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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 04/08/2026.
The claims 2-3, 6-10, 21-24, have been canceled by the applicant.
The claims 25-31 have been newly added by the applicant.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 4-5, 11, 17, 20 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190149205) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021184296), further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140112312), hereafter “Kim312”.
Regarding claim 1 Kim disclose, an apparatus comprising a memory read as: “a memory” see para. 163 coupled to a processor read as: “a processor” see para. 163, the processor configured to:
generate, for transmission in accordance with the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword, the multiple layer PUSCH transmission para. 8, “transmitting the uplink signal comprising the precoded codewords to the base station, wherein the indicator indicates one of two or more codeword-to-layer mapping rules corresponding to the number of the layers”,
the multiple layer PUSCH transmission generated, for transmission on at least a first layer of multiple layers using a first codeword of the more than one codeword para. 8, “wherein the indicator indicates one of two or more codeword-to-layer mapping rules corresponding to the number of the layers”, and
on at least a second layer of the multiple layers using a second codeword of the more than one codeword para. 124, “since layer #0 and layer #1 are mapped into the first codeword, and layer #2 and layer #3 are mapped into the second codeword”.
Kim teach transmitting the signals comprising the mapped precoded codewords based on the configuration but do not specifically disclose the step of, generate the signals for transmission. However, Khoshnevisan teach, para. 35, “Transmit processor 220 may also generate reference symbols for reference signals (e.g., the cell-specific reference signal (CRS) ) and synchronization signals (e.g., the primary synchronization signal (PSS) and secondary synchronization signal (SSS))”
Kim and Khoshnevisan are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khoshnevisan in the system of Kim so the system can configure the specific mapping for PUSCH transmissions depending on the number of layers and the transmission scheme. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently allowing flexible use of antennas and layers.
Kim and Khoshnevisan do not specifically disclose, determine, from a predetermined mapping of layers to codewords for PUSCH transmissions on different numbers of layers, a mapping of different layers of the multiple layer PUSCH transmission to the more than one codeword, the predetermined mapping of layers to codewords only supporting one codeword for four or fewer layers and only supporting more than one codeword for more than four layers. However, Kim312 teach, determine, from a predetermined mapping of layers to codewords for PUSCH transmissions on different numbers of layers, a mapping of different layers of the multiple layer PUSCH transmission to the more than one codeword para. 71, 80, Fig. 5, “A base station (BS) allocates a PUCCH or PUSCH to a user equipment (UE) so as to obtain the CSI…FIG. 5 is a conceptual diagram illustrating an exemplary rule for mapping M codewords (M CWs) to N layers by a transmission end (e.g., base station)”, the predetermined mapping of layers to codewords only supporting one codeword for four or fewer layers and only supporting more than one codeword for more than four layers para. 6, 80, Fig. 5, “mapping a first codeword to at least one layer from among a first layer group… Each of the first layer group and the second layer group may include four layers”.
Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim312 in the system of Kim and Khoshnevisan so the system can reduce considerably signaling overhead by avoiding signaling negotiations. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently balancing low transmission complexity with high data throughput.
Regarding claim 4 Kim disclose, wherein: the processor is configured to,
receive, from the network and via the transceiver, an indication of a maximum rank for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission para. 45, “receives from the eNB on the DL, a Rank Indicator (RI)”; and
determine, at least partly based on the indication of the maximum rank for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission indicating a maximum rank for PUSCH transmissions that satisfies a threshold rank, that the network can schedule the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword para. 124, Table 2, “See the codeword-to-layer mapping (CLM) in table 2, which enables for each predetermined configuration, in terms of number of layers and number of codewords, to indicate different mapping (compared to the standard mapping in table 1)”; and
the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword is received after determining that the network can schedule the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword para. 74, “The network may select the number of ranks and layers for the corresponding UE, precoder, proper MCS level per codeword, etc. through the measured uplink information and provide the selected data through DCI”.
Regarding claim 5 Kim disclose, wherein: the processor is configured to receive, from the network and via the transceiver, an indication that the network can schedule the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword para. 74, “The network may select the number of ranks and layers for the corresponding UE, precoder, proper MCS level per codeword, etc. through the measured uplink information and provide the selected data through DCI”; and
the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword is received after receiving the indication that the network can schedule PUSCH transmissions using more than one codeword para. 8, “receiving, from a base station, control information for the uplink signal; mapping the plurality of codewords into a plurality of layers in accordance with an indicator included in the control information”.
Regarding claim 11 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword comprises downlink control information (DCI) including para. 44, 53, “the DCI includes control information such as resource allocation information for the UE… Information indicating one or more UEs to receive PDSCH data and information indicating how the UEs are supposed to receive and decode the PDSCH data are delivered on a PDCCH”:
a first indicator of a first modulation and coding scheme for the first codeword para. 53, “information about data transmitted in radio resources (e.g. at a frequency position) “B” based on transport format information (e.g. a modulation scheme, coding information, etc.))”; and
a second indicator of a second modulation and coding scheme for the second codeword para. 114, “Different codeword(s) may be allocated to each RU (or antenna port group). In a state that channel features between the eNB and the RU are different for most of the RUs, it may be more efficient in view of throughput optimization that one codeword is transmitted to one RU (or antenna port group) and the other codeword is transmitted to the other RUs”.
Regarding claim 17 Kim disclose, wherein the processor is configured to transmit uplink control information (UCI) across all layers of the multiple layer PUSCH transmission para. 55, Fig. 6, “(PUCCH) including Uplink Control Information (UCI) is allocated to the control region and a Physical uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) including user data is allocated to the data region”.
