opposed to 133244). As illustrated in table 910, assuming only one CBG fails decoding on a second retransmission, only 1 CB may be retransmitted on PUCCH, corresponding to 8882 bits (as opposed to 44415 bits); [0095]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Pinayour discloses wherein the plurality of CBs is deinterleaved based on information associated with interleaving (For an initial transmission of the transport block, all CBGs are transmitted. In this example, assume decoding fails for CB.sub.0, CB.sub.5, and CB.sub.10. A UE acknowledging transmissions on a CBG level sends PUCCH HARQ feedback as a NACK corresponding to each of CBG-0, CBG-1 and CBG-2; and an ACK corresponding to each of CBG-3, CBG-4, CBG-5, CBG-6 and CBG-7; [0077]).
Regarding claim 21, Pinayour discloses receive the information associated with the interleaving from the transmitting device (receiving component 1606 may receive a transmission comprising an indication of a failed decoding for at least one code block group of a plurality of code block groups, wherein a code block group comprises a plurality of code blocks The DCI encoding component 1615 may encode the downlink control information for one or more transport blocks; [0135]).
Regarding claim 22, Pinayour discloses wherein the plurality of CBs is deinterleaved based on one of a sub-CB granularity, a single-CB granularity, or a multiple-CB granularity (code blocks may be re-assigned or regrouped to different code block groups. In particular, failed code blocks may be re-grouped to different code block groups; [0080]).
Regarding claim 23, Pinayour discloses wherein the deinterleaving is enabled or disabled based on one or more of a radio resource control (RRC) configured parameter, a dynamic indication in a downlink control information (DCI) message, a slot type, the allocation, or a bandwidth of the allocation (the number of code blocks across NACK'd CBGs (C) may be set to 15 and a maximum code block group per transport block value (N) may be set to 8. Additional feedback is provided for regrouped CBGs. Thus, a UE reading DCI knows CBGs that failed and may regroup the CBs into CBGs a UE may thus perform retransmission for CBGs corresponding to 6 CBs (as opposed to 15 CBs); [0095]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 20.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 21.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 22.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinayour et al. (US 20200304251) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 20210044384).
Regarding claim 5, Pinayour does not expressly disclose wherein the preconfigured interleaver includes a row-column interleaver.
In an analogous art, Sengupta discloses wherein the preconfigured interleaver includes a row-column interleaver (FIG. 6 is an example of a matrix 600 for row-column interleaving of code blocks; [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Sengupta into the system of Pinayour in order to increase the frequency diversity associated with the code blocks transmitted via the channel, which improves performance of the channel (Sengupta; [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Pinayour does not expressly disclose cyclically shift the interleaved CBs based on a cyclic shift parameter, wherein a shift unit associated with the cyclic shift corresponds to a single CB or a set of CBs.
In an analogous art, Sengupta discloses cyclically shift the interleaved CBs based on a cyclic shift parameter, wherein a shift unit associated with the cyclic shift corresponds to a single CB or a set of CBs (to reduce the effect of periodic fading impacting a given code block, the elements of each column may be cyclically shifted according to a cyclic shift value when performing row-column interleaving before the elements are read out in a column-by-column pattern; [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Sengupta into the system of Pinayour in order to increase the frequency diversity associated with the code blocks transmitted via the channel, which improves performance of the channel (Sengupta; [0007]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pinayour and Sengupta, particularly Sengupta discloses wherein the shift unit is predetermined or based on at least one of a slot index, a bandwidth of the allocation, a number of CBs, or a number of CBGs (base station may transmit an indication of an interleaving pattern used for the tone-level interleaving or the RE-level interleaving of the code blocks of the channel. The patterns may be from among a set of interleaving patterns. the indication may additionally or alternatively include one or more parameters for determining the interleaving pattern, such as numerologies, TBSs, MCSs, RS densities, bandwidths or BWPs, etc. that may use the interleaving pattern, parameters for the interleaving pattern (e.g., number of rows or columns in the table), pseudo-random number or parameters for determining the pseudo-random number used for cyclically shifting one or more columns, and/or the like; [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Sengupta into the system of Pinayour in order to increase the frequency diversity associated with the code blocks transmitted via the channel, which improves performance of the channel (Sengupta; [0007]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinayour et al. (US 20200304251) in view of Yeo et al. (US 20200092047).
Regarding claim 8, Pinayour does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to interleave the plurality of CBs and map the channel concurrently based on sequentially selecting a CBG in the plurality of CBGs for the mapping of the channel in a predetermined order, wherein one of a next fraction of a CB, a next CB, or a next set of CBs in the selected CBG is mapped to the one or more time-frequency resources.
In an analogous art, Yeo discloses interleave the plurality of CBs and map the channel concurrently based on sequentially selecting a CBG in the plurality of CBGs for the mapping of the channel in a predetermined order, wherein one of a next fraction of a CB, a next CB, or a next set of CBs in the selected CBG is mapped to the one or more time-frequency resources (base station determines whether CBG-based retransmission is configured in operation 1010, and if the CBG-based retransmission is configured, the base station may configure CBGs according to the number of CBGs, which is set or calculated, and may perform interleaving in the CBGs in operation 1020. If the CBG-based retransmission is not configured, the base station may not perform interleaving of CBs in operation 1030. In this instance, the base station may perform TB-based retransmission. Subsequently, the base station may sequentially map data, which are interleaved or not interleaved, to the frequency and/or time resource and may transmit the same; [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Yeo into the system of Pinayour in order to enable performing retransmission in units of CBs or CB groups if retransmission is needed in association with transmission of one or two TBs, and thus, a base station and a user equipment (UE) may efficiently perform data transmission, and unnecessary data transmission may be reduced (Yeo; [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pinayour and Yeo, particularly Pinayour discloses wherein the selecting of the CBG and the mapping of the channel are based on a preconfigured manner (re-grouping code blocks provides for optimal use of PDSCH and PUCCH resources. In some examples, exact CB to be retransmitted may be conveyed. In other words, there may be a 1-1 mapping between CB and CB. The CB resolution in a CBG may improve with increasing retransmissions due to regrouping. For instance, CBG-0 consists of CB-0, CBG-1 consists of CB-1; [0092]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinayour et al. (US 20200304251) in view of Yeo et al. (US 20200092047), and in view of Yang et al. (US 20240195583).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pinayour and Yeo does not expressly disclose wherein the preconfigured manner is one of a forward-inverse manner, a forward-forward manner, or an inverse-inverse manner.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the preconfigured manner is one of a forward-inverse manner, a forward-forward manner, or an inverse-inverse manner (per-SG symbol number can be configured in inverse proportion to the RB number (or the TBS number) allocated to data transmission. Similarly, a scheme of changing the RB number configuring one RBG according to the RB number allocated to data transmission and/or the symbol (or TBS) number allocated thereto. For example, (in order to equalize the CBG number if possible), the per-RBG RB number can be configured in proportion to the RB number allocated to data transmission. Moreover, (in order to equalize a CBG size if possible), the per-RBG RB number can be configured in inverse proportion to the RB number (or the TBS number) allocated to data transmission; [0222]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Yang into the system of Pinayour and Yeo in order to reduce a size of CBG having high retransmission probability if CBG corresponding to a part possibly having low decoding reliability is configured to include CBs as small as possible (Yang; [0176]).
Claim(s) 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinayour et al. (US 20200304251) in view of Liu et al. (US 20240323961).
Regarding claim 12, Pinayour does not expressly disclose wherein the allocation is associated with a subband fullduplex (SBFD) operation.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses wherein the allocation is associated with a subband fullduplex (SBFD) operation (when an SBFD solution is used, a limitation that each of a plurality of PUCCH resource sets configured by a network device for a terminal includes a first PUCCH resource subset and a second PUCCH resource subset is set. The first PUCCH resource subset may correspond to the first PUCCH resource set in the method 600, and the second PUCCH resource subset may correspond to the second PUCCH resource set in the method 600; [0274]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Liu into the system of Pinayour in order to realize correct reception of a codebook in an efficient manner, by determining the target candidate PDSCH receiving time and the load size of the HARQ-ACK codebook (Liu; [0010]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claims 3 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would comprise a combination of elements which is not taught by the prior art of record. The same remarks apply to dependent claim 18 mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao et al. (US 20240235744), “METHODS AND APPRATUSES FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION RETRANSMISSION USING CHECK BLOCKS GENERATED ACCORDING TO SUBBLOCK INTERLEAVERS.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413