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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a second CRC attached” in line 6. For consistency and clarification with “a second…(CRC) attachment” in line 11 of claim 1, it is recommended to change “a second CRC attached” in line 6 to “the second CRC attachment”.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected the same way as claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the omitting the second CRC attachment comprises…omitting, by the second wireless communication device”. It is unclear whether the second wireless communication device performs the omitting. In claim 9, the second wireless communication device receives data, decodes the data as a transport block, and determines that the second CRC attachment is omitted. It would be the first wireless communication device that omits the second CRC attachment. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz et al. US 2023/0139174 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Paz”) in view of Li et al. US 2018/0145703 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to claim 1, Paz teaches a method for wireless communication (¶99; figure 12), comprising:
determining, by a first wireless communication device, a transport block for a transmission of data bits to a second wireless communication device (¶99; figure 12: BS determines transport block comprising data for transmission to UE);
determining, by the first wireless communication device, multiple layers corresponding to multiple antennas for performing the transmission (¶¶36, 58, 102; figures 3 and 12: base station determines MIMO antennas for transmitting over multiple layers);
determining a mapping between the transport block and the multiple layers for the transmission to the second wireless communication device, wherein a first portion of the transport block is mapped to a first layer and a second portion of the transport block is mapped to a second layer (¶100; figure 12: TB is segmented into code blocks and the CBs are mapped to multiple layers according to FFPL mapping);
mapping the transport block to a physical channel for the transmission to the second wireless communication device (¶¶73, 100, and 102; figures 4 and 12: map the TB to the PDSCH for transmission of data over the multiple layers to the UE).
Although Paz teaches “A method…to a second layer” Paz does not explicitly disclose “selectively omitting…of the transport block”.
However, Li teaches selectively omitting, based on a beam characteristic associated with the first layer and the second layer, a second cyclic redundancy check (CRC) attachment in the second portion of the transport block in response to a first CRC being attached in the first portion of the transport block (¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2: based on MIMO transmission layer characteristics between the layers, omit a second CRC for CBs in CBG when a first CRC for the CBG exists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Paz by including “selectively omitting…of the transport block” as taught by Li because it provides Paz’s method with the enhanced capability of reducing overhead (Li, ¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2).
As to claim 3, Paz in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Paz further teaches wherein the determining of the mapping between the transport block and the multiple layers is performed prior to rate matching or modulating the first portion and the second portion of the transport block (¶¶95 and 99; figure 4: after segmenting code blocks for the multiple layers perform channel coding, rate matching, etc. (including modulation)).
As to claim 4, Paz in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein a CRC attachment is omitted in part of the transport block mapped to remaining layers different from the first layer (¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2: CRC omitted from some CBs of the TB on all layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Paz in view of Li by including “wherein a CRC…the first layer” as further taught by Li for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Li, ¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2).
As to claim 5, Paz in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein a CRC attachment is omitted in part of the transport block mapped to a subset of layers that have even rank values (¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2: CRC omitted from some CBs of the TB mapped to MIMO transmission layer 2, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Paz in view of Li by including “wherein a CRC…even rank values” as further taught by Li for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Li, ¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2).
As to claim 6, Paz in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein a CRC attachment is omitted in part of the transport block mapped to a subset of layers that have odd rank values (¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2: CRC omitted from some CBs of the TB mapped to MIMO transmission layer 1, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Paz in view of Li by including “wherein a CRC…odd rank values” as further taught by Li for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1 (Li, ¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2).
As to claim 8, Paz in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Paz further teaches wherein the multiple layers are determined based on at least one of a capability of the second wireless communication device or a channel condition associated with the transmission (¶¶83: channel condition of high spectral efficiency link (rank≥2) exists between the UE and the BS and the UE supports it).
As to claim 9, Paz teaches a method for wireless communication (¶99; figure 12), comprising:
receiving, by a second wireless communication device, a transmission of data from a first wireless communication device on a physical channel (¶¶70 and 102; figures 3 and 12: user equipment receives data including code blocks over multiple layers in PDSCH transmitted by base station);
determining, by the second wireless communication device, multiple layers corresponding to multiple antennas for receiving the data (¶¶36, 58-59, 102; figures 3 and 12: UE determines MIMO antennas for receiving over multiple layers); and
decoding, by the second wireless communication device, the data based on the multiple layers (¶¶70 and 102; figures 4 and 12: UE applies PDSCH decoding and decodes code blocks based on the mapping),
wherein the data is decoded as a transport block that comprises a first portion mapped to a first layer and a second portion mapped to a second layer (¶102; figure 12: data is decoded as a TB segmented into code blocks and the CBs mapped to multiple layers according to FFPL mapping).
Although Paz teaches “A method…a second layer” Paz does not explicitly disclose “wherein a second…the transport block”.
However, Li teaches wherein a second cyclic redundancy check (CRC) attachment is omitted in the second portion of the transport block in response to a first CRC being attached in the first portion of the transport block (¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2: based on MIMO transmission layer characteristics between the layers, a second CRC is omitted for CBs in CBG when a first CRC for the CBG exists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Paz by including “wherein a second…the transport block” as taught by Li because it provides Paz’s method with the enhanced capability of reducing overhead (Li, ¶¶64, 74, and 76-77; figure 2).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 15, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 14, 17, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cheng et al., US 2024/0204915 A1 – Communication Method and Apparatus
Abotabl et al., US 2024/0089029 A1 – Cyclic Redundancy Check Design for Common and Private Transport Blocks in Rate Splitting Transmissions
Xu et al., US 2020/0366409 A1 – Reduced Overhead Error Detection Code Design for Decoding a Codeword
Hossein et al., US 2020/0351027 A1 – Handling Transport Block-Level Parity Check Bits for Interrupted Transmissions
Pi et al., US 8,862,958 B2 – Methods and Apparatus to Compute CRC for Multiple Code Blocks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469