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 .
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 .
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.
1. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (EP
3,840,507 A1, hereinafter Fan) in view of Bala et al. (US 11,621,817 B2, hereinafter Bala) and futehr in view of Ren et al. (US 2019/0342062 A1, hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 recites: [1] “A terminal comprising:” [2] “a receiver that receives higher layer signaling indicating that up to two transport blocks (TBs) are scheduled
by single downlink control information (DCI) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and receives the single DCI; and” [3] “a processor that determines, when a number of layers for PUSCH transmission is greater than 4, a number of
TBs, up to the two TBs, scheduled by the single DCI based on values of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field and a redundancy version (RV) field respectively corresponding to the two TBs,”
[4] “wherein the processor determines that one TB is scheduled by the single DCI when the number of the PUSCH transmission layers is equal to or less than 4, and”
[5] “the MCS field and the RV field are included in the single DCI.”
Fan discloses a terminal/communications apparatus having processing and transceiver functionality for receiving indication information and DCI from a network device. (Fan ¶¶163-164).
Fan further discloses first indication information indicating a maximum quantity of codewords that can be scheduled by one piece of DCI, including a maximum quantity of two. ( Fan ¶¶92-94, 98]).
Fan discloses that the DCI may include one group or two groups of transmission-parameter fields, with each group corresponding to one codeword or one TB. When two TBs are scheduled, the two groups respectively correspond to the two TBs.( Fan ¶¶92-94]).
Fan expressly discloses that each transmission-parameter group includes an MCS field and an RV field (with NDI also disclosed), so the single DCI contains MCS/RV information corresponding to the scheduled TB or TBs. Fan (¶¶92-94]). For the single-TB case, Fan discloses that only the first transmission-parameter group is used, including the MCS field and
RV field for that TB (Fan ¶93). Fan does not expressly disclose determining the number of TBs scheduled for a PUSCH based on the number of PUSCH transmission layers. More particularly, Fan does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical rule in which a PUSCH transmission with more
than four layers uses up to two TBs, while a PUSCH transmission with four or fewer layers uses one TB.
Bala discloses PUSCH transmission and spatial-layer/codeword mapping.( Bala ¶¶115-117).
Bala teaches that a number of data codewords for PUSCH transmission may be determined based on a number of layers used for the PUSCH transmission. (Bala ¶117). Bala further teaches that codeword-to-layer mapping may be determined according to a predefined rule, configuration, DCI,
indicator, or other explicit or implicit information (Bala ¶117])
Bala also illustrates codeword-to-layer mapping in which layers 1-4 are associated with a first data codeword and layers 5-8 are associated with a second data codeword ((Bala ¶¶124-126; Fig. 8.)
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bala's PUSCH layer-dependent codeword
determination to Fan's known single-DCI one-/two-TB signaling arrangement because Bala teaches selecting codeword
quantity as a function of PUSCH layer quantity, while Fan already provides the DCI structures and MCS/RV fields for
signaling one or two TBs.
The modification would have predictably allowed Fan's DCI/TB configuration to correspond to the spatial-layer configuration
used for the PUSCH transmission, using Bala's known PUSCH layer-to-codeword relationship for its established purpose.(Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117]).
Bala does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical breakpoint itself: greater than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> up to
two TBs, and equal to or less than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> one TB.
Accordingly, Fan in view of Bala still does not expressly provide the exact ≤4 / >4 layer threshold recited by the amended
claim.
Ren expressly discloses a layer-dependent codeword rule distinguishing one codeword for four or fewer layers from two codewords for more than four layers. (Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3).
Ren's disclosed states identify 'One Codeword (≤4 layers)' and 'Two Codewords (>4 layers),' thereby supplying the exact
numerical layer breakpoint missing from Fan and Bala. Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3; see also Tables 21-24.
Ren also explains that the disclosed arrangements can satisfy a requirement for transmitting more layers of data while
reducing indication overhead. Ren Abstract.
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ren's known ≤4 / >4 layer-to-codeword rule as the
predefined rule contemplated by Bala for determining PUSCH codeword quantity from PUSCH layer quantity, and to use that determination with Fan's known one-/two-TB single-DCI signaling.
A POSITA would have recognized that Ren's rule directly supplies a known threshold for selecting between the one- codeword and two-codeword configurations already contemplated by Bala, while Fan supplies corresponding one-TB and two-TB DCI parameter groups including MCS and RV fields. Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117; Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3.
The combination is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: Ren provides the layer
threshold, Bala provides the PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination, and Fan provides the single-DCI one-/two-
TB signaling structure. The resulting arrangement predictably yields one TB for ≤4 PUSCH layers and up to two TBs for >4
PUSCH layers.
Ren's stated objective of supporting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead provides an additional technical
reason for applying its layer/codeword rule. Ren Abstract.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 recites [1] “A radio communication method for a terminal, comprising:” [2] “receiving higher layer signaling indicating that up to two transport blocks (TBs) are scheduled by single downlink control information (DCI) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and receiving the single DCI;”
[3] “determining, when a number of layers for PUSCH transmission is greater than 4, a number of TBs, up to the
two TBs, scheduled by the single DCI based on values of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field and a
redundancy version (RV) field respectively corresponding to the two TBs; and”
[4] “determining that one TB is scheduled by the single DCI when the number of PUSCH transmission layers is
equal to or less than 4,”
[5] “wherein the MCS field and the RV field are included in the single DCI.”
Fan discloses a terminal-side information-determination method in which a terminal receives indication information and DCI and determines transmission-parameter information from the DCI. (Fan ¶¶92-94]); terminal-side method/apparatus disclosure at (¶¶163-164).
Fan further discloses first indication information indicating a maximum quantity of codewords that can be scheduled by one piece of DCI, including a maximum quantity of two. (Fan ¶¶92-94, 98]).
Fan discloses that the DCI may include one group or two groups of transmission-parameter fields, with each group corresponding to one codeword or one TB. When two TBs are scheduled, the two groups respectively correspond to the two
TBs. (Fan ¶¶92-94]).
Fan expressly discloses that each transmission-parameter group includes an MCS field and an RV field (with NDI also disclosed), so the single DCI contains MCS/RV information corresponding to the scheduled TB or TBs. (Fan ¶¶92-94]).
For the single-TB case, Fan discloses that only the first transmission-parameter group is used, including the MCS field and RV field for that TB. (Fan ¶93]). Fan does not expressly disclose determining the number of TBs scheduled for a PUSCH based on the number of PUSCH transmission layers. More particularly, Fan does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical rule in which a PUSCH transmission with more than four layers uses up to two TBs, while a PUSCH transmission with four or fewer layers uses one TB. Bala discloses PUSCH transmission and spatial-layer/codeword mapping. (Bala ¶¶115-117]). Bala teaches that a number of data codewords for PUSCH transmission may be determined based on a number of layers used for the PUSCH transmission. (Bala ¶117). Bala further teaches that codeword-to-layer mapping may be determined according to a predefined rule, configuration, DCI,
indicator, or other explicit or implicit information. (Bala ¶117]). Bala also illustrates codeword-to-layer mapping in which layers 1-4 are associated with a first data codeword and layers 5-8
are associated with a second data codeword.( Bala ¶¶124-126]; Fig. 8).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bala's PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination to Fan's known single-DCI one-/two-TB signaling arrangement because Bala teaches selecting codeword quantity as a function of PUSCH layer quantity, while Fan already provides the DCI structures and MCS/RV fields for signaling one or two TBs.
The modification would have predictably allowed Fan's DCI/TB configuration to correspond to the spatial-layer configuration used for the PUSCH transmission, using Bala's known PUSCH layer-to-codeword relationship for its established purpose. (Fan ¶¶92-94]; Bala ¶117]).
Bala does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical breakpoint itself: greater than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> up to two TBs, and equal to or less than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> one TB.
Accordingly, Fan in view of Bala still does not expressly provide the exact ≤4 / >4 layer threshold recited by the amended claim.
Ren expressly discloses a layer-dependent codeword rule distinguishing one codeword for four or fewer layers from two codewords for more than four layers.(Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3.)
Ren's disclosed states identify 'One Codeword (≤4 layers)' and 'Two Codewords (>4 layers),' thereby supplying the exact numerical layer breakpoint missing from Fan and Bala. Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3; see also Tables 21-24. Ren also explains that the disclosed arrangements can satisfy a requirement for transmitting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead. (Ren Abstract.)
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ren's known ≤4 / >4 layer-to-codeword rule as the predefined rule contemplated by Bala for determining PUSCH codeword quantity from PUSCH layer quantity, and to use that determination with Fan's known one-/two-TB single-DCI signaling. A POSITA would have recognized that Ren's rule directly supplies a known threshold for selecting between the one-codeword and two-codeword configurations already contemplated by Bala, while Fan supplies corresponding one-TB and two-TB DCI parameter groups including MCS and RV fields. Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117; Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3. The combination is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: Ren provides the layer
threshold, Bala provides the PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination, and Fan provides the single-DCI one-/two- TB signaling structure. The resulting arrangement predictably yields one TB for ≤4 PUSCH layers and up to two TBs for >4 PUSCH layers.
Ren’s stated objective of supporting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead provides an additional technical reason for applying its layer/codeword rule. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites [1] “A base station comprising:”
[2] “a transmitter that transmits, to a terminal, higher layer signaling indicating that up to two transport blocks
(TBs) are scheduled by single downlink control information (DCI) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and transmits, to the terminal, the single DCI; and”
[3] “a processor that determines, when a number of layers for PUSCH transmission is greater than 4, to schedule a number of TBs, up to the two TBs, by the single DCI based on values of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field and a redundancy version (RV) field respectively corresponding to the two TBs,”
[4] “wherein the processor determines to schedule one TB by the single DCI when the number of the PUSCH transmission layers is equal to or less than 4, and”
[5] “the MCS field and the RV field are included in the single DCI.”
Fan discloses a network device/base-station-side communications apparatus having processing and transceiver functionality for determining indication information/DCI and transmitting them to a terminal. ( ¶¶165-168). Fan further discloses first indication information indicating a maximum quantity of codewords that can be scheduled by one piece of DCI, including a maximum quantity of two. (¶¶92-94, 98). Fan discloses that the DCI may include one group or two groups of transmission-parameter fields, with each group corresponding to one codeword or one TB. When two TBs are scheduled, the two groups respectively correspond to the two TBs.( ¶¶92-94]).
Fan expressly discloses that each transmission-parameter group includes an MCS field and an RV field (with NDI also disclosed), so the single DCI contains MCS/RV information corresponding to the scheduled TB or TBs. Fan ¶¶92-94]).
For the single-TB case, Fan discloses network-side use of the first transmission-parameter group, including the MCS field and RV field for that TB. Fan (¶¶92-94, 165-168]).
Fan does not expressly disclose determining the number of TBs scheduled for a PUSCH based on the number of PUSCH transmission layers. More particularly, Fan does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical rule in which a PUSCH transmission with more
than four layers uses up to two TBs, while a PUSCH transmission with four or fewer layers uses one TB.
Bala discloses PUSCH transmission and spatial-layer/codeword mapping. ( ¶¶115-117]).
Bala teaches that a number of data codewords for PUSCH transmission may be determined based on a number of layers used for the PUSCH transmission (¶117]).
Bala further teaches that codeword-to-layer mapping may be determined according to a predefined rule, configuration, DCI,indicator, or other explicit or implicit information.( ¶117])
Bala also illustrates codeword-to-layer mapping in which layers 1-4 are associated with a first data codeword and layers 5-8 are associated with a second data codeword. (¶¶124-126; Fig. 8).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bala's PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination to Fan's known single-DCI one-/two-TB signaling arrangement because Bala teaches selecting codeword quantity as a function of PUSCH layer quantity, while Fan already provides the DCI structures and MCS/RV fields for signaling one or two TBs. The modification would have predictably allowed Fan's DCI/TB configuration to correspond to the spatial-layer configuration used for the PUSCH transmission, using Bala's known PUSCH layer-to-codeword relationship for its established purpose. (Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117), Bala does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical breakpoint itself: greater than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> up to
two TBs, and equal to or less than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> one TB.
Accordingly, Fan in view of Bala still does not expressly provide the exact ≤4 / >4 layer threshold recited by the amended claim.
Ren expressly discloses a layer-dependent codeword rule distinguishing one codeword for four or fewer layers from two codewords for more than four layers. (Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3).
Ren's disclosed states identify 'One Codeword (≤4 layers)' and 'Two Codewords (>4 layers),' thereby supplying the exact numerical layer breakpoint missing from Fan and Bala. (Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3; see also Tables 21-24).
Ren also explains that the disclosed arrangements can satisfy a requirement for transmitting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead. (Abstract).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ren's known ≤4 / >4 layer-to-codeword rule as the predefined rule contemplated by Bala for determining PUSCH codeword quantity from PUSCH layer quantity, and to use that determination with Fan's known one-/two-TB single-DCI signaling. A POSITA would have recognized that Ren's rule directly supplies a known threshold for selecting between the one-codeword and two-codeword configurations already contemplated by Bala, while Fan supplies corresponding one-TB and two-TB DCI parameter groups including MCS and RV fields. Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117; Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3. The combination is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: Ren provides the layer threshold, Bala provides the PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination, and Fan provides the single-DCI one-/two-
TB signaling structure. The resulting arrangement predictably yields one TB for ≤4 PUSCH layers and up to two TBs for >4 PUSCH layers. Ren's stated objective of supporting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead provides an additional technical reason for applying its layer/codeword rule. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites
[1] “A system comprising a terminal and a base station, wherein the terminal comprises:”
[2] “a receiver that receives higher layer signaling indicating that up to two transport blocks (TBs) are scheduled
by single downlink control information (DCI) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and receives the
single DCI; and”
[3] “a processor that determines, when a number of layers for PUSCH transmission is greater than 4, a number of
TBs, up to the two TBs, scheduled by the single DCI based on values of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS)
field and a redundancy version (RV) field respectively corresponding to the two TBs,”
[4] “wherein the processor determines that one TB is scheduled by the single DCI when the number of PUSCH
transmission layers is equal to or less than 4,”
[5] “the MCS field and the RV field are included in the single DCI; and”
[6] “the base station comprises: a transmitter that transmits the higher layer signaling and the single DCI.”
Fan discloses corresponding terminal-side and network-device-side communications apparatuses that exchange indication information and DCI. (¶¶163-168).
Fan further discloses first indication information indicating a maximum quantity of codewords that can be scheduled by one piece of DCI, including a maximum quantity of two. ( ¶¶92-94, 98.)
Fan discloses that the DCI may include one group or two groups of transmission-parameter fields, with each group corresponding to one codeword or one TB. When two TBs are scheduled, the two groups respectively correspond to the two TBs. ( ¶¶92-94]).
Fan expressly discloses that each transmission-parameter group includes an MCS field and an RV field (with NDI also disclosed), so the single DCI contains MCS/RV information corresponding to the scheduled TB or TBs. (¶¶92-94). For the single-TB case, Fan discloses that only the first transmission-parameter group is used, including the MCS field and RV field for that TB. ( ¶93]).
Fan does not expressly disclose determining the number of TBs scheduled for a PUSCH based on the number of PUSCH transmission layers. More particularly, Fan does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical rule in which a PUSCH transmission with more than four layers uses up to two TBs, while a PUSCH transmission with four or fewer layers uses one TB.
Bala discloses PUSCH transmission and spatial-layer/codeword mapping. Bala ¶¶115-117.
Bala teaches that a number of data codewords for PUSCH transmission may be determined based on a number of layers used for the PUSCH transmission. ( ¶117]).
Bala further teaches that codeword-to-layer mapping may be determined according to a predefined rule, configuration, DCI, indicator, or other explicit or implicit information (¶117]).
Bala also illustrates codeword-to-layer mapping in which layers 1-4 are associated with a first data codeword and layers 5-8 are associated with a second data codeword.( ¶¶124-126; Fig. 8.
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Bala's PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination to Fan's known single-DCI one-/two-TB signaling arrangement because Bala teaches selecting codeword quantity as a function of PUSCH layer quantity, while Fan already provides the DCI structures and MCS/RV fields for signaling one or two TBs.
The modification would have predictably allowed Fan's DCI/TB configuration to correspond to the spatial-layer configuration used for the PUSCH transmission, using Bala's known PUSCH layer-to-codeword relationship for its established purpose ( ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117).
Bala does not expressly disclose the claimed numerical breakpoint itself: greater than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> up to two TBs, and equal to or less than 4 PUSCH transmission layers -> one TB.
Accordingly, Fan in view of Bala still does not expressly provide the exact ≤4 / >4 layer threshold recited by the amended claim.
Ren expressly discloses a layer-dependent codeword rule distinguishing one codeword for four or fewer layers from two codewords for more than four layers. Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3.
Ren's disclosed states identify 'One Codeword (≤4 layers)' and 'Two Codewords (>4 layers),' thereby supplying the exact numerical layer breakpoint missing from Fan and Bala. Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3; see also Tables 21-24. Ren also explains that the disclosed arrangements can satisfy a requirement for transmitting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead.(Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ren's known ≤4 / >4 layer-to-codeword rule as the predefined rule contemplated by Bala for determining PUSCH codeword quantity from PUSCH layer quantity, and to use that determination with Fan's known one-/two-TB single-DCI signaling. A POSITA would have recognized that Ren's rule directly supplies a known threshold for selecting between the one-codeword and two-codeword configurations already contemplated by Bala, while Fan supplies corresponding one-TB and two-TB DCI parameter groups including MCS and RV fields. Fan ¶¶92-94; Bala ¶117; Ren ¶247, Tables 2-3). The combination is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: Ren provides the layer threshold, Bala provides the PUSCH layer-dependent codeword determination, and Fan provides the single-DCI one-/two-TB signaling structure. The resulting arrangement predictably yields one TB for ≤4 PUSCH layers and up to two TBs for >4 PUSCH layers. Ren's stated objective of supporting more layers of data while reducing indication overhead provides an additional technical reason for applying its layer/codeword rule. ( Abstract).
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 ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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
3. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor,
Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
4. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights