DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 6/16/26. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echigo et al. (US 2024/0259880) in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0207878).
Regarding claim 1, Echigo teaches a communication method, comprising:
receiving first information, wherein the first information indicates a layer quantity of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see “The UE may be notified of the SRI, the TRI, the TPMI, and the like by using downlink control information (DCI)” [par 41] and “The TRI and the TPMI may be specified by precoding information and number of layers field ("Precoding information and number of layers" field) of the DCI” [par 43] which suggests the UE receives a DCI which includes “a layer quantity of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)”) and wherein the layer quantity of the PUSCH is not less than 2 (see “layer 1” and “layer 2” [Fig. 9, 10A, 10B; par 153]);
determining a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table based on the layer quantity of the PUSCH (see “The UE may determine an MCS table to refer, based on the number of layers of a PUSCH to transmit” [par 189] and “…a plurality of MCS tables indicating MCSs of respective separate layers may be referred [par 188]); and
sending the PUSCH based on the first MCS table (see “In the second embodiment, the UE may apply a different MCS for each layer and transmit a PUSCH” [par 152]).
Echigo does not explicitly teach receiving an indication of a maximum modulation order; wherein determining the first MCS table comprises selecting the first MCS table from a plurality of MCS tables based on the maximum modulation order. In an analogous prior art reference, Chen teaches receiving an indication of a maximum modulation order (see “In some cases, the UE may receive an explicit indication as to the maximum modulation order and/or the selected modulation scheme from the transmitting wireless device” [par 99]; wherein determining the first MCS table comprises selecting the first MCS table from a plurality of MCS tables (MCS tables) based on the maximum modulation order (see “In some aspects, eNB 610 and/or UE 650 may determine one or more modulation schemes (e.g., MCS) to use for transmission/reception of data channel( s) based on at least three MCS tables, where each MCS table is associated with a different maximum modulation order. In one example, UE 650 can determine a first modulation scheme from one of the MCS tables associated with a first maximum modulation order (e.g., 64 QAM, 256 QAM, or 1024 QAM) to use for monitoring for data channel(s) transmitted by the eNB 610 during a first subset of subframes, and determine a second modulation scheme from another one of the MCS tables associated with a second maximum modulation order to use for monitoring for data channel(s) transmitted by the eNB 610 during a second subset of subframes” [par 71]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Echigo to allow receiving an indication of a maximum modulation order; wherein determining the first MCS table comprises selecting the first MCS table from a plurality of MCS tables based on the maximum modulation order, as taught by Chen, in order to allow the UE and/or BS to determine a modulation order for the transmission of a control channel(s) at or below a determined maximum modulation order.
Regarding claim 2, Echigo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first MCS table comprises:
an MCS whose modulation order is 6 and whose target coding rate x 1024 is 455; or
an MCS whose modulation order is 6 and whose target coding rate x 1024 is 477 (see “Modulation Order” and “Target code Rate R x [1024]” for layer 0 and layer 1 in Figure 12 which may be specified with different target coding rates as known in the art).
Regarding claim 3, Echigo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a maximum modulation order in the first MCS table is 10 and wherein the first MCS table does not comprise an MCS whose modulation order is 8 and whose target coding rate x 1024 is 948 (see “Modulation Order” and “Target code Rate R x [1024]” for layer 0 and layer 1 in Figure 12 which may be specified with different modulation orders and target coding rates as known in the art).
Regarding claim 4, Echigo teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a first MCS index and a first parameter (MCS parameter) (see “In the present example, an MCS parameter for layer 0 and an MCS parameter for layer 1 are associated with each MCS index” [par 187]);
determining a modulation order of the PUSCH based on the first parameter (see “the UE may determine a modulation order (Qmsub1) and a target code rate (Rsubi) for layer 1, based on the MCS index for layer 1 (for example, given by the first MCS field)…” [par 201]); and
determining, as a target coding rate of the PUSCH, a target coding rate corresponding to the first MCS index in the first MCS table (see “Target code Rate R x [1024]” for layer 0 and layer 1 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 5, Echigo teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a first MCS index and a scale factor (MCS offset);
obtaining a modulation order of the PUSCH based on the scale factor or a target coding rate of the PUSCH based on the scale factor (see “the UE may determine a modulation order (Qmsub1) and a target code rate (Rsub i) for layer 1, based on the MCS index for layer 1 (for example, given by the first MCS field) and may determine a modulation order (Qmsub2) and a target code rate (R2) for layer 2, based on the MCS index for layer 2 (which may be given by the second MCS field or by the first MCS field and the MCS offset field, for example)” [par 201]); and
obtaining a modulation order corresponding to the first MCS index in the first MCS table or a target coding rate corresponding to the first MCS index in the first MCS table (see “the UE may determine a modulation order (Qmsub1) and a target code rate (Rsub i) for layer 1, based on the MCS index for layer 1 (for example, given by the first MCS field) and may determine a modulation order (Qmsub2) and a target code rate (R2) for layer 2, based on the MCS index for layer 2 (which may be given by the second MCS field or by the first MCS field and the MCS offset field, for example)” [par 201]).
Claims 6 and 16 recite subject matter similar to claim 1, but from the perspective of the network and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 7, 12, and 17 recite subject matter similar to claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 8, 13, and 18 recite subject matter similar to claim 3, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 9, 14, and 19 recite subject matter similar to claim 4, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 recite subject matter similar to claim 5, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 11 recites subject matter similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights