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
In the amendment filed April 8, 2026, claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-12, 17 and 19-20 have been amended, claims 1-12 and 17-20 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 applicant’s arguments, see page 8 Section II, filed April 8, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 7 and 11 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Hence a new ground of rejection is further made in view of Nokia (Transport block processing for PUSCH coverage enhancements, R1-2103381, April 20, 2021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite in lines 5-7, " ... “determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on the first number of slots …” Neither the claim nor the specification further describe, “determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on the first number of slots”. Paragraph 0388 of instant application disclose, “With Options 1, 1a, and 1b, each rate matching is over the same size time unit (that is, over the same number of OFDM symbols) and it may use more slots than configured. Embodiment 9 is about the determination of rate matching output sequence length. Option 2 means the number of slots for the actual TBoMS transmission is the same as its configuration, and the rate matching may not be over the same number of symbols. If K is not divided by C and N, some enhancement is needed, as stated in Embodiment 10”. Also per paragraph 0390, “Embodiment 9, the rate matching output sequence length for the r-th coded block can be determined by the following method. In the following, the symbol ‘=>’ indicates that the currently specified equation for E.sub.r on the left side of the => is replaced by the new equation for E.sub.r on the right side of the =>….”
Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
The subject matter was not described in the specification (see paragraph 0388, 0390) in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and /or use the invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are also rejected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12 and 17-20 are also rejected since they are dependent on the rejected dependent claims 1, 7 and 11, respectfully, as set forth above.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4-5 ,7, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung ("TB processing over multi-slot PUSCH", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2105326, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), 20210510 - 20210527 12 May 2021), and further in view of Nokia (Transport block processing for PUSCH coverage enhancements, R1-2103381, April 20, 2021).
As per claim 1, Samsung disclose A method performed by a terminal device (see page 6, uplink transmission, generating the signal are performed by the UE), comprising:
encoding with code (see page 7, encoding using a mother code) on each code block (CB) of a Transport Block over Multiple Slots, TBoMS (see Fig.3, Fig.4, using the mother code to code TBoMS), wherein the TBoMS comprises a first number of slots (see Fig.3, slots for the TOTs in Fig.3, showing 2 slot, the coded bits corresponding to one CB is mapped across the resources of more than one slot and coding/decoding, number of slot / multiple slot/ 2 Slot, for as TBoMS); and
performing, for each CB rate matching on the code for each of the multiple slots of the TBoMS (see Fig.3, page 1, performing rate matching operation for multiple slots of the TBoMS) based on a determined rate matching output sequence length and a determined second number of slots for rate matching (see page 5, Option 1 and 3: "rate matched for each slot"; see figure at the bottom right of page 6, which shows that for each slot a different RV is used), and wherein the TBoMS comprises one or more CBs (see page 5, transmitting the encoded data within the TBoMS / a code block).
Although Samsung disclose encoding with code and performing rate matching on the code for each of the multiple slots of the TBoMS;
Samsung however does not explicitly disclose encoding is performed with an low density parity check, LDPC, base graph and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS.
Nokia however disclose the encoding is performed with an low density parity check (LDPC) base graph (see Fig.3, section 2.3, page 6, mapping/rate-matching the encoded bits on the allocated resource across multiple slots for TBoMS, using LDPC base graph 2) and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS (see Fig.1, page 2, showing 1 slot rate matching 3 slot, Option 2, proposal 2, a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS. See also section 2.3, 2.4, proposal 4, proposal 6, proposal 8, for rate-matching the encoded bits on the resource across multiple slots for TBoMS / a first number of slots, the encoded bits are rate-matched on the total resource allocated for TBoMS across multiple slots / a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of encoding is performed with an low density parity check, LDPC, base graph and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS, as taught by Nokia, in the system of Samsung, so enables the transmission of a transport block (TB) over multiple slots (referred to as TBoMS), wherein the transport block size (TBS) is determined based on the resource across multiple slots, see Nokia, Sections 1 and 2-1.
As per claim 4, the combination of Samsung and Nokia disclose the method according to claim 1.
Nokia further disclose wherein the TBoMS comprises one CB (see section 2.3, the TBoMS comprises one CB, see also Option 2, proposal 8).
As per claim 5, the combination of Samsung and Nokia disclose the method according to claim 1.
Samsung further disclose wherein one or more of the followings applies: a same redundancy version (RV), is indicated or pre-determined for all CBs; a respective RV is indicated or pre-determined for each CB; a same RV pattern is indicated or pre-determined for all CBs, wherein an RV cycle according to the RV pattern is performed within a CB, or across CBs; a respective RV pattern is indicated or pre-determined for each CB; a same starting RV is indicated or pre-determined for all CBs according to the RV pattern; or a respective starting RV is indicated or pre-determined for each CB according to the RV pattern (see Fig.4, page 6, section 2.5, a respective starting RV is indicated or pre-determined for each CB according to the RV pattern).
As per claim 7, claim 7 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As per claim 10, claim 10 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1. Samsung also disclose A terminal device (see page 1, UE), comprising: one or more processors (see page , UE with CPU/a processor); and one or more memories comprising computer program codes (see page , UE with memory for storing).
As per claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
Claims 3, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung ("TB processing over multi-slot PUSCH", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2105326, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), 20210510 - 20210527 12 May 2021), in view of Nokia (Transport block processing for PUSCH coverage enhancements, R1-2103381, April 20, 2021) and further in view of Kim ( US provisional 63/192546, filed 24 May 2021).
As per claim 3, the combination of Samsung and Nokia disclose the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Samsung and Nokia however does not explicitly disclose receiving a first indication indicating a third number of slots for a TBoMS transmission; and determining the first number of slots based on the first indication and obtained TDD or FDD configuration information.
Kim however disclose receiving a first indication indicating a third number of slots for a TBoMS transmission (see Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.9, Fig.10, para. 0082-0084, At 902, the UE receiving a third number of slots for a TBoMS and calculate a slot length for each UL slot of a plurality of UL slots. The slot
length for each UL slot may be associated with a plurality of rate matching output bits. Each UL
slot may include a starting point for the plurality of rate matching output bits. The slot length
for each UL slot may be associated with a starting boundary. The plurality of UL slots may be
associated with at least one of a single TB or a single rate matching. For example, the UE 502 may
calculate a slot length for each UL slot of a plurality of UL slots, as described in connection with FIG. 5., see also para. 0088); and determining the first number of slots based on the first indication and obtained TDD or FDD configuration information (see Fig.2B, para. 0046, Fig.9, para. 0082, 0085, At 902, the UE calculates a slot length for each UL slot of a plurality of UL slots. The slot length for each UL slot is associated with a plurality of rate matching output bits. Each UL slot includes a starting point for the plurality of rate matching output bits., and use frequency division duplexed (FDD) in which for a particular set of subcarriers ( carrier system bandwidth), subframes within the set of sub carriers are dedicated for either DL or UL, or use time division duplexed (TDD) in which for a particular set of sub carriers ( carrier system bandwidth), subframes within the set of subcarriers are dedicated for both DL and UL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of receiving a first indication indicating a third number of slots for a TBoMS transmission; and determining the first number of slots based on the first indication and obtained TDD or FDD configuration information, as taught by Kim, in the system of Samsung and Nokia, so that each CB is passed to an encoder (such as an encoder for turbo coding) and the encoder uses turbo coding in connection with CRC and polar code (for error correction) or low density parity check code (LDPC) to encode data, see Kim, paragraphs 0001, 0064-0065.
As per claim 9, claim 9 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
Claims 2, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung ("TB processing over multi-slot PUSCH", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2105326, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), 20210510 - 20210527 12 May 2021) in view of Nokia (Transport block processing for PUSCH coverage enhancements, R1-2103381, April 20, 2021), and further in view of Huawei ("CR to 38.212 capturing the Jan18 ad-hoc and RAN1#92 meeting agreements", R1-1803553, 15 March 2018).
As per claim 2, the combination of Samsung and Nokia disclose the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Samsung and Nokia however does not explicitly disclose wherein a rate matching output sequence length E.sub.r for an r-th CB is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where N.sub.L is a number of transmission layers that the transport block is mapped onto; Q.sub.m is a modulation order; G is a total number of coded bits available for transmitting the transport block; C′=C if CBGTI is not present in the DCI scheduling the transport block, C is a number of CBs for a TBoMS transmission, otherwise C′ is a number of scheduled CBs of the transport block; and M is a number of times that a CB is rate matched.
Huawei however disclose wherein a rate matching output sequence length E.sub.r for an r-th CB is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where N.sub.L is a number of transmission layers that the transport block is mapped onto; Q.sub.m is a modulation order; G is a total number of coded bits available for transmitting the transport block; C′=C if CBGTI is not present in the DCI scheduling the transport block, C is a number of CBs for a TBoMS transmission, otherwise C′ is a number of scheduled CBs of the transport block; and M is a number of times that a CB is rate matched (see pages 28-29, an almost identical rule for determining the rate matching output sequence length within the same parameters and the same meaning. The formula disclosed in Huawei merely differs from the claimed formula in that the claim further refers to a parameter M that represents to a number of times that the code block is rate matched. According to the teaching in the first sentence in section 5.4.2, the rate matching is defined per coded block. A skilled person would understand that in the disclosed formula, the operation of dividing the parameter G by the parameter C' apparently relates to the dividing operation of transmitting the transport block in divided manner using
multiple code blocks and rate matching is performed for each code block. The rate matching output
sequence lengths disclosed in Huawei relates to the sequence lengths for each coded block
after rate matching and the parameter M in the claimed formula represents the quantity of slots used for transmitting a code block. As a result, the claimed quantity C'·M represents the total number of slots used for transmitting the transport block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of wherein a rate matching output sequence length E.sub.r for an r-th CB is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; where N.sub.L is a number of transmission layers that the transport block is mapped onto; Q.sub.m is a modulation order; G is a total number of coded bits available for transmitting the transport block; C′=C if CBGTI is not present in the DCI scheduling the transport block, C is a number of CBs for a TBoMS transmission, otherwise C′ is a number of scheduled CBs of the transport block; and M is a number of times that a CB is rate matched, as taught by Huawei, in the system of Samsung and Nokia, to determine the rate matching output sequence length per slot, namely based on the quantity of slots used for transmitting the transport block.
For obtaining the sequence length per slot it is simply required to divide the total number of bits
by the total number of slots. Whether the parameter C' in Samsung is directly replaced by the total
quantity of slots, or instead replaced by an equivalent term, namely the quantity C' of code blocks
multiplied with the number M of slots used for each code block, merely
represents a mathematical variation without inventive merit, see Huawei, page 29-29.
As per claim 8, claim 8 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Second Rejection
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung ("TB processing over multi-slot PUSCH", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2105326, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), 20210510 - 20210527 12 May 2021), and further in view of Nhan (US Pub. No.:2022/0321269).
As per claim 1, Samsung disclose A method performed by a terminal device (see page 6, uplink transmission, generating the signal are performed by the UE), comprising:
encoding with code (see page 7, encoding using a mother code) on each code block, CB, of a Transport Block over Multiple Slots, TBoMS (see Fig.3, Fig.4, using the mother code to code TBoMS), wherein the TBoMS comprises multiple slots (see Fig.3, slots for the TOTs in Fig.3, the coded bits corresponding to one CB is mapped across the resources of more than one slot and coding/decoding, number of slot / multiple slot, for as TBoMS); and
performing rate matching on the code for each of the multiple slots of the TBoMS (see Fig.3, page 1, performing rate matching operation for multiple slots of the TBoMS), wherein a time unit of the rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS (see page 5, Option 1 and 3: "rate matched for each slot"; see figure at the bottom right of page 6, which shows that for each slot a different RV is used), and wherein the TBoMS comprises one or more CBs (see page 5, transmitting the encoded data within the TBoMS / a code block).
Although Samsung disclose encoding with code and performing rate matching on the code for each of the multiple slots of the TBoMS;
Samsung however does not explicitly disclose encoding is performed with an low density parity check, LDPC, base graph and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS.
Cui however disclose the encoding is performed with an low density parity check (LDPC) base graph (see para. 0060-0068. Table 2, using LDPC base graph 2) and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS (see Fig.2, Fig.5-9, Table 1, para. 0039-0040, 0043, 0046, a base station configures a terminal to repeatedly send a TB four times, and a PUSCH replica occupies symbols #0 to #11 in each slot, and determining base on Table 1, a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, see also Table 2, 0060-0066, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS is defined/calculated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the functionality of encoding is performed with an low density parity check, LDPC, base graph and determining a rate matching output sequence length and a second number of slots for rate matching based on a first number of slots, wherein a time unit for rate matching is per slot in the TBoMS, as taught by Cui, in the system of Samsung, so avoid losing system bits corresponding to RV.sub.0 and/or RV.sub.1, and so as to improve decoding performance for sequences after rate matching, see Cui, para. 0059-60.
As per claim 7, claim 7 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
3GPP TS 38.212, Section 5.4.2 pages 30-32 and Section 6.2 .2, page 34, LDPC base graph selection.
ERICSSON ( "TB Processing over Multi-Slot PUSCH", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2105653, 20210510 - 20210527 12 May 2021) - section 2.2, disclosed for example in the context of Fig. 3 that in one alternative, rate matching is performed for each slot on an individual basis.
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 LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on 571-272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights