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 .
RCE filed 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 36, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 2, 18 and 22-35 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-17, 19-21, 36, and 37 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19-21, 36, and 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16, 18, 15-20, 22, 24, 25, 40, and 40 of copending Application No. 18592831.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite substantially the same limitations with only slightly varied terminology, in which the pending claims would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the co-pending claims.
Independent claims 1, 36, and 37 are substantially the claim as co-pending claims 1, 40, and 40.
Dependent claim 3 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 3.
Dependent claim 4 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 4.
Dependent claim 5 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 5.
Dependent claim 6 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 6.
Dependent claim 7 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 7.
Dependent claim 8 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 9.
Dependent claim 10 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 16.
Dependent claim 11 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 18.
Dependent claim 12 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 15.
Dependent claim 13 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 16.
Dependent claim 14 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 17.
Dependent claim 15 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 18.
Dependent claim 16 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 19.
Dependent claim 17 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 20.
Dependent claim 19 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 22.
Dependent claim 20 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 24.
Dependent claim 21 is substantially the same as co-pending claim 25.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have been allowed but have not yet been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3-17, 19-21, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al. (US20210321414A1), hereafter Yeo, in view of Lin (US20210360638A1) and Hwang et al. (US20190379489A1), hereafter Hwang.
Regarding claims 1, 36, and 37,
Yeo discloses a wireless communication apparatus (Fig. 16) comprising a non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer-readable program medium/memory storing instructions (Fig. 16, memory 16-04; paragraph 162) and a processor in communication with the medium/memory, wherein, when the processor (Fig. 16, processor 16-02) executes the instructions (paragraph 163) to cause the wireless communication apparatus to perform a method (Fig. 13) for wireless communication comprising transmitting a set of transport blocks (TBs) between a first wireless device and a second wireless device (Fig. 9, 16, 17; paragraph 158, i.e. between 2 devices and/or terminal and base station) by receiving, by the second wireless device, a resource indication from the first wireless device (Fig. 13, step 13-01-13-03; scheduling DCI/multiple MCS information indicates transmission of two TBs), wherein the resource indication indicates resource allocation of the set of TBs in a resource space comprising a time unit in a time domain and a frequency unit in a frequency domain where each TB mapped to a codeword in the set of TBs is mapped to different time-frequency resource in the resource space (Fig. 13, step 13-03 in which TBs are mapped to different resources; see also paragraphs 155-157, Tables 2-3 and Fig. 10-12 showing time and frequency resources; paragraph 46-48, 91; i.e. TBs belonging to different multiplexed services) and each TB in the set of TBs is capable of being packaged separately at a transmitting end and independently delivered to an upper layer at a receiving end without waiting for remaining TBs in the set of TBs (Backgraound; paragraph 46-48, 91; TBs belonging to different multiplexed services, i.e. Fig. 2-3; URLLC, eMBB, mMTC; Fig. 4, 5, 7; each TB is independently packaged and delivered as a collection of CBs/CBGs).
Yeo does not expressly disclose the set of TBs comprises n TBs mapped to the same codeword, and n is an integer larger than 1.
Lin discloses analogous art (Fig. 1, 3; Background; paragraphs 61-74) the set of TBs comprises n TBs mapped to the same codeword, and n is an integer larger than 1 (paragraphs 116, 156, 172, 188, 212-225; two TBs belonging to the same codeword).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yeo by providing the set of TBs comprises n TBs mapped to the same codeword, and n is an integer larger than 1, as shown by Lin, thereby enabling the feedback response of two CBGs belonging to the same TB to be compressed.
Yeo discloses the resource space corresponds to the set of TBs in a HARQ process in a carrier (Yeo: paragraph 29-40, 58, 75-77; Lin: paragraph 122), but fails to expressly show a single HARQ process in a single carrier.
Hwang discloses analogous art (Title: Transmitting HARQ-ACK Signal in Wireless Communication System) mapping multiple codewords/TBs to the same PUCCH resource (paragraph 113) including resource space corresponding to a set of TBs in a single HARQ process in a single carrier (paragraphs 142-146; simultaneous transmission of HARQ-ACK for multiple TBs over the same channel to maintain single carrier property configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yeo by providing a resource space corresponding to the set of TBs in a single HARQ process in a single carrier, as shown by Hwang, thereby enabling a UE to maintain a single carrier property while acknowledging multiple TBs over the same channel.
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses each TB in the set of TBs corresponds to a MAC PDU (Yeo: paragraph 89; Lin: paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses wherein the time unit comprises at least one of the following: TTI (paragraph 95), a slot (Fig. 1), a sub-frame (paragraph 62), or a mini slot.
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the frequency unit comprises at least one of the following: a subcarrier (Fig. 1), a resource block (RB) (Fig. 1), a subband (paragraph 60), a bandwidth part (BWP) (paragraph 69), or a carrier (paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the same codeword comprises at least one of a first codeword or a second codeword (Yeo: paragraphs 155-157, Tables 2-3; Lin: paragraphs 116, 156, 172, 188, 212-225; two TBs to the same codeword).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses mapping policy of the n TBs for a resource comprises at least one of the following: mapping, according to a mapping sequence number of each TB, the n TBs in a time domain, and then in a frequency domain; mapping, according to the mapping sequence number of each TB, the n TBs in a frequency domain, and then in a time domain; or mapping, a TB corresponding to a second codeword according to the mapping sequence number of the TB corresponding to a first codeword in same time-frequency resource (Yeo: Fig. 11-13; paragraphs 155-157, Tables 2-3; Lin: paragraphs 116, 156, 172, 188, 212-225; two TBs belonging to the same codeword). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the mapping sequence number of each TB in the n TBs comprises at least one of the following: an index of each TB (Yeo: paragraph 63, 83); a sequence number based on a priority level of each TB; a sequence number generated randomly for each TB (Yeo: paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the priority level of each TB in the n TBs comprises at least one of the following: service demand from an upper layer; quality of service (QoS) from the upper layer; a repeat transmission number of each TB (Yeo: paragraph 46; importance of service; Lin: paragraphs 198-219). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 10,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the first wireless device determines a TBS of each TB in the n TBs by determining, based on CSI, a number of REs (Fig. 1), a MCS (Fig. 11; Fig. 13, step 13-03; Fig. 14), a number of layers (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3), calculating a total size based on the number of REs, the MCS, and the number of layers and determining the TBS of each TB in the n TBs based on the total size (paragraph 88, 108).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses receiving, by the second wireless device from the first wireless device, control information corresponding to the resource allocation of the set of TBs comprising at least one of the following: a resource space in a time-frequency domain for the set of TBs (Fig. 11-12); a resource indication in a frequency domain for the set of TBs (Fig. 14); a resource indication in a time domain for the set of TBs (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3); an MCS for the n TBs (Fig. 11; Fig. 13, step 13-03; Fig. 14); spatial multiplexing information related to a number of layers for the set of TBs (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3); power control information for the set of TBs (paragraph 66, 78); an identification (ID) number for the set of TBs (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3); a resource mapping configuration for the set of TBs (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3); a number of TBs in the n TBs (Fig. 13); a symbol position information in a time domain for each TB in the set of TBs (Fig. 1); or frequency position information in a frequency domain for each TB in set of TBs (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses the second wireless device determines a TBS of each TB in the n TBs by receiving the control information corresponding to the resource allocation of the set of TBs (Yeo: Fig. 13, step 13-01; DCI); determining, in a HARQ process (Yeo: paragraph 29-40, 58, 75-77; Lin: paragraph 122), a number of REs, a MCS for the n TBs (Fig. 11; Fig. 13, step 13-03; Fig. 14), a number of layers (paragraphs 154-157, Tables 2-3); calculating a total size based on the number of REs, the MCS, and the number of layers and determining the TBS of each TB in the set of TBs based on the total size (paragraph 88, 108).
Regarding claims 11 and 15 (depending from claims 10 and 13, respectively),
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses determining the TBS of each TB in the n TBs based on the total size comprises at least one of the following: determining the TBS of each TB as ceiling[T/n], wherein T is the total size, n is the number of TBs in the n TBs; determining the TBS of each TB as floor[T/n]; TBS of each TB based on pre-determined value/table (Yeo: paragraph 103; Tables 2-3).
Regarding claim 14,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses control information is transmitted via at least one of the following: DCI (Fig. 13, paragraph 133), RRC signaling (i.e. paragraph 83, 111), a high layer signaling (i.e. paragraph 33), a MAC CE (i.e. paragraph 89), or system information (all of the above). See also Lin (paragraph 62, 104).
Regarding claim 16,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses receiving, by the second wireless device, the control information from the first wireless device (Yeo: Fig. 13, step 13-01; DCI) and processing, by the second wireless device, the set of TBs based on the control information by at least one of the following: receiving data from the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to a third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; or receiving data from the third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device (Yeo: Fig. 13, steps 13-03-13-05/13-07 based on interpretation of MCS information carried in DCI).
Regarding claim 17,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses sending, by the second wireless device, feedback information to the first wireless device by at least one of the following: separately for each TB in the n TBs; together for the n TBs; for each code block (CB) in the n TBs; or for each code block group (CBG) in the n TBs (Lin: paragraphs 116, 156, 172, 188, 212-225; feedback corresponding to two TBs belonging to the same codeword compressed into the same bit). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 19,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses in response to the feedback information being same for each TB in the n TBs, sending the feedback information comprising a feedback indication for the n TBs (Lin: Lin: paragraphs 116, 156, 172, 188, 212-225; feedback corresponding to two TBs belonging to the same codeword compressed into the same bit), in response to each TB in the n TBs being received successfully, the feedback information comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received successfully and in response to each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully, the feedback information comprises a NAK indication indicating each TB in n TBs being received unsuccessfully (Yeo: paragraph 58, 114; Lin: paragraphs 3, 70, 117-121, 129-133, 142, etc. explaining ACK/NACK). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 20 and 21,
The combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang discloses first wireless device is configured to schedule transmission of the set of TBs as at least one of the following: a base station; a MAC layer in a wireless device; a scheduling unit; a UE; an OBU; a RSU; or an IAB node (Yeo: Fig. 17, base station; Lin: Fig. 1, base station 120) and the second wireless device is configured to receive transmission of the set of TBs as at least one of the following: a UE or an IAB node (Yeo: Fig. 16, terminal; Lin: Fig. 1, UE 140).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 10 and 12 of the Amendment, Applicant cites to paragraph 37 of the Specification, describing the problem that the claimed invention seeks to overcome of the existing approach, as in Yeo, of dividing a transport block into multiple code blocks/code block groups where each CB cannot be independently delivered to an upper layer, and that each CB requires all other CBs within the same TB to wait for retransmission thereby increasing latency.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not reflected in the pending claims, as alleged. The claims are directed to transmitting a set of TBs where, as now amended, each TB is capable of being separately packaged and independently delivered to an upper layer without waiting for the remaining TBs in the set of TBs. The claims do not make a distinction between TBs and CBs/CBGs. The claims do not even mention code blocks/code block groups let alone the dividing of TBs into CBs/CBGs in the context of the separate/independent processing without waiting for remaining TBs. Applicant’s arguments conflate TBs with CBs/CBGs in Yeo that is not congruent with the present version of claims. As shown in the rejection, TBs in Yeo belong to different multiplexed services such that each TB is separately packaged and independently delivered at a receiving end without waiting for the remaining TBs. Fig. 2 shows allocation of data for different services (i.e. eMBB, URLLC, mMTC) over the full system bandwidth, whereas Fig. 4 shows how each TB, made up of a plurality of CBs, is separately packaged and independently delivered without waiting for other TBs. Paragraphs 93-95 and 113 further describe how the length of a TTI used for URLLC may be shorter than that of eMBB/mMTC to achieve low latency, similar to that alleged by Applicant. Therefore, the pending rejections based on Yeo, Lin, and Hwang are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 10-11 of the Amendment, Applicant cites the rejection as acknowledging that Yeo fails to show mapping a plurality of TBs to the same codeword within a single HARQ process on a single carrier, contending that, although Lin shows multiple TBs associated with a common codeword in the context of carrier aggregation, those TBs are transmitted on different carriers with their own HARQ process. Thus, Applicant alleges Lin does not teach the claimed requirement that the resource space corresponds to the set of TBs in a single HARQ process in a single carrier. Applicant further contests tertiary reference to Hwang as inapposite to the claimed invention, in that Hwang fails to teach simultaneous transmission of HARQ-ACK for multiple TBs over the same channel.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments focus solely on the secondary teachings in Lin rather than the combination of Yeo, Lin and Hwang, as provided in the rejection. Yeo is primarily cited for showing multiple TBs and indicating resource allocation to different time-frequency resources within the same resource space as well as providing for simultaneous transmission of HARQ feedback for multiple TBs over the same channel. Lin is only referenced for showing that mapping multiple TBs with a common codeword is known in the prior art. Lin is not relied upon to teach (or re-teach) that which is relied upon in Yeo. Similarly, Hwang is relied upon to show transmission of HARQ feedback for multiple TBs/CBGs over the same channel when a single-carrier property is required. Thus, it is the combination of Yeo, Lin, and Hwang, rather than either reference alone, that is relied upon to meet the express claim language. Therefore, the rejections are properly maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 12 of the Amendment, Applicant contends further distinction between the cited art and the pending claims, alleging the claimed invention employs a TB-based multi-TB scheme that only requires a single level of CRC verification to reduce overhead and allowing for different sizes of TBs that provides greater flexibility.
The Examiner respectfully notes that none of these purported advantages are expressly provided in the claims. The claims do not cover CRC verification or various sizes of TBs let alone overhead reduction or flexibility provided by such topics. Therefore, the pending rejections are properly maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights