DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 17-19 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-16 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (US20220201732A1), hereafter Takeda.
Regarding claim 1,
Takeda discloses a method performed by a base station (Fig. 5, base station 11) in a wireless communication system comprising transmitting a downlink control information (DCI) and transmitting a plurality of transport blocks through resources indicated by the DCI (Fig. 3, paragraph 53; multiple TBs scheduled via single DCI), wherein the plurality of transport blocks comprises a first-type transport block and at least one second-type transport block (Fig. 3, TB#1 and TB#2 are shown to have different types of time-frequency allocation).
Takeda further shows the DCI comprises modulation order and coding rate information of the first-type transport block (paragraph 54-56; DCI carries MCS filed for a specific TB#1 but not for other TBs/TB#2) and the first-type transport block comprises coding rate information of the at least one second-type transport block (paragraph 57-63; length of TB#1 comprises the MCS for TB#2 based on the length ratio of the TBs).
Regarding claim 12,
Takeda discloses a method performed by a terminal (Fig. 5, 7, UE 20) in a wireless communication system comprising receiving a downlink control information (DCI) and receiving a plurality of transport blocks through resources indicated by the DCI (Fig. 3, paragraph 53; multiple TBs scheduled via single DCI), wherein the plurality of transport blocks comprises a first-type transport block and at least one second-type transport block (Fig. 3, TB#1 and TB#2 are shown to have different types time-frequency allocation).
Takeda further shows the DCI comprises modulation order and coding rate information of the first-type transport block (paragraph 54-56; DCI carries MCS filed for a specific TB#1 but not for other TBs/TB#2) and the first-type transport block comprises coding rate information of the at least one second-type transport block (paragraph 57-63; length of TB#1 comprises the MCS for TB#2 based on the length ratio of the TBs).
Regarding claim 16,
Takeda discloses a base station (Fig. 5, base station 11) in a wireless communication system comprising a transceiver (Fig. 6, RF section 122/Antennas 130) and a processor (Fig. 6, Baseband Processing 121) connected to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to transmit a downlink control indicator (DCI) and transmit a plurality of transport blocks through resources indicated by the DCI (Fig. 3, paragraph 53; multiple TBs scheduled via single DCI).
Takeda further shows the plurality of transport blocks comprises a first-type transport block and at least one second-type transport block (Fig. 3, TB#1 and TB#2 are shown to have different types of time-frequency allocation), the DCI comprises modulation order and coding rate information of the first-type transport block (paragraph 54-56; DCI carries MCS filed for a specific TB#1 but not for other TBs/TB#2), and the first-type transport block comprises coding rate information of the at least one second-type transport block (paragraph 57-63; length of TB#1 comprises the MCS for TB#2 based on the length ratio of the TBs).
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
Takeda discloses the DCI or the first-type transport block further comprises modulation order information of the at least one second-type transport block (MCS = modulation and coding; paragraph 63) and each of the plurality of transport blocks corresponds to at least one code block group (paragraph 49, 185, 203, 204; resource block groups).
Regarding claim 4,
Takeda discloses the DCI comprises length information of the first-type transport block (Fig. 3; paragraph 63, 173; symbol length and # of symbols for TB#1).
Regarding claim 5,
Takeda discloses the first-type transport block comprises control information for each of the at least one second-type transport block, and wherein the control information comprises at least one of identification information, length information or modulation order information of the second-type transport block (paragraph 57-63; length of TB#1 comprises the MCS for TB#2 based on length ratio of the TBs).
Regarding claim 14,
Takeda discloses receiving another DCI allocating uplink resources (Fig. 4B), modulating and encoding a first-type transport block based on a first modulation order and a first coding rate indicated by the other DCI (Fig. 4B using second DCI method/paragraph 53 and Fig. 3 indicating fields for specific TB), modulating and encoding at least one second-type transport block based on a second modulation order and a second coding rate determined based on the first modulation order and the first coding rate (paragraph 57-63; length of TB#1 comprises the MCS for TB#2 based on the length ratio of the TBs), and transmitting the first-type transport block and the at least one second-type transport block through the uplink resources indicated by the other DCI (Fig. 4B/retransmission of TB#1 and TB#2).
Regarding claim 15,
Takeda discloses transmitting hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledge (ACK)/negative-acknowledge (NACK) for the first-type transport block at a first time point and transmitting HARQ ACK/NACK for the at least one second-type transport block at a second time point, wherein the first time point is at least one transmit time interval (TTI) earlier than the second time point (paragraph 64; HPN/HARQ process number of TB#1 = n, HPN of TB#2 = n+1).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kim et al. (US20220030409A1), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 6,
Takeda does not expressly disclose the irst-type transport block comprises at least one MAC subPDU comprising the coding rate of the second type block, at least one second MAC subPDU, and a LCID of the first MAC subPDU different from the second MAC subPDU.
Kim discloses analogous art including the first-type transport block comprises at least one MAC subPDU comprising the coding rate of the second type block, at least one second MAC subPDU, and a LCID of the first MAC subPDU different from the second MAC subPDU (paragraph 89, 162, 185-215; LCID indicating respective MAC CEs including scheduling information, where plural TBs scheduled by one DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Takeda by the irst-type transport block comprises at least one MAC subPDU comprising the coding rate of the second type block, at least one second MAC subPDU, and a LCID of the first MAC subPDU different from the second MAC subPDU, as shown by Kim, thereby ensuring logical channel quality is above a certain signal strength.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kini et al. (US20200059327A1), hereafter Kini.
Regarding claim 7,
Takeda does not expressly disclose transmitting information related to structures of a code block group comprising the first-type transport block corresponding to length values of the first-type transport block, wherein the DCI comprises one of the values.
Kini discloses transmitting information related to structures of a code block group comprising the first-type transport block corresponding to length values of the first-type transport block, wherein the DCI comprises one of the length values (paragraph 194; DCI of different lengths differentiated on the basis of variability of feedback length based on configuration of CBGs per TB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Takeda by transmitting information related to structures of a code block group comprising the first-type transport block corresponding to length values of the first-type transport block, wherein the DCI comprises one of the length values, as shown by Kini, thereby enabling CBG-based retransmissions of multiple TBs through single DCI configuration.
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Takeda et al. (US20200288458A1), hereafter Takeda2.
Regarding claim 8,
Takeda does not expressly disclose a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the at least one second-type transport block is signaled using an offset compared to a MCS of the first-type transport block.
However, analogous art to Takeda2 discloses a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the at least one second-type transport block is signaled using an offset compared to a MCS of the first-type transport block (paragraph 157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Takeda by signaling a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the at least one second-type transport block using an offset compared to a MCS of the first-type transport block, as shown by Takeda2, thereby enabling variation of parameters such as TBS, MCS, RV with minimized overhead signaling.
Regarding claim 9 (which, as amended, now depends from claim 8),
Takeda discloses transmitting another DCI allocating uplink resources and receiving a plurality of transport blocks through the uplink resources indicated by the other DCI (Fig. 4A-B; paragraphs 66, 70-77).
Claim 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kim et al. (US20220322399A1), hereafter Kim2.
Regarding claim 10,
Takeda does not expressly disclose transmitting information related to a rule for determining a modulation order, coding scheme and coding rate of the at least one second-type transport block received through the uplink resources.
Analogous art to Kim2 (Fig. 12(b); paragraph 218, 247-258; single DCI based multi-scheduling) discloses transmitting information related to a rule for determining a modulation order, coding scheme and coding rate of the at least one second-type transport block received through the uplink resources (Fig. 12(b); paragraph 249, 306; allocation by signaling/rule between FRG#1 and FRG#2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Takeda by transmitting information related to a rule for determining a modulation order, coding scheme and coding rate of the at least one second-type transport block received through the uplink resources, as shown by Kim2, thereby enabling variation of parameters such as TBS, MCS, RV with minimized overhead signaling considering joint/NCJT transmission.
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Takeda and Kim2 discloses receiving information related to a rule for determining a modulation order and coding rate of a second-type transport block received through uplink resources, as shown above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11 (which depends from claim 10),
The combination of Takeda and Kim (and/or Takeda) further discloses the information related to the rule comprises at least one of an offset (i.e. see Takeda2) of the MCS of the second-type transport block compared to the MCS of the first-type transport block according to a logical channel group (LCG) (i.e. RBG in Takeda, FRG in Kim), a coding rate multiplication factor (i.e. scale) according to a difference in modulation order between the first-type transport block and the second-type transport block (Takeda: Fig. 3, paragraph 63; scale/multiply by length ratio of TB1/TB2) or a coding rate multiplication factor (scaling of Takeda) according to the LCG (i.e. RBG in Takeda, FRG in Kim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 6-7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Takeda’s disclosure of the MCS field for TB#1 determining the coding rate of TB#2 is not equivalent to TB#1 comprising coding rate information of TB#2. Applicant further contends the claimed features contrast with Takeda by minimizing overhead within the DCI while supporting transmission of transport blocks having different QoS requirements based on a single DCI.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection, Takeda’s DCI comprising MCS of TB#1 also informs the coding rate for TB#2 through computing the length ratio between TB#1 and TB#2, given that TB#1 and TB#2 are of different “types” having different time-frequency allocations/lengths. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claimed “first-type” and “second-type” transport blocks are not required to support different QoS. Rather, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “minimizing overhead of DCI information” and “supporting transmission of transport blocks having different QoS requirements based on a single DCI”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). None of the independent or dependent claims even mention “minimizing”, “overhead”, or “QoS” let alone supporting different QoS requirements based on a single DCI. Therefore, the rejections based on cited disclosure of Takeda are properly maintained as meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims without improperly reading limitations in from the Specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477