Claim 20 recites a apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 25-26 and 27 the limitations of claims 25-26 and 27, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 4-5 and 11, respectively.
Claim 31 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190149205) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021184296), further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140112312), hereafter “Kim312”, further in view of Khoshnevis et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140293881).
Regarding claim 12 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword comprises downlink control information (DCI) including a new data indicator that indicates whether a transport block carried by the second codeword is a new transmission or a retransmission. However, Khoshnevis teach “The MCS index may be based on a single codeword associated with a single codeword transmission. The MCS index may be based on at least one of a first codeword and a second codeword associated with a multiple codeword transmission”, see para. 29.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Khoshnevis are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khoshnevis in the system of Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 so the system can identify the data layers to be mapped with the correct transmissions. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a more efficient use of the communication channel.
Regarding claim 13 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword comprises downlink control information (DCI). However, Khoshnevis teach “The MCS index may be based on at least one of a first codeword and a second codeword associated with a multiple codeword transmission”, see para. 29. Khoshnevis further disclose including: a first indicator of a first redundancy version for the first codeword; and a second indicator of a second redundancy version for the second codeword para. 29, “In Table (2), rv.sub.idx is the redundancy version of a transmitted codeword. The redundancy version index 0 is used for initial transmission”.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Khoshnevis are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khoshnevis in the system of Kim, Kim312 and Khoshnevisan so the system can add redundancy to the data transmitted. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve communications by detecting and correcting errors that may have occurred during transmission.
Regarding claims 28-29 the limitations of claims 28-29, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 12-13, respectively.
Claim(s) 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190149205) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021184296), further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140112312), hereafter “Kim312”, further in view of HUAWEI:"Multiplexing of control and data in multi-layer PUSCH transmission", 3GPP DRAFT; R110026, hereafter “Huawei”).
Regarding claim 14 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the configuration for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword comprises radio resource control (RRC) signaling including: a configured grant (CG) configuration, including, a first indicator of a first modulation and coding scheme for the first codeword; and a second indicator of a second modulation and coding scheme for the second codeword. However, Huawei teach “The control information should be mapped to layers with better quality. For example, for two CWs mapped to two layers, assuming layer 2 is better than layer 1, then the control information should be mapped to layer 2, leaving layer 1 completely for data only” see section 3.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Huawei are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Huawei in the system of Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 to be able to configure the communication parameters effectively. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the transmissions reliability and efficiency.
Regarding claim 30 the limitations of claim 30 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 14.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190149205) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021184296), further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140112312), hereafter “Kim312”, further in view of Oteri et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230145316).
Regarding claim 15 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the processor is configured to support, for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword, at least sixteen uplink (UL) hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes per component carrier (CC). However, Oteri teach “wherein the physical uplink channel having a frequency larger than 52.6 GHz, and the method further comprising generating the one or more HARQ codebooks based on a number of HARQ processes, wherein the number is larger than sixteen”, see para. 217.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Oteri are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oteri in the system of Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 to increase the number of HARQ processes permitting for continuous data transmissions without waiting for acknowledgments. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the network flexibility and transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 16 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the processor is configured to support, for the multiple layer PUSCH transmission that uses more than one codeword, at least eight uplink (UL) hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes per component carrier (CC). However, Oteri teach “In the Type 1 codebook, the size of the HARQ codebook is fixed by RRC signaling and depends on the DCI format used to allocates resources. With DCI format 1_0 (fallback DCI), the size can be set from eight consecutive slots. DCI format 1_1 (non-fallback DCI) includes an indicator indicating the size, such as a PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing indicator' field usable to select up to eight values within the range from zero to fifteen: {0,1,5,7,9,10,11,15} from dl-data-to-ULACK”, see para. 73..
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Oteri are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oteri in the system of Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 to increase the number of HARQ processes permitting for continuous data transmissions without waiting for acknowledgments. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the network flexibility and transmission efficiency.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190149205) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021184296), further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140112312), hereafter “Kim312”, further in view of INTELCORPORATION: "Discussion on enhancement for 8Tx UL transmission", 3GPPDRAFT; R1-2209045, hereafter “Intel”.
Regarding claim 18 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein: the more than one codeword consists of the first codeword and the second codeword; and the processor is configured to,
divide uplink control information (UCI) into at least a first portion and a second portion; transmit the first portion across all layers of the first codeword; and transmit the second portion across all layers of the second codeword. However Intel teaches, section 2.1.3, “In Rel-18, for PUSCH with dual codewords, it should be discussed whether UCI is mapped to only one codeword or the UCI could be mapped to both codewords. RAN1 to discuss the UCI multiplexing when two codewords are used, i.e., whether the UCI is multiplexed with only one codeword or the UCI can be multiplexed with both codewords”.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Intel are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Intel in the system of Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 so the system can increase the transmission reliability. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a more efficient use of the communication channel.
Regarding claim 19 Kim, Khoshnevisan and Kim312 does not specifically disclose, wherein the processor is configured to transmit uplink control information (UCI) across all layers of only one codeword of the more than one codeword. However Intel teaches, section 2.1.3, “For PUSCH transmission with dual codewords, another issue is UCI multiplexing. In the legacy spec, the UCI, including HARQ-ACK, CSI Part I and CSI Part II, is mapped to all the layers.”.
Kim, Khoshnevisan, Kim312 and Intel are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuring communication parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Intel in the system of Kim and Khoshnevisan so the system can increase the transmission reliability. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure a more efficient use of the communication channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230291531) which disclose(s), method for transmitting or receiving data in wireless communication system, and apparatus therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights