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 Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 line 6 recites “base at least in part on at least one of: …” which is a typo, and should instead read “based at least in part on…” to be proper. Claim 9 recites the same typo, but analogous Claim 16 properly recites “based.” Appropriate correction is required for Claims 2 and 9.
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)(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)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2024/0098714 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches the below limitation(s):
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Lee Fig 13, [0048] and [00451 teach a wireless device comprising at least a processor and memory), configured to cause the UE to:
transmit an indication of a maximum supported code block (CB) size for a data channel (Fig 6 and [0111] the maximum size of the code block (CB) may be pre-determined …the maximum length of one code block may be determined according to the type of channel coding applied to the TB to be transmitted; see also Table 10 which teaches determining maximum CB size and [0168] BS may transmit the DCI to the UE so that the TBS is calculated to be equal or less than the size required for the CB segmentation, which examiner is interpreting as an indicating of maximum CB size in the DCI); and
process a data channel communication based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks, which examiner is interpreting as "processing a data channel communication").
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches the below limitation(s):
An apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Lee Fig 13, [0048] and [00451 teach a wireless device comprising at least a processor and memory), 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) (Fig 6 and [0111] the maximum size of the code block (CB) may be pre-determined …the maximum length of one code block may be determined according to the type of channel coding applied to the TB to be transmitted; see also Table 10 which teaches determining maximum CB size and [0168] BS may transmit the DCI to the UE so that the TBS is calculated to be equal or less than the size required for the CB segmentation, which examiner is interpreting as an indicating of maximum CB size); and
process a data channel communication that is associated with the UE based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks, which examiner is interpreting as "processing a data channel communication").
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the below limitation(s):
A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting an indication of a maximum supported code block (CB) size for a data channel (Lee Fig 6 and [0111] the maximum size of the code block (CB) may be pre-determined …the maximum length of one code block may be determined according to the type of channel coding applied to the TB to be transmitted; see also Table 10 which teaches determining maximum CB size and [0168] BS may transmit the DCI to the UE so that the TBS is calculated to be equal or less than the size required for the CB segmentation, which examiner is interpreting as an indicating of maximum CB size); and
processing a data channel communication based at least in part on the maximum supported CB size ([0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks, which examiner is interpreting as "processing a data channel communication").
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) 2-3, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2024/0098714 A1) in view of Li (US 2025/0119235 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lee further discloses the below limitation(s): 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 (Lee [0111] an arbitrary value of 0 or 1 can be inserted into the last CB (i.e. transmission CB) so that each CB can have the same length, which examiner is interpreting as processing based on transmission CB Size, alternatively [0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks).
Lee does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a 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,
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
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 for wireless communication to include using a lifting coefficient and a base graph to determine a maximum CB size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a lifting size and a base graph in order to accurately determine the maximum CB based on resource configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 2.
Lee further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the BG1 maximum CB size is a first number of bits, wherein the BG2 maximum CB size is a second number of bits, and wherein the first number of bits is greater than the second number of bits (Lee Table 10 teaches that BG1 has a maximum CB size of Kcb = 8448 and BG2 has a maximum CB size of Kcb = 3840).
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 for wireless communication to include a BG1 with a larger maximum number of bits than a BG2 as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use standard sizes for BG1 and BG2 to improve interoperability of the methods on different network configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Lee further discloses the below limitation(s): 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 (Lee [0111] an arbitrary value of 0 or 1 can be inserted into the last CB (i.e. transmission CB) so that each CB can have the same length, which examiner is interpreting as processing based on transmission CB Size, alternatively [0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks).
Lee does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a 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,
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
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 for wireless communication to include using a lifting coefficient and a base graph to determine a maximum CB size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a lifting size and a base graph in order to accurately determine the maximum CB based on resource configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lee further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein the BG1 maximum CB size is a first number of bits, wherein the BG2 maximum CB size is a second number of bits, and wherein the first number of bits is greater than the second number of bits (Lee Table 10 teaches that BG1 has a maximum CB size of Kcb = 8448 and BG2 has a maximum CB size of Kcb = 3840).
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 for wireless communication to include a BG1 with a larger maximum number of bits than a BG2 as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use standard sizes for BG1 and BG2 to improve interoperability of the methods on different network configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Lee further discloses the below limitation(s): 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 (Lee [0111] an arbitrary value of 0 or 1 can be inserted into the last CB (i.e. transmission CB) so that each CB can have the same length, which examiner is interpreting as processing based on transmission CB Size, alternatively [0111] according to the maximum length of CB, TB and CRC added to TB may be divided into code blocks).
Lee does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
select at least one of: a transmission CB size, or a 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,
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Li does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
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 for wireless communication to include using a lifting coefficient and a base graph to determine a maximum CB size as taught by Li. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a lifting size and a base graph in order to accurately determine the maximum CB based on resource configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Li to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li and further in view of Myung (US 2018/0375611 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 2.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size.
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size (Myung Fig 15 block 1540 and [0241] transmitter determines a block size to be applied to the LDPC encoding, based on the CBS (code block 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 for wireless communication to include encoding data based on a transmission CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to encode transmission based on CB size to prevent congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 2.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Lee [0112]-[0113] teaches calculating a TBS but does not teach using max CB size).
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 and associated [0241] if the TBS is not greater than the max CBS (code block size), the transmitter determines the TBS as the CBS without segmentation).
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 for wireless communication to include deriving a TBS based on a CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine a TBS based on a CB size such that the transmitted TBs do not cause congestion by exceeding maximum size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size.
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size (Myung Fig 15 block 1540 and [0241] transmitter determines a block size to be applied to the LDPC encoding, based on the CBS (code block 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 for wireless communication to include encoding data based on a transmission CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to encode transmission based on CB size to prevent congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Lee [0112]-[0113] teaches calculating a TBS but does not teach using max CB size).
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 and associated [0241] if the TBS is not greater than the max CBS (code block size), the transmitter determines the TBS as the CBS without segmentation).
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 for wireless communication to include deriving a TBS based on a CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine a TBS based on a CB size such that the transmitted TBs do not cause congestion by exceeding maximum size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 16.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size.
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): encode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size; or decode the data channel communication using the transmission CB size (Myung Fig 15 block 1540 and [0241] transmitter determines a block size to be applied to the LDPC encoding, based on the CBS (code block 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 for wireless communication to include encoding data based on a transmission CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to encode transmission based on CB size to prevent congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee and Li disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 16.
Lee and Li do not disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Lee [0112]-[0113] teaches calculating a TBS but does not teach using max CB size).
In the same field of endeavor of processing data according to a code block size, Myung does disclose the below limitation(s): derive a transport block size (TBS) of the data channel communication using at least the maximum supported CB size (Fig 15 and associated [0241] if the TBS is not greater than the max CBS (code block size), the transmitter determines the TBS as the CBS without segmentation).
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 for wireless communication to include deriving a TBS based on a CB size as taught by Myung. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine a TBS based on a CB size such that the transmitted TBs do not cause congestion by exceeding maximum size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee, Li and Myung to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on each element of the indicated claim(s).
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