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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13-14, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the code” as used in each of these claims should read “the processor-executable code” for consistency with how this claim limitation is established in respective claims 1 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4 and 10-12 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.
The term “higher” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of communication probability metrics and the degree of error probability metrics required by the claim are made indefinite by the use of the term “higher” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any degree higher.
The term “lower” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of communication probability metrics and the degree of error probability metrics required by the claim are made indefinite by the use of the term “lower” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any degree lower.
The term “higher” in claims 10 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of reliability required by the claim is made indefinite by the use of the term “higher” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any degree higher.
The term “lower” in claims 10 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of reliability required by the claim is made indefinite by the use of the term “lower” in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as any degree lower.
Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2007/0208986), hereinafter “Luo”, in view of Xu et al. (US 2009/0245284), hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claims 1, 20, Luo teaches:
A first wireless device or a method for wireless communication at a first wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Luo, Fig. 1, par. [0027]: Controllers/processors 140 and 190 control the operation at transmitter 100 and receiver 150, respectively. Memories 142 and 192 store data and program codes for transmitter 100 and receiver 150); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (see Luo, Fig. 1, par. [0027]: Controllers/processors 140 and 190 control the operation at transmitter 100 and receiver 150, respectively. Memories 142 and 192 store data and program codes for transmitter 100 and receiver 150) to cause the first wireless device to:
encode the first set of bits using a first subcode that is mapped to the first message bit combination of a plurality of message bit combinations in accordance with a subcode mapping scheme (see Luo, par. [0052]: A message of 16 bits may be encoded with generator matrix G32,162 to obtain a codeword of 32 bits. If the message contains fewer than 16 bits, then a sub-code of the second-order Reed-Muller code may be used to encode the message; in this case, bits of a message (i.e. of a first message bit combination) are encoded using a subcode), each of the plurality of message bit combinations having the first quantity of bits (see Luo, par. [0048]: Generator matrix G contains B rows, where B is the message length in number of bits), wherein the subcode mapping scheme is based at least in part on a plurality of communication probability metrics for the plurality of message bit combinations and a plurality of error probability metrics for a plurality of subcodes that comprises the first subcode (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords; in this case, mapping is based on how often messages are sent (i.e. communication probability metrics) and relative distances, which correlates to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. error probability metrics));
However, Luo does not teach:
obtain a first set of bits having a first message bit combination that includes a first quantity of bits for inclusion in a message to be transmitted by the first wireless device; and
output the message comprising the encoded first set of bits.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
obtain a first set of bits having a first message bit combination that includes a first quantity of bits for inclusion in a message to be transmitted by the first wireless device (see Xu, Fig. 4, par. [0052]: FIG. 4 shows a design of a process 400 performed by the UE for sending feedback control information on the PUCCH. The UE may obtain CQI information and/or ACK information to send (block 412), and see par. [0033]: The CQI information may comprise M bits, where M may be any suitable value and M≤11 in one design. The ACK information may comprise N bits, where N may also be any suitable value; in this case, the information received corresponds to a first set of bits having a first message bit combination of bits to be transmitted); and
output the message comprising the encoded first set of bits (see Xu, Fig. 4, par. [0052]: the UE may encode M bits of the CQI information with the (20, M) block code (block 416) and may send the code bits on the PUCCH (block 418)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device or method of Luo with the obtaining bits and outputting the message of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein:
the subcode mapping scheme indicates a plurality of indexes (see Luo, par. [0038]: A block code may generate K codewords in a codebook such that codewords with good relative distance are placed early in the codebook and have low indices. An example of such a block code is a Reed-Muller code described below. In this case, the first L codewords c0 through CL-1 with indices of 0 through L-1, respectively, may already have good relative distance, and reordering may not be necessary), and
the plurality of indexes are based at least in part on an ordering of the plurality of communication probability metrics for the plurality of message bit combinations (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc; in this case, ordering, and therefore indexes, are based on how often messages are used (i.e. communication probability metrics)).
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
a first index of the plurality of indexes maps the first set of bits to the first message bit combination (see Xu, par. [0032]: the UE may encode only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information based on a linear block code. The UE may order the different types of information to send such that the Node B can recover the information even in the presence of DTX of one type of information, and see Table 1, par. [0037]: The (20, L) block code may be obtained by taking 20 rows and L columns of the (32, 21) second-order Reed-Muller code, where L may be any suitable value. The (20, L) block code may be defined by a generator matrix G20xL having 20 rows and L columns. Each column of G20xL is a basis sequence of length 20 and may be used to encode one information bit. Table 1 shows a generator matrix G20x13 for a (20, 13) block code for a case in which L=13; in this case, bits are mapped to particular rows and columns (i.e. indexes) in a table),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device or method of Luo with the index for mapping the message of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
the plurality of message bit combinations ordered in accordance with first sequential order of a respective communication probability metric for each of the plurality of message bit combinations (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc; in this case, ordering, and therefore indexes, are based on how often messages are used (i.e. communication probability metrics)), to
the plurality of subcodes ordered in accordance with a second sequential order of a respective error probability metric for each of the plurality of subcodes, wherein the second sequential order is reverse of the first sequential order (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0057]: Table 1 gives the relative distance x and the number of neighbor codewords y at relative distance x for (a) the first L codewords in a reordered codebook obtained from matrix generator G32,102 and (b) the first L codewords generated in the natural order with G32,102. For each value of L, for L=2, . . . , 10, the second and fifth columns give (x, y) for the reordered codebook, and the third and sixth columns give (x, y) for the natural order. The number of neighbor codewords and the relative distance both affect probability of error (PE) for messages, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords; in this case, mapping is based on relative distance, which is correlated to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. respective error probability). The messages most likely to be transmitted are mapped to lower likelihood of error, teaching the inverse relationship of the orders).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
one or more first message bit combinations, with higher communication probability metrics than one or more second message bit combinations, to one or more first subcodes with lower error probability metrics than one or more second subcodes (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords; in this case, mapping is based on relative distance, which is correlated to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. respective error probability). The messages most likely to be transmitted are mapped to lower likelihood of error), and
the one or more second message bit combinations, with lower communication probability metrics than the one or more first message bit combinations, to the one or more second subcodes with higher error probability metrics than the one or more first subcodes (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords; in this case, mapping is based on relative distance, which is correlated to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. respective error probability). The messages less likely to be transmitted are mapped to higher likelihood of error).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
the plurality of message bit combinations ordered sequentially, using a respective communication probability metric for each of the plurality of message bit combinations, to a plurality of sequential indexes (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0038]: A block code may generate K codewords in a codebook such that codewords with good relative distance are placed early in the codebook and have low indices. An example of such a block code is a Reed-Muller code described below. In this case, the first L codewords c0 through CL-1 with indices of 0 through L-1, respectively, may already have good relative distance, and reordering may not be necessary; in this case, ordering, and therefore indexes, are based on how often messages are used (i.e. communication probability metrics)), and
each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to a respective subcode of the plurality of subcodes ordered sequentially using a respective error probability metric (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0038]: A block code may generate K codewords in a codebook such that codewords with good relative distance are placed early in the codebook and have low indices. An example of such a block code is a Reed-Muller code described below. In this case, the first L codewords c0 through CL-1 with indices of 0 through L-1, respectively, may already have good relative distance, and reordering may not be necessary, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the plurality of subcodes are ordered such that a subcode with a lowest error probability metric among the plurality of subcodes is mapped to a lowest index of the plurality of sequential indexes resulting in a least significant bit of the lowest index being applicable to the subcode with the lowest error probability metric (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords, and see par. [0054]: Generator matrix G32,102 contains 10 rows, with each row corresponding to a different basis sequence. A 10-bit message may be represented as u=[u0 u1 . . . u9], where u0 is the least significant bit (LSB) and u9 is the most significant bit (MSB). The 10-bit message may be encoded with generator matrix G32,102 as shown in equation (1) to obtain a 32-bit codeword, which may be represented as x=[x0 x1 . . . x31]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein:
the plurality of message bit combinations are ordered sequentially from a highest communication probability metric to a lowest communication probability metric (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc), and
the plurality of subcodes are ordered from a highest error probability metric to a lowest error probability metric (see Luo, par. [0057]: Table 1 gives the relative distance x and the number of neighbor codewords y at relative distance x for (a) the first L codewords in a reordered codebook obtained from matrix generator G32,102 and (b) the first L codewords generated in the natural order with G32,102. For each value of L, for L=2, . . . , 10, the second and fifth columns give (x, y) for the reordered codebook, and the third and sixth columns give (x, y) for the natural order. The number of neighbor codewords and the relative distance both affect probability of error (PE) for messages, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords).
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
each respective set of bits for each index of the plurality of sequential indexes are ordered from a most significant bit to a least significant bit such that a first bit position in each respective set of bits is the most significant bit and a last bit position in each respective set of bits is the least significant bit (see Xu, par. [0038]: A message of K information bits may be defined based on only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information. The message may also be referred to as a word, input data, etc. In one coding design, CQI information may be mapped to M MSBs and ACK information may be mapped to N LSBs of the message, and see par. [0063]: the techniques may be used to send first information and second information, each of which may be any type of information. The first information may be mapped to M MSBs, where M≥1. The second information may be mapped to N LSBs if it is sent, where N≥1. The M MSBs and the N LSBs may be encoded with a block code comprising a first sub-code for the M MSBs and a second sub-code for the N LSBs),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of Luo with the ordered bits of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein:
the plurality of message bit combinations are ordered sequentially from a highest communication probability metric to a lowest communication probability metric (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc), and
the plurality of subcodes are ordered from a lowest error probability metric to a highest error probability metric (see Luo, par. [0057]: Table 1 gives the relative distance x and the number of neighbor codewords y at relative distance x for (a) the first L codewords in a reordered codebook obtained from matrix generator G32,102 and (b) the first L codewords generated in the natural order with G32,102. For each value of L, for L=2, . . . , 10, the second and fifth columns give (x, y) for the reordered codebook, and the third and sixth columns give (x, y) for the natural order. The number of neighbor codewords and the relative distance both affect probability of error (PE) for messages, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords).
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
each respective set of bits for each index of the plurality of sequential indexes are ordered from a least significant bit to a most significant bit such that a first bit position in each respective set of bits is the least significant bit and a last bit position in each respective set of bits is the most significant bit (see Xu, par. [0038]: A message of K information bits may be defined based on only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information. The message may also be referred to as a word, input data, etc. In one coding design, CQI information may be mapped to M MSBs and ACK information may be mapped to N LSBs of the message, and see par. [0063]: the techniques may be used to send first information and second information, each of which may be any type of information. The first information may be mapped to M MSBs, where M≥1. The second information may be mapped to N LSBs if it is sent, where N≥1. The M MSBs and the N LSBs may be encoded with a block code comprising a first sub-code for the M MSBs and a second sub-code for the N LSBs),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of Luo with the ordered bits of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches
wherein:
the plurality of message bit combinations are ordered sequentially from a highest communication probability to a lowest communication probability (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc), and
the plurality of subcodes are included in a generator matrix with a modified Reed Muller code ordering (see Luo, par. [0052]: A message of 16 bits may be encoded with generator matrix G32,162 to obtain a codeword of 32 bits. If the message contains fewer than 16 bits, then a sub-code of the second-order Reed-Muller code may be used to encode the message).
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
each respective set of bits for each index of the plurality of sequential indexes are ordered from a least significant bit to a most significant bit such that a first bit position in each respective set of bits is the least significant bit and a last bit position in each respective set of bits is the most significant bit (see Xu, par. [0038]: A message of K information bits may be defined based on only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information. The message may also be referred to as a word, input data, etc. In one coding design, CQI information may be mapped to M MSBs and ACK information may be mapped to N LSBs of the message, and see par. [0063]: the techniques may be used to send first information and second information, each of which may be any type of information. The first information may be mapped to M MSBs, where M≥1. The second information may be mapped to N LSBs if it is sent, where N≥1. The M MSBs and the N LSBs may be encoded with a block code comprising a first sub-code for the M MSBs and a second sub-code for the N LSBs),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of Luo with the ordered bits of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the plurality of communication probability metrics comprises a respective communication likelihood for a message corresponding to each of the plurality of message bit combinations (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of subcodes comprises a Reed Muller error correcting subcode (see Luo, par. [0052]: A message of 16 bits may be encoded with generator matrix G32,162 to obtain a codeword of 32 bits. If the message contains fewer than 16 bits, then a sub-code of the second-order Reed-Muller code may be used to encode the message).
Regarding claim 19, Luo teaches:
A first wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Luo, Fig. 1, par. [0027]: Controllers/processors 140 and 190 control the operation at transmitter 100 and receiver 150, respectively. Memories 142 and 192 store data and program codes for transmitter 100 and receiver 150); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (see Luo, Fig. 1, par. [0027]: Controllers/processors 140 and 190 control the operation at transmitter 100 and receiver 150, respectively. Memories 142 and 192 store data and program codes for transmitter 100 and receiver 150) to cause the first wireless device to:
decode the encoded first set of bits (see Luo, par. [0041]: At receiver 152, demodulator 162 provides received codewords to decoder 170. Decoder 170 decodes each received codeword and provides a corresponding decoded message to a message demapper 172) using the first subcode that is mapped to a first message bit combination of a plurality of message bit combinations in accordance with a subcode mapping scheme (see Luo, par. [0052]: A message of 16 bits may be encoded with generator matrix G32,162 to obtain a codeword of 32 bits. If the message contains fewer than 16 bits, then a sub-code of the second-order Reed-Muller code may be used to encode the message; in this case, bits of a message (i.e. of a first message bit combination) are encoded using a subcode), each of the plurality of message bit combinations having a first quantity of bits (see Luo, par. [0048]: Generator matrix G contains B rows, where B is the message length in number of bits), wherein the subcode mapping scheme is based at least in part on a plurality of communication probability metrics for the plurality of message bit combinations and a plurality of error probability metrics for the plurality of subcodes that comprises the first subcode (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords; in this case, mapping is based on how often messages are sent (i.e. communication probability metrics) and relative distances, which correlates to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. error probability metrics)).
However, Luo does not teach:
obtain a message comprising an encoded first set of bits that are encoded using a first subcode of a plurality of subcodes;
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
obtain a message comprising an encoded first set of bits that are encoded using a first subcode of a plurality of subcodes (see Xu, Fig. 5, par. [0055]: The Node B may receive a transmission on the PUCCH from the UE (block 512). The Node B may determine whether only CQI information is expected from the UE (block 514). If the answer is `Yes` for block 514, which may be the case if no data has been sent to the UE, then the Node B may decode the received transmission based on the (20, M) block code to obtain M decoded bits (block 516). The Node B may provide these M decoded bits as M CQI bits (block 518));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device or method of Luo with the obtaining a message of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Xu as applied to claims 1-9, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 11,509,414), hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a most significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to a first bit location with lower reliability than a second bit location in each subcode of the plurality of subcodes (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords, and see par. [0054]: Generator matrix G32,102 contains 10 rows, with each row corresponding to a different basis sequence. A 10-bit message may be represented as u=[u0 u1 . . . u9], where u0 is the least significant bit (LSB) and u9 is the most significant bit (MSB). The 10-bit message may be encoded with generator matrix G32,102 as shown in equation (1) to obtain a 32-bit codeword, which may be represented as x=[x0 x1 . . . x31]; in this case, the table mapping of codewords is done based on distance, corresponding to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. reliability)), and
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
wherein each respective set of bits for each index of the plurality of sequential indexes are ordered from a most significant bit to a least significant bit (see Xu, par. [0038]: A message of K information bits may be defined based on only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information. The message may also be referred to as a word, input data, etc. In one coding design, CQI information may be mapped to M MSBs and ACK information may be mapped to N LSBs of the message, and see par. [0063]: the techniques may be used to send first information and second information, each of which may be any type of information. The first information may be mapped to M MSBs, where M≥1. The second information may be mapped to N LSBs if it is sent, where N≥1. The M MSBs and the N LSBs may be encoded with a block code comprising a first sub-code for the M MSBs and a second sub-code for the N LSBs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of Luo with the ordered bits of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a least significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to the second bit location with a higher reliability than the first bit location, wherein each subcode is a respective polar code, wherein the subcode mapping scheme results in a respective most significant bit of each index being mapped to a least reliable bit location in a respective polar code and a respective least significant bit of each index being mapped to a respective most reliable bit location in the respective polar code.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a least significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to the second bit location with a higher reliability than the first bit location, wherein each subcode is a respective polar code, wherein the subcode mapping scheme results in a respective most significant bit of each index being mapped to a least reliable bit location in a respective polar code and a respective least significant bit of each index being mapped to a respective most reliable bit location in the respective polar code (see Zhang, col. 8, lines 54-64: One option for handling parity bits during polar encoding is to map the (K) information bits to be encoded (which may also include other assistant bits) to the most-reliable sub-channels, and then to map the parity bit(s) to the next-most reliable sub-channel(s) that are available after mapping the information bits to the most-reliable sub-channels. Another option is to map the parity bit(s) to the most reliable sub-channel(s), and then to map the information bits to the next-most reliable sub-channels that are available after mapping the parity bit(s) to the most-reliable sub-channels, and see col. 9, lines 21-39: the row weight may be computed as a function of the hamming weight of a channel index associated with the sub-channel. The hamming weight is the number of non-zero elements in a binary sequence representing the channel index. In one example, the sub-channels (N) are sorted into an ordered sequence (Q) based on their channel reliabilities such that the ordered sequence (Q) lists the sub-channels in ascending order (Q0, Q1, . . . QN) based on their reliability (where QN is the most reliable sub-channel). A minimum row weight value, denoted interchangeably in throughout this disclosure as wmin or dmin, may then be identified based on the row weights of a subset of the most reliable channels such as, for example, the most reliable K subset used for K information bits (e.g. Q(N−K+1) . . . QN) or the most reliable (K+P) subset used for K information bits and P parity bits (e.g. Q(N−K−P) . . . QN). The minimum row weight value in that most reliable subset may then be used to reserve sub-channels for the parity bits; in this case, reliable sub-channels correspond to reliable bit locations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mapping of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the specific mapping of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving decoding probability (see Zhang, col. 15, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Luo in view of Xu, and further in view of Zhang teaches the first wireless device.
The combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach, but Zhang teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps a cyclic redundancy check bit to a respective most reliable location in each polar code of the plurality of subcodes (see Zhang, col. 13, lines 5-11: information bits could include input bits that are to be encoded, and possibly CRC bits, parity bits, and/or other assistant bits that are used to assist in decoding. Sub-channel selection is based on reliabilities of the sub-channels, and typically the highest reliability sub-channels are selected as information sub-channels for carrying information bits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mapping of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the CRC bit of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving decoding probability (see Zhang, col. 15, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device. Luo further teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a most significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to a first bit location with lower reliability than a second bit location in each subcode of the plurality of subcodes (see Luo, par. [0045]: all K total messages m0 through mK-1 are remapped based on a reordered codebook. The messages that are used more often and/or are more important may be remapped to messages associated with codewords having larger relative distances. For example, the message used most often and/or is most important may be remapped to the message associated with the first codeword in the reordered list, the message used second most often and/or is second most important may be remapped to the message associated with the second codeword in the reordered list, etc, and see par. [0029]: The K codewords may have different distances to their nearest codewords. The performance of the coding scheme may be quantified by the minimum distance dmin among all of the distances for all K codewords in the codebook. This minimum distance determines the error correction capability of the worst codewords in the codebook. These worst codewords have the shortest distant to their nearest codewords and are thus most likely to be decoded in error among all K codewords in the codebook. In general, for a given set of codewords, the worst codewords are those with the shortest distance to the nearest codewords in the set, and the best codewords are those with the longest distance to the nearest codewords in the set. The best and worst codewords are thus typically given with respect to a specific set of codewords, and see par. [0054]: Generator matrix G32,102 contains 10 rows, with each row corresponding to a different basis sequence. A 10-bit message may be represented as u=[u0 u1 . . . u9], where u0 is the least significant bit (LSB) and u9 is the most significant bit (MSB). The 10-bit message may be encoded with generator matrix G32,102 as shown in equation (1) to obtain a 32-bit codeword, which may be represented as x=[x0 x1 . . . x31]; in this case, the table mapping of codewords is done based on distance, corresponding to likelihood of error in decoding (i.e. reliability)),
Luo does not teach, but Xu teaches:
wherein each respective set of bits for each index of the plurality of sequential indexes are ordered from a least significant bit to a most significant bit (see Xu, par. [0038]: A message of K information bits may be defined based on only CQI information or both CQI and ACK information. The message may also be referred to as a word, input data, etc. In one coding design, CQI information may be mapped to M MSBs and ACK information may be mapped to N LSBs of the message, and see par. [0063]: the techniques may be used to send first information and second information, each of which may be any type of information. The first information may be mapped to M MSBs, where M≥1. The second information may be mapped to N LSBs if it is sent, where N≥1. The M MSBs and the N LSBs may be encoded with a block code comprising a first sub-code for the M MSBs and a second sub-code for the N LSBs),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of Luo with the ordered bits of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of avoiding decoding errors during communication (see Xu, par. [0057]).
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a least significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to the second bit location with a higher reliability than the first bit location, wherein each subcode is a respective polar code, wherein the subcode mapping scheme results in a respective most significant bit of each index being mapped to a least reliable bit location in a respective polar code and a respective least significant bit of each index being mapped to a respective most reliable bit location in the respective polar code.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the subcode mapping scheme maps:
a least significant bit of each index of the plurality of sequential indexes to the second bit location with a higher reliability than the first bit location, wherein each subcode is a respective polar code, wherein the subcode mapping scheme results in a respective most significant bit of each index being mapped to a least reliable bit location in a respective polar code and a respective least significant bit of each index being mapped to a respective most reliable bit location in the respective polar code (see Zhang, col. 8, lines 54-64: One option for handling parity bits during polar encoding is to map the (K) information bits to be encoded (which may also include other assistant bits) to the most-reliable sub-channels, and then to map the parity bit(s) to the next-most reliable sub-channel(s) that are available after mapping the information bits to the most-reliable sub-channels. Another option is to map the parity bit(s) to the most reliable sub-channel(s), and then to map the information bits to the next-most reliable sub-channels that are available after mapping the parity bit(s) to the most-reliable sub-channels, and see col. 9, lines 21-39: the row weight may be computed as a function of the hamming weight of a channel index associated with the sub-channel. The hamming weight is the number of non-zero elements in a binary sequence representing the channel index. In one example, the sub-channels (N) are sorted into an ordered sequence (Q) based on their channel reliabilities such that the ordered sequence (Q) lists the sub-channels in ascending order (Q0, Q1, . . . QN) based on their reliability (where QN is the most reliable sub-channel). A minimum row weight value, denoted interchangeably in throughout this disclosure as wmin or dmin, may then be identified based on the row weights of a subset of the most reliable channels such as, for example, the most reliable K subset used for K information bits (e.g. Q(N−K+1) . . . QN) or the most reliable (K+P) subset used for K information bits and P parity bits (e.g. Q(N−K−P) . . . QN). The minimum row weight value in that most reliable subset may then be used to reserve sub-channels for the parity bits; in this case, reliable sub-channels correspond to reliable bit locations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mapping of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the specific mapping of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving decoding probability (see Zhang, col. 15, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device.
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the plurality of error probability metrics comprises a respective minimum distance metric for each of the plurality of subcodes, or a respective weight metric for each of the plurality of subcodes, or a respective probability of bit error or block error in an additive white gaussian noise (AWGN) channel for each of the plurality of subcodes.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the plurality of error probability metrics comprises a respective minimum distance metric for each of the plurality of subcodes, or a respective weight metric for each of the plurality of subcodes, or a respective probability of bit error or block error in an additive white gaussian noise (AWGN) channel for each of the plurality of subcodes (see Zhang, col. 2, lines 33-43: The polar code comprises a plurality of sub-channels, and the at least one parity bit is placed in at least one sub-channel of the plurality of sub-channels. The at least one sub-channel is selected from the plurality of sub-channels based on a weight parameter. In one example, the weight parameter comprises a minimal weight. In the same example, or another example, the plurality of sub-channels are ordered based on a reliability metric, and the at least one sub-channel is selected from a subset of the plurality of ordered sub-channels based on the minimal weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the metrics of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the weight metric of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving decoding probability (see Zhang, col. 15, lines 36-52).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Xu as applied to claims 1-9, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Gao (US 2025/0226936), hereinafter “Gao”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device.
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
output, to a second wireless device, control information comprising an indication of the subcode mapping scheme.
Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
output, to a second wireless device, control information comprising an indication of the subcode mapping scheme (see Gao, Fig. 12, pars. [0213-0215]: At step 1202, capability information of the terminal is reported, the capability information being configured for a network device to generate indication information. For example, the capability information is configured to indicate supporting the Type-2 layer mapping scheme. For example, the capability information may indicate that the Type-2 layer mapping scheme is supported to be enabled for the terminal transmission, or indicate the Type-2 layer mapping scheme is supported to be enabled for different layer transmission of the terminal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the indication of the subcode mapping scheme of Gao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring quality of data transmission (see Gao, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device.
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
obtain, from a second wireless device, control information comprising an indication of the subcode mapping scheme.
Gao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
obtain, from a second wireless device, control information comprising an indication of the subcode mapping scheme (see Gao, Fig. 11, pars. [0180-0183]: At step 1102, indication information is received. For example, the terminal receives the indication information sent by the network device. The indication information is configured to instruct the terminal to determine and enable a target mapping scheme. The target layer mapping scheme is a Type-1 layer mapping scheme or a Type-2 layer mapping scheme. For example, in an uplink or a downlink, the terminal determines and enables/activates/supports the target layer mapping scheme. That is, the terminal determines and enables the Type-1 layer mapping scheme or the Type-2 layer mapping scheme).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the indication of the subcode mapping scheme of Gao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring quality of data transmission (see Gao, par. [0057]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Xu as applied to claims 1-9, 16-17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 11,211,946), hereinafter “Xu2”.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Luo in view of Xu teaches the first wireless device.
However, the combination of Luo in view of Xu does not teach:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
monitor for a set of messages to be transmitted by a second wireless device, wherein the first set of bits comprises feedback bits that are indicative of whether the first wireless device successfully decoded each message of the set of messages.
Xu2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to:
monitor for a set of messages to be transmitted by a second wireless device, wherein the first set of bits comprises feedback bits that are indicative of whether the first wireless device successfully decoded each message of the set of messages (see Xu2, col. 7, lines 57-66: A receiver (not shown) of the second wireless communication device 204 receives the first transmission. If the decoder 214 (e.g., a module for decoding the first transmission 222) is not able to correctly decode the first transmission, the second wireless communication device 204 may send NAK feedback (not shown) to the first wireless communication device 202. In response to NAK feedback, the encoder 212 may encode a message for a second transmission (which may be referred to as a retransmission), and see col. 22, lines 45-55: the circuit/module for determining 1524 may obtain feedback information. For example, the circuit/module for determining 1524 may obtain an ACK or NAK (e.g., from the communication interface 1502, the memory device 1508, or some other component of the apparatus 1500). The circuit/module for determining 1524 may elect to retransmit if the feedback is a NAK or some other similar value. The circuit/module for determining 1524 may then output an indication of the determination (e.g., to the circuit/module for transmitting 1522, the memory device 1508, or some other component)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first wireless device of the combination of Luo in view of Xu with the monitoring for feedback of Xu2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving communication performance (see Xu2, col. 5, lines 7-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 2024/0340694) teaches a method by which a first wireless apparatus transmits a signal on the basis of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) by using a parity check (PC) polar code in a wireless communication system.
Shi et al. (US 2024/0356793) teaches a modulation method, a demodulation method, and a related apparatus.
Sankar et al. (US 2017/0338996) teaches user equipment and/or a base station, may perform polar coding to encode bits.
Wang et al. (US 2023/0283406) teaches a coding method and apparatus using polar coding and codeword bits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB J BALLOWE whose telephone number is (571)270-0410. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 7:30-5.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/C.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419