DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application number 18/418049 filed on January 19th ,2024. 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 § 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7,9-17 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (US 20180083736 A1) in view of Wanshi et al. (AU 2017298112 B2).
Regarding claims 1,12,22 and 29, Manolakos et al. discloses a network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: perform a first interleaving operation to interleave a first quantity of resource elements of each respective code block of a plurality of code blocks into a respective cycle of a plurality of cycles, the first quantity of resource elements corresponding to a first interleaving value (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In the interleaving process illustrated in FIG. 3B, three set of data (301, 302, and 303) are segmented into six groups of resource elements (325-a, 325-b, 330-a, 330-b, 335-a, and 335-b), and each group of resource element (e.g., 325-a) has four resource elements that may be referred to as the “size of an interleaving block” that may further include a plurality of bits corresponding to code blocks. Thus, in terms of interleaving, the size of an interleaving block of four may represent that four resource elements that carry data are shifted to position of some other four resource elements that carry data. In some examples, the subframe structure 350 may represent the initial or default resource allocations.”);
perform a second interleaving operation to interleave each cycle of the plurality of cycles with a second quantity of resource elements corresponding to a second plurality of code blocks(US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In the interleaving process illustrated in FIG. 3B, three set of data (301, 302, and 303) are segmented into six groups of resource elements (325-a, 325-b, 330-a, 330-b, 335-a, and 335-b), and each group of resource element (e.g., 325-a) has four resource elements that may be referred to as the “size of an interleaving block” that may further include a plurality of bits corresponding to code blocks. Thus, in terms of interleaving, the size of an interleaving block of four may represent that four resource elements that carry data are shifted to position of some other four resource elements that carry data. In some examples, the subframe structure 350 may represent the initial or default resource allocations.” Paragraph 0055 discloses “However, as the techniques of the present disclosure are implemented, the size of the interleaving block may change from the default size of an interleaving block to an effective size of an interleaving block based on the number of control resource elements in the group of resource elements (e.g., 325-a, 330-a, 335-a, etc.) in different regions of the bandwidth.” );
Manolakos et al. fail explicitly to disclose to output a downlink message based at least in part on the first interleaving operation and the second interleaving operation
However in an analogous art Wanshi et al. teaches to output a downlink message based at least in part on the first interleaving operation and the second interleaving operation (AU 2017298112 B2 Paragraph 0060 discloses “FIG.3 illustrates an example 300 of dual stage channel interleaving for data transmission in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The dual stage interleaving of example 300 may be performed by a UE 115 or base station 105 and be used for communications between UEs 115 and base stations 105 as discussed in FIGs. 1-2.” Whereby FIG 3. blocks 325 and 360 respectively depict the first and second interleaving operations ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wanshi et al., to output a downlink message based at least in part on the first interleaving operation and the second interleaving operation, in order to reduce hardware latency through pipelining, to attain greater frequency diversity and to protect against interference.
Claims 12 and 29 are disclosed from the perspective of the UE (de-interleaver).
Regarding claim 2,13,23 and 30, Manolakos et al. disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:output an indication of the first interleaving value, wherein outputting the downlink message is based at least in part on outputting the indication of the first interleaving value (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0019 discloses “In some deployments, UEs and base stations may rely on transmissions of data in transport blocks in order to successfully receive and decode transmitted data. In some cases, transport blocks may include a number of code blocks that are transmitted by a UE or a base station. Code blocks sizes within a transport block are determined by a number of factors, such as a size of the transport block, coding rate, modulation order, or interleaver characteristics, among others. In some examples, the code blocks may be mapped to symbols in one or more resource blocks (RBs) and an interleaving process (e.g., via a bit-interleaver or tone-interleaver) may be performed prior to transmission of the code blocks. In some examples, the bit-level interleaving process may be performed prior to the code blocks being mapped to symbols, while the tone-level interleaving process may be performed after the code blocks are mapped to symbols for transmission.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 24, Manolakos et al. disclose the network entity of claim 2, wherein, to output the indication of the first interleaving value, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:select the first interleaving value from a plurality of candidate interleaving values based at least in part on one or more of: a carrier frequency associated with the downlink message, a bandwidth part associated with the downlink message, a subcarrier spacing associated with the downlink message, or any combination thereof (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses.” [0054] In some examples, an effective size of an interleaving block may represent a number of resource elements that are collectively shifted from one region of the bandwidth to a different region of a bandwidth (e.g., from first four resource elements in the first OFDM symbol to second four resource elements).”).
Regarding claims 4,14 and 25, Manolakos et al.disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
Manolakos et al. fail to explicitly disclose obtaining capability information indicating that a user equipment (UE) supports the first interleaving operation; and output control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation based at least in part on obtaining the capability information, wherein performing the first interleaving operation and outputting the downlink message is based at least in part on outputting the control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation.
However in an analogous art Wanshi et al. teaches obtaining capability information indicating that a user equipment (UE) supports the first interleaving operation (AU 2017298112 B2 Paragraph 0059 discloses “The UE 115-a, in some examples, may provide an indication to the base station 105-a of a capability for the UE 115-a to perform dual stage channel interleaving.”) ; and output control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation based at least in part on obtaining the capability information, wherein performing the first interleaving operation and outputting the downlink message is based at least in part on outputting the control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation (AU 2017298112 B2 Paragraph 0059 discloses “Such signaling of an indication of the UE 115-a capability may allow the base station 105-a to configure either dual stage channel interleaving or legacy channel interleaving for some transmissions.” Paragraph 0098 discloses “In some cases, receiver capability component 860 may indicate that a receiver is not capable of dual stage interleaving, and the code block interleaver may perform a legacy no channel interleaving or single stage channel interleaving in such cases.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wanshi et al., to obtain capability information indicating that a user equipment (UE) supports the first interleaving operation; and output control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation based at least in part on obtaining the capability information, wherein performing the first interleaving operation and outputting the downlink message is based at least in part on outputting the control signaling enabling the first interleaving operation., in order to prevent packet loss, decoding failures and signal rejection.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Manolakos et al. disclose the network entity of claim 4, wherein the capability information comprises an indication of a first threshold quantity of code blocks supported by the UE for deinterleaving the downlink message according to a deinterleaving operation corresponding to the first interleaving operation, and enabling the first interleaving operation is based at least in part on the first quantity of supported code blocks satisfying a threshold (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In other examples, the transmitting device may interleave the encoded bits across the plurality of code of blocks to generate interleaved encoded bits independent of a code block size of the one or more code of blocks (e.g., when using depth based bit-interleaver). In such examples, the transmitting device may determine an effective depth of an interleaving block for the OFDM symbol, and interleave the encoded bits across the plurality of code of blocks to generate the interleaved encoded bits based on the effective depth of the interleaving block. The effective depth of the interleaving block may be a number of bits in the interleaving stream of bits that separate the consecutive interleaving blocks of the initial stream of bits. In some examples, the effective depth may be an integer value greater than or equal to one (1). The integer value may be either determined by the transmitter, suggested by the receiver (e.g., via a signal to the transmitter), or be pre-defined by the transmitter. In some examples, the integer value for the effective depth may be based on the allocation of the UE or dynamically adjustable per symbol. Aspects of block 610 may be performed by bit-interleaver 230 described with reference to FIG. 3A.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Manolakos et al.disclose the network entity of claim 5, wherein the plurality of code blocks is based at least in part on the capability information, and a quantity of the plurality of code blocks satisfies the first threshold quantity of code blocks (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In some examples, the subframe structure 350 may represent the initial or default resource allocations. In such instance, the size of four resource elements for the size of an interleaving block may be based on the default size of an interleaving block that is determined based in part on the hardware capabilities of the UE and the base station.”).
Regarding claims 7,16 and 26, Manolakos et al.discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:estimate downlink channel state information for the downlink message; and enable the first interleaving operation based at least in part on a channel rank, a modulation and coding scheme, or both, associated with the estimated downlink channel state information (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0004 discloses “In some aspects, a transmitting device may dynamically switch between bit-level interleaving and tone-level interleaving for each OFDM symbol based on factors such as number of bits that are carried in each tone, a multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) transmission rank, modulation and coding scheme index, transmission scheme (e.g., whether open-loop, close-loop, or semi-open loop), size of each code block, the processing time requirements of the transmitting device and/or the receiving device, or the transmitting device preference.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Manolakos et al.discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein performing the first interleaving operation is based at least in part on a bandwidth allocation associated with the downlink message (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0053 discloses.” Aspects of the present disclosure provide techniques for interleaving data resource elements across the available bandwidth to achieve greater frequency diversity even by using tone-interleaving process, as illustrated by subframe structure 375.”).
Regarding claims 10,20 and 27, Manolakos et al.disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: select a second interleaving value based at least in part on one or more unavailable resource elements of the first quantity of resource elements, the second interleaving value being lower than the first interleaving value (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0083 discloses “In some examples, determining the effective size of the interleaving block may comprise identifying a greater of the first number of control resource elements or the second number of control resource elements, and calculating the effective size of the interleaving block by subtracting the greater of the first number of control resource elements or the second number of control resource elements from a default size of the interleaving block.”); and
perform a third interleaving operation to interleave a third quantity of resource elements, the third quantity of resource elements corresponding to the second interleaving value, wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles is based at least in part on the third interleaving operation (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In the interleaving process illustrated in FIG. 3B, three set of data (301, 302, and 303) are segmented into six groups of resource elements (325-a, 325-b, 330-a, 330-b, 335-a, and 335-b), and each group of resource element (e.g., 325-a) has four resource elements that may be referred to as the “size of an interleaving block” that may further include a plurality of bits corresponding to code blocks. Thus, in terms of interleaving, the size of an interleaving block of four may represent that four resource elements that carry data are shifted to position of some other four resource elements that carry data. In some examples, the subframe structure 350 may represent the initial or default resource allocations.”).
Regarding claims 11,21 and 28, Manolakos et al.disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: select a second interleaving value based at least in part on one or more unavailable resource elements of the first quantity of resource elements, the second interleaving value equal to the first interleaving value (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0083 In some aspects, determining the effective size of the interleaving block based on the first number of control resource elements and the second number of control elements may comprise determining a default size of the interleaving block based on hardware capabilities of an UE, and calculating the effective size of the interleaving block by subtracting one of the first number of control resource elements or the second number of control resource elements from the default size of the interleaving block.”); and
perform a third interleaving operation to interleave a third quantity of resource elements, the third quantity of resource elements corresponding to the second interleaving value, wherein each cycle of the plurality of cycles is based at least in part on the third interleaving operation (US 20180083736 A1 Paragraph 0054 discloses “In the interleaving process illustrated in FIG. 3B, three set of data (301, 302, and 303) are segmented into six groups of resource elements (325-a, 325-b, 330-a, 330-b, 335-a, and 335-b), and each group of resource element (e.g., 325-a) has four resource elements that may be referred to as the “size of an interleaving block” that may further include a plurality of bits corresponding to code blocks. Thus, in terms of interleaving, the size of an interleaving block of four may represent that four resource elements that carry data are shifted to position of some other four resource elements that carry data. In some examples, the subframe structure 350 may represent the initial or default resource allocations.”).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103(a) as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US 20180083736 A1) in view of Wanshi et al. (AU 2017298112 B2) further in view of Yang et al. (US 20210320674 A1) .
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Manolakos et al.discloses the network entity of claim 1.
Manolakos et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: obtain a request to perform the first interleaving operation based at least in part on a threshold delay spread associated with an estimated delay spread, wherein performing the first interleaving operation is based at least in part on the request.
However in an analogous art Yang et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: obtain a request to perform the first interleaving operation based at least in part on a threshold delay spread associated with an estimated delay spread, wherein performing the first interleaving operation is based at least in part on the request. (US 20210320674 A1 Paragraph 0045 discloses For example, the base station or the UE, or both, may be configured to provide sequence interleaving for the sequence-based wireless communications to reduce or mitigate impact of a high Doppler spread, a high delay spread, a high Doppler shift, a high delay shift, or any combination of radio frequency propagation phenomena.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos et al. and Wanshi et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yang et al., to perform the first interleaving operation based at least in part on a threshold delay spread associated with an estimated delay spread, in order to minimize inter-symbol interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Samuel Dilan Rutnam/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471