DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 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 Status
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19, 28, 32, and 34 are amended.
No new claims are added.
Claims 1-7, 15-21, and 28-39 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks (on page 9), filed 07/13/2026, regarding Objections to the Claims have been fully considered and claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, and 19 have been amended. Therefore, the objections to claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, and 19 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks on page 10-12), filed 07/13/2026, with respect to claims 1, 15, 28, and 34 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection discussed below.
This Office action is made Final.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-7, 15-21, and 28-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echigo et al. (US 2024/0259880 A1) hereinafter “Echigo” in view of Manolakos et al. (US 2018/0262382 A1) hereinafter “Manolakos”.
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Echigo discloses Claim 1 of a receiving device (see FIG. 23 and 24; see ¶ [0373], user terminal), and Claim 28 of a method for wireless communication at a receiving device, comprising:
one or more memories storing code (see FIG. 24; see ¶ [0373], user terminal includes a memory); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to execute the code to cause the receiving device to (see FIG. 24; see ¶ [0373], user terminal includes a processor and a memory):
receive a grant scheduling a transmission to the receiving device across a set of layers, the grant indicating a combined modulation order associated with the transmission (see ¶ [0042] [0206] [0208], the UE may determine MCSs of layer 0 and layer 1 of a configured grant. The UE may judge an MCS per layer for dynamic PUSCH scheduled by DCI, based on an RRC parameter related to the MCS per layer);
receive the transmission via the set of layers and according to the combined modulation order (see FIG. 17; see ¶ [0234-35], the UE to receive a PDSCH/transport block by using different MCSs for each layer),
Although Echigo teaches a set of layers, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission.
However, Manolakos discloses the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission (see ¶ [0073] [0079], each of the codewords is transmitted with per-layer modulation, where feedback of preferred per-layer modulation orders may be jointly encoded according to the compression mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission as taught by Manolakos, in the system of Echigo, so that it would provide a preferred per-layer modulation order for each of a plurality of layers scheduled for transmission of a codeword (Manolakos: see ¶ [0066]).
The combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses the combined modulation order based on at least two modulation orders used for at least two corresponding layers in the set of layers, wherein the at least two modulation orders comprise at least two different modulation orders that are within a threshold level of each other (Echigo: see ¶ [0201] [0209], the UE may determine a modulation order (Qm1) and a target code rate (R1) for layer 1, based on the MCS index for layer 1 and may determine a modulation order (Qm2) and a target code rate (R2) for layer 2, based on the MCS index for layer 2 and a plurality of MCSs applied to a plurality of respective layers and the difference between these orders is equal to or smaller than a threshold; see ¶ [0265], a different MCS per layer is applied to a received PDSCH and Manolakos: see ¶ [0063], a different modulation order can be applied to each layer); and
decode the transmission according to the combined modulation order (Echigo: see ¶ [0206] [0356], the UE may determine MCSs of layer 0 and layer 1 of a configured grant by using respective values and decode and Manolakos: see ¶ [0035], decode control information/data).
Regarding claims 2, 16, 29, and 35, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the code to cause the receiving device to:
receive an indication of a modulation and coding scheme table associated with multi-layer communications, the modulation and coding scheme table comprising a set of combined modulation orders that includes the combined modulation order, wherein, to decode the transmission, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to execute the code to cause the receiving device to decode the transmission based at least in part on the modulation and coding scheme table (Echigo: see FIG. 11A, 11B, and 12; see ¶ [0182-91], the MCS table indicating the MCSs for the plurality of layers).
Regarding claims 3, 17, 30, and 36, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein each combined modulation order in the set of combined modulation orders is associated with at least two consecutive modulation order levels, a combination of the at least two consecutive modulation order levels forming the combined modulation order (Echigo: see ¶ [0209], the modulation order applied to the first layer is the same as the modulation order applied to the second layer).
Regarding claims 4, 18, 31, and 37, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein the set of combined modulation orders comprise a first quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) modulation and a second QPSK modulation, the first QPSK modulation and a first 16 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), the first 16 QAM and a second 16 QAM, the first 16 QAM and a first 64 QAM, the first 64 QAM and a second 64 QAM, the first 64 QAM and a first 256 QAM, the first 256 QAM and a second 256 QAM, the first 256 QAM and a first 1024 QAM, the first 1024 QAM and a second 1024 QAM, the first QAM and a first 4096 QAM, the first 4096 QAM and a second 4096 QAM, or a combination thereof (Echigo: see FIG. 11A, 11B, and 12; see ¶ [0182]).
Regarding claims 5, 19, 32, and 38, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to execute the code to cause the receiving device to:
receive an indication of a modulation and coding scheme table associated with single layer communications, the modulation and coding scheme table comprising a set of modulation orders corresponding to each single layer communication (Echigo: see ¶ [0186-91] [0204-08], enableMCSPerLayer may be a parameter that enables MCS control per layer and the UE may determine an MCS per layer of a configured grant by using a value given), wherein the combined modulation order is based on the grant, the threshold level, and a spectral efficiency parameter in the modulation and coding scheme table (Echigo: see ¶ [0186-91] [0258], MCSs for the plurality of layers (modulation scheme, code rate, spectrum efficiency)).
Regarding claims 6, 20, 33, and 39, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein the combined modulation order is associated with at least two consecutive modulation order levels, a combination of the at least two consecutive modulation order levels forming the combined modulation order (Echigo: see ¶ [0209], the modulation order applied to the first layer is the same as the modulation order applied to the second layer).
Regarding claims 7, and 21, the combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses wherein the at least two modulation orders comprise at least one of quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK), quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), or both (Echigo: see FIG. 11A, 11B, and 12; see ¶ [0182]).
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Echigo discloses Claim 15 of a transmitting device (see FIG. 22 and 24; see ¶ [0373], base station), and Claim 34 of a method for wireless communication at a transmitting device, comprising:
one or more memories storing code (see FIG. 24; see ¶ [0373], base station includes a memory); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to execute the code to cause the receiving device to (see FIG. 24; see ¶ [0373], base station includes a processor and a memory):
transmit, to a receiving device, a grant scheduling a transmission to the receiving device across a set of layers, the grant indicating a combined modulation order associated with the transmission (see ¶ [0042] [0206] [0208], the UE may determine MCSs of layer 0 and layer 1 of a configured grant. The UE may judge an MCS per layer for dynamic PUSCH scheduled by DCI, based on an RRC parameter related to the MCS per layer);
transmit the transmission via the set of layers and according to the combined modulation order (see FIG. 17; see ¶ [0234-35], the UE to receive a PDSCH/transport block by using different MCSs for each layer),
Although Echigo teaches a set of layers, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission.
However, Manolakos discloses the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission (see ¶ [0073] [0079], each of the codewords is transmitted with per-layer modulation, where feedback of preferred per-layer modulation orders may be jointly encoded according to the compression mechanisms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the transmission across the set of layers comprising a jointly encoded transmission as taught by Manolakos, in the system of Echigo, so that it would provide a preferred per-layer modulation order for each of a plurality of layers scheduled for transmission of a codeword (Manolakos: see ¶ [0066]).
The combined system of Echigo and Manolakos discloses the combined modulation order based on at least two modulation orders used for at least two corresponding layers in the set of layers, wherein the at least two modulation orders comprise at least two different modulation orders that are within a threshold level of each other (Echigo: see ¶ [0201] [0209], the UE may determine a modulation order (Qm1) and a target code rate (R1) for layer 1, based on the MCS index for layer 1 and may determine a modulation order (Qm2) and a target code rate (R2) for layer 2, based on the MCS index for layer 2 and a plurality of MCSs applied to a plurality of respective layers and the difference between these orders is equal to or smaller than a threshold; see ¶ [0265], a different MCS per layer is applied to a received PDSCH and Manolakos: see ¶ [0063], a different modulation order can be applied to each layer).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights