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 .
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 the 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 dated 1 Dec. 2025 has been entered into the record and is considered herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on one or more reference not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for some teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 the 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, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0105955 (hereinafter, “MA”) in view of US 2018/0249370 (hereinafter, “ZHANG”), and further in view of US 2025/0048357 (hereinafter, “CIRIK”).
Regarding claim 1, MA discloses:
A user equipment (UE) comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer-executable instructions (computer-executable code 935) for determining a transport block size for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission; and (¶ 0001: [T]ransport block size calculation for orthogonal cover coding and sub-physical resource block allocation for physical uplink shared channel)
at least one processor (processor 940) coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to: (¶ 0192: [I]nstructions that, when executed by the at least one processor 940, cause the device 905 to perform various functions)
determine whether an Orthogonal Cover Code (OCC) is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques may involve accounting for the spreading of information bits when determining the TBS for the uplink transmission to which OCC is applied)
determine a spreading factor of the OCC in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques may involve accounting for the spreading of information bits when determining the TBS for the uplink transmission to which OCC is applied; ¶ 0004: [R]eceiving an indication of an OCC configuration associated with uplink shared channel transmissions for the UE, where the OCC configuration is associated with a spreading factor, receiving scheduling information for an uplink shared channel transmission, and performing the uplink shared channel transmission in accordance with the scheduling information and the OCC configuration, where a quantity of information bits associated with data transmission in the uplink shared channel transmission is based on the spreading factor)
. . . ; and
determine the transport block size using a spreading factor in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission, . . . , (§ 0170: TB generation manager 850 is capable of, configured to, or operable to support a means for generating, in accordance with the OCC configuration, a TB having the quantity of information bits based on the spreading factor, where performing the uplink shared channel transmission includes transmitting the TB)
MA does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size; and
a scaling factor,
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor,
In the same field of endeavor, however, ZHANG teaches:
determine whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size; and (¶ 0032: With the informed table selections, UE 200 will identify the TBS/MCS mapping tables to be used for different traffics [Under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, whether a condition is satisfied can be interpreted to correspond to whether the TB is identified in a TBS/MCS mapping table.])
a scaling factor, (¶ 0017: [T]he first set of TBS tables are scaled from the second set of TBS tables based on a scaling factor)
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor, (¶ 0041: [T]he scaling factor(s) may be selected according to frequency domain spreading factor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide TBS/MCS mapping tables and/or a scaling factor as taught by ZHANG which is used for different types of traffic, such that the selected TBS table for URLLC traffic is not known to the UE when UE was informed of the selection of the TBS table, so that informing the UE of a scaling factor saves both traffic load and UE memory for pre-configuration. See ZHANG, at ¶ 0016.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, CIRIK discloses:
wherein the condition comprises whether a Modulation-and-Coding-Scheme (MCS) field that is in a downlink control information (DCI) format and that is allocated for the PUSCH transmission indicates that at least one of a modulation scheme or a code rate is within a predetermined range corresponding to low coding rates, and (¶ 0593: The DCI may comprise a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value; ¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the condition is satisfied in a case that the MCS field indicates that the at least one of the modulation scheme or the code rate is within the predetermined range. (¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide a DCI comprising a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value as taught by CIRIK which is used for determining a transport block size of an uplink transmission, such that a bad radio link quality results in the value of the MCS field being low, and less useful data being sent (e.g., transmitted) within a symbol. See CIRIK, at ¶ 0596.
Regarding claim 15, MA discloses:
A method for determining a transport block size for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission, the method comprising: (¶ 0001: [T]ransport block size calculation for orthogonal cover coding and sub-physical resource block allocation for physical uplink shared channel)
determining whether an Orthogonal Cover Code (OCC) is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques provide for accounting for the application of OCC to an uplink transmission)
determining a spreading factor of the OCC in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques provide for accounting for the application of OCC to an uplink transmission when determining the TBS for the uplink transmission; ¶ 0004: [R]eceiving an indication of an OCC configuration associated with uplink shared channel transmissions for the UE, where the OCC configuration is associated with a spreading factor, receiving scheduling information for an uplink shared channel transmission, and performing the uplink shared channel transmission in accordance with the scheduling information and the OCC configuration, where a quantity of information bits associated with data transmission in the uplink shared channel transmission is based on the spreading factor)
. . . ; and
determining the transport block size using a spreading factor in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission, . . . (§ 0170: TB generation manager 850 is capable of, configured to, or operable to support a means for generating, in accordance with the OCC configuration, a TB having the quantity of information bits based on the spreading factor, where performing the uplink shared channel transmission includes transmitting the TB)
MA does not explicitly disclose:
determining whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size
a scaling factor,
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor,
wherein the condition comprises whether a Modulation-and-Coding-Scheme (MCS) allocated for the PUSCH transmission is in a specific set of MCSs, and
wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the condition is satisfied in a case that the MCS allocated for the PUSCH transmission is in the specific set of MCSs.
In the same field of endeavor, however, ZHANG teaches:
determining whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size; and (¶ 0032: With the informed table selections, UE 200 will identify the TBS/MCS mapping tables to be used for different traffics [Under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, whether a condition is satisfied can be interpreted to correspond to whether the TB is identified in a TBS/MCS mapping table.])
a scaling factor, (¶ 0017: [T]he first set of TBS tables are scaled from the second set of TBS tables based on a scaling factor)
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor, (¶ 0041: [T]he scaling factor(s) may be selected according to frequency domain spreading factor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide TBS/MCS mapping tables and/or a scaling factor as taught by ZHANG which is used for different types of traffic, such that the selected TBS table for URLLC traffic is not known to the UE when UE was informed of the selection of the TBS table, so that informing the UE of a scaling factor saves both traffic load and UE memory for pre-configuration. See ZHANG, at ¶ 0016.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, CIRIK discloses:
wherein the condition comprises whether a Modulation-and-Coding-Scheme (MCS) field that is in a downlink control information (DCI) format and that is allocated for the PUSCH transmission indicates that at least one of a modulation scheme or a code rate is within a predetermined range corresponding to low coding rates, and (¶ 0593: The DCI may comprise a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value; ¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the condition is satisfied in a case that the MCS field indicates that the at least one of the modulation scheme or the code rate is within the predetermined range. (¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide a DCI comprising a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value as taught by CIRIK which is used for determining a transport block size of an uplink transmission, such that a bad radio link quality results in the value of the MCS field being low, and less useful data being sent (e.g., transmitted) within a symbol. See CIRIK, at ¶ 0596.
Regarding claim 16, MA discloses:
A base station apparatus (network entity 105), comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer-executable instructions for determining a transport block size for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission; and (¶ 0001: [T]ransport block size calculation for orthogonal cover coding and sub-physical resource block allocation for physical uplink shared channel)
at least one processor (processor 940) coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the base station apparatus to:
determine whether an Orthogonal Cover Code (OCC) is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques provide for accounting for the application of OCC to an uplink transmission)
determine a spreading factor of the OCC in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission; (¶ 0003: [T]echniques may involve accounting for the spreading of information bits when determining the TBS for the uplink transmission to which OCC is applied; ¶ 0004: [R]eceiving an indication of an OCC configuration associated with uplink shared channel transmissions for the UE, where the OCC configuration is associated with a spreading factor, receiving scheduling information for an uplink shared channel transmission, and performing the uplink shared channel transmission in accordance with the scheduling information and the OCC configuration, where a quantity of information bits associated with data transmission in the uplink shared channel transmission is based on the spreading factor)
. . . ; and
determine the transport block size using a spreading factor in a case that the OCC is applied to the PUSCH transmission, . . . (§ 0170: TB generation manager 850 is capable of, configured to, or operable to support a means for generating, in accordance with the OCC configuration, a TB having the quantity of information bits based on the spreading factor, where performing the uplink shared channel transmission includes transmitting the TB)
MA does not explicitly disclose:
determine whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size
a scaling factor,
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor,
wherein the condition comprises whether a Modulation-and-Coding-Scheme (MCS) allocated for the PUSCH transmission is in a specific set of MCSs, and
wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the condition is satisfied in a case that the MCS allocated for the PUSCH transmission is in the specific set of MCSs.
In the same field of endeavor, however, ZHANG teaches:
determine whether a condition is satisfied for determining the transport block size; and (¶ 0032: With the informed table selections, UE 200 will identify the TBS/MCS mapping tables to be used for different traffics [Under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, whether a condition is satisfied can be interpreted to correspond to whether the TB is identified in a TBS/MCS mapping table.])
a scaling factor, (¶ 0017: [T]he first set of TBS tables are scaled from the second set of TBS tables based on a scaling factor)
the scaling factor being determined based on the spreading factor, (¶ 0041: [T]he scaling factor(s) may be selected according to frequency domain spreading factor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide TBS/MCS mapping tables and/or a scaling factor as taught by ZHANG which is used for different types of traffic, such that the selected TBS table for URLLC traffic is not known to the UE when UE was informed of the selection of the TBS table, so that informing the UE of a scaling factor saves both traffic load and UE memory for pre-configuration. See ZHANG, at ¶ 0016.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, CIRIK discloses:
wherein the condition comprises whether a Modulation-and-Coding-Scheme (MCS) field that is in a downlink control information (DCI) format and that is allocated for the PUSCH transmission indicates that at least one of a modulation scheme or a code rate is within a predetermined range corresponding to low coding rates, and (¶ 0593: The DCI may comprise a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value; ¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the condition is satisfied in a case that the MCS field indicates that the at least one of the modulation scheme or the code rate is within the predetermined range. (¶ 0596: The wireless device may determine, based on the value of the MCS field, . . . a transport block size of an uplink transmission; ¶ 0645: The wireless device may not use/apply the second TCI state for/to one or more second uplink antenna ports of the second uplink transmission, for example, based on the value of the MCS field being lower/smaller/less than the first value. The value of the MCS field being less than the first value may indicate a low coding-rate modulation for the second uplink transmission)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MA’s transport block size (TBS) calculation procedure to provide a DCI comprising a modulation-and-coding scheme (MCS) field/index with a value as taught by CIRIK which is used for determining a transport block size of an uplink transmission, such that a bad radio link quality results in the value of the MCS field being low, and less useful data being sent (e.g., transmitted) within a symbol. See CIRIK, at ¶ 0596.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644