DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on May 15, 2024. Claims 1-30 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/6/2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 13-19, 21, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ognenoski et al. (WO 2024/173222).
Regarding Claim 1, Ognenoski teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored on one or more memories (“the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, … non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132” – See [0032]; “the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media. Examples of computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magnetooptical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs)” – See [0119]) and to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network entity, an indication of a policy for determining a code block group (CBG) configuration for a first transport block (TB), wherein the indicated policy indicates at least a channel metric for determining the CBG configuration (“The WTRU may receive a model or algorithm or be pre-configured with the model or algorithm 705 … The WTRU may receive the model through registration to the network where the model is transferred, sent, or indicated as part of the registration. The WTRU may receive the model through an association to a particular network cell where this operation is supported” – See [0094]; “The WTRU may store the model and start collecting model inputs 1020. The model inputs may be measured transmission-related parameters or states. For example, the WTRU may use one or a combination of any of the following: PDUs delay/latency; PDUs packet loss; PDUs ACKs/NACKs statistical information such as average number of ACKs/NACKs in predefined time interval, variations of the time instances when these ACKs/NACKs are sent; PDUs code block error distribution of Code Block Errors; soft buffer status statistics; or receiver characteristics (sensitivity thresholds)” – See [0117]; “The WTRU may be configured to use an artificial intelligence (Al) model for determining the second number of CBGs” – See [0003]; “the second number of CBGs may be a second maximum number of CBGs” – See [0088]; “the maximum number of CBGs (e.g. via a variable maxCodeBlockGroupPerTransportBlock)” – See [0110]; The UE receives, from the network, an indication of an algorithm/model (policy) for determining a number of CBGs per TB (CBG configuration for a first TB), wherein the algorithm/model indicates a channel metric to be used as input for the model when determining the CBG configuration);
determine the indicated channel metric based on the indicated policy and one or more channel measurements (“The WTRU may determine the second number of CBGs based on one or more measurements. The measurement may be, for example, PDUs delay/latency, PDU packet loss, statistical information on ACKs and NACKs, PDUs code block error distribution, soft buffer status statistics, and/or receiver characteristics (e.g. sensitivity thresholds)” – See [0104]; The UE determines the channel metric indicated as an input for the model/policy based on one or more measurements); and
transmit, to the network entity, an indication of the CBG configuration, wherein the CBG configuration is based on the determined channel metric (“The WTRU may determine the second number of CBGs based on predictions of packet delay or latency” – See [0088]; “The WTRU may send predictions/indications to the network 715.The predictions/indications may be via a lookup table or value for a particular parameter” – See [0095]; “The WTRU may transmit an indication of the determined second number of CBGs and associated precision metric 935. For example, the WTRU may transmit the indication over a control channel” – See [0104]; The UE transmits, to the network entity, an indication of the CBG configuration, wherein the CBG configuration includes a number of CBGs per TB that is determined based on the measurement/channel metric).
Regarding Claim 2, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the indicated channel metric comprises one of: a code block error ratio (CBER); a channel capacity; a delay spread; or a mobility level of the UE (“The WTRU may store the model and start collecting model inputs 1020. The model inputs may be measured transmission-related parameters or states. For example, the WTRU may use one or a combination of any of the following: PDUs delay/latency; PDUs packet loss; PDUs ACKs/NACKs statistical information such as average number of ACKs/NACKs in predefined time interval, variations of the time instances when these ACKs/NACKs are sent; PDUs code block error distribution of Code Block Errors; soft buffer status statistics; or receiver characteristics (sensitivity thresholds)” – See [0117]; “The WTRU may determine the second number of CBGs based on a current rate of ACK-to-NACK” – See [0088]; The metric comprises a code block error ratio as indicated by the ACK-to-NACK statistics, packet delay, etc.).
Regarding Claim 5, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the policy further provides a conservativity level for determining the CBG configuration; and the CBG configuration is further based on the conservativity level (“The WTRU may determine a precision metric associated with the determined second number of CBGs 930. For example, the precision metric may be a confidence interval, error margin, or accuracy coefficient. The precision metric may be statistical metrics. For example, the confidence interval may be an interval in which it is expected to contain the parameter being estimated, following the formula: Cl =Xmean + z(S/sqrt(n)) where Xmean is the sample mean, z is confidence level value, s is standard deviation and n is sample size” – See [0104]; The model/policy provides a precision/confidence level (conservativity level) for determining the CBG configuration).
Regarding Claim 7, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 5. Ognenoski further teaches that the conservativity level indicates a quantity of CBGs of the first TB for the CBG configuration as a function of the channel metric (“The WTRU may determine a precision metric associated with the determined second number of CBGs 930. For example, the precision metric may be a confidence interval, error margin, or accuracy coefficient. The precision metric may be statistical metrics. For example, the confidence interval may be an interval in which it is expected to contain the parameter being estimated, following the formula: Cl =Xmean + z(S/sqrt(n)) where Xmean is the sample mean, z is confidence level value, s is standard deviation and n is sample size” – See [0104]; The precision/confidence level (conservativity level) indicates a number of CBGs in the TB, wherein the number of CBGs is based on the channel metric).
Regarding Claim 11, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the CBG configuration indicates a quantity of CBGs of the first TB (“The WTRU may be configured to use an artificial intelligence (Al) model for determining the second number of CBGs” – See [0003]; “the second number of CBGs may be a second maximum number of CBGs” – See [0088]; “the maximum number of CBGs (e.g. via a variable maxCodeBlockGroupPerTransportBlock)” – See [0110]; The configuration indicates a number of CBGs in the TB).
Regarding Claim 13, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 11. Ognenoski further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive the first TB based on the CBG configuration (“The network may send and the WTRU may receive a TB/CBG 735” – See [0096]; The UE receives the first TB); and
transmit a respective acknowledgement (ACK) indication or respective negative acknowledgement (NACK) indication for each CBG of the first TB (“The WTRU may send a HARQ ACK or NACK 740. The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to the received TB/CBG. The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to a timing report (e.g. network configured timing) The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to a new data indicator (NDI) in the DCI. The WTRU may send a HARQ ACK if the TB/CBG was successfully decoded” – See [0096]; “The WTRU may transmit a HARQ-ACK or a HARQ- NACK for each of the third number of CBGs 955” – See [0104]; The UE transmits HARQ ACK/NACK feedback indicating whether