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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-11 of Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 and 15-18 under §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim (US 2020/0252954 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, Claim 1 recites “transmit an indication of a maximum supported code block size (CB) size for a data channel” which has two conflicting interpretation. The claim language is ambiguous and has two possible interpretations wherein the maximum supported CB size is (1) a maximum supported CB size of the terminal to be used for communication in a data channel, or (2) a maximum supported CB size of the data channel to be used by the UE. For at least these reason(s), the metes and bounds of the Claim 1 are indefinite. Independent Claims 8 15 each recite the same ambiguous term and are indefinite for at least the same reason(s). Each of dependent Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 inherit this indefiniteness. As such, Claims 1-20 stand rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0252954 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches the below limitation(s):
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Kim Fig. 20 terminal), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Fig 20 terminal comprising processor 2010; [0037] instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable memory direct a computer to function as disclosed herein), configured to cause the UE to:
transmit an indication of a maximum supported code block (CB) size for a data channel ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; see also [0007] maximum CB size is reported by a terminal); and
process a data channel communication based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 block 1510 base station and terminal perform uplink or downlink data communication using configured maximum CB length; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the below limitation(s):
An apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (Kim Fig. 21 base station), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Fig 21 base station comprising processor 2110; [0037] instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable memory direct a computer to function as disclosed herein), configured to cause the network node to:
receive an indication of a maximum supported code block (CB) size for a data channel that is used by a user equipment (UE) ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; see also [0007] maximum CB size is reported by a terminal); and
process a data channel communication that is associated with the UE based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 block 1510 base station and terminal perform uplink or downlink data communication using configured maximum CB length; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the below limitation(s):
A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Kim Fig 5 exemplary wireless procedure between UE 510 and base station 500), comprising:
transmitting an indication of a maximum supported code block (CB) size for a data channel ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; see also [0007] maximum CB size is reported by a terminal); and
processing a data channel communication based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 block 1510 base station and terminal perform uplink or downlink data communication using configured maximum CB length; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0252954 A1) in view of Li (US 2025/0119235 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Kim further discloses the below limitation(s): select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Kim [0006] the invention is directed to determining a size of a code block (CB) and transmitting/receiving data based on the determined CB size),
…
wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to process the data channel communication, are configured to cause the UE to:
process the data channel communication using the at least one of the transmission CB size or the lifting size ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
Kim does not disclose the below limitation(s): base at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size,
In the same field of endeavor of wireless data communication between a UE/terminal and a BS/network element, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Li [0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a lifting coefficient (lifting size)),
base at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a base graph size),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned apparatus/method to include calculating a CB size based on a base graph 1 (BG1) size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use BG1 to determine maximum CB size in order to limit the size to a threshold amount and enable segmentation of TBs that exceed the max CB size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Kim further discloses the below limitation(s): select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Kim [0006] the invention is directed to determining a size of a code block (CB) and transmitting/receiving data based on the determined CB size),
…
wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to process the data channel communication, are configured to cause the network node to:
process the data channel communication using the at least one of the transmission CB size or the lifting size ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
Kim does not disclose the below limitation(s): base at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size,
In the same field of endeavor of wireless data communication between a UE/terminal and a BS/network element, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Li [0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a lifting coefficient (lifting size)),
base at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a base graph size),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned apparatus/method to include calculating a CB size based on a base graph 1 (BG1) size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use BG1 to determine maximum CB size in order to limit the size to a threshold amount and enable segmentation of TBs that exceed the max CB size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Kim further discloses the below limitation(s): selecting at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Kim [0006] the invention is directed to determining a size of a code block (CB) and transmitting/receiving data based on the determined CB size),
…
wherein processing the data channel communication comprises:
processing the data channel communication using the at least one of the transmission CB size or the lifting size ([0188]-[0189] embodiment 2-1 terminal reports to the base station the maximum CB size that the terminal supports in transmitting data; [0007] invention is directed to segmenting a TB (i.e. process a data channel communication) by the maximum CB size reported by a terminal).
Kim does not disclose the below limitation(s): based at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size,
In the same field of endeavor of wireless data communication between a UE/terminal and a BS/network element, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): selecting at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a lifting size (Li [0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a lifting coefficient (lifting size)),
based at least in part on at least one of: a base graph 1 (BG1) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size, or a base graph 2 (BG2) maximum CB size that is based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0141] UE may calculate CB size K based on a base graph size),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned apparatus/method to include calculating a CB size based on a base graph 1 (BG1) size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use BG1 to determine maximum CB size in order to limit the size to a threshold amount and enable segmentation of TBs that exceed the max CB size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C 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.
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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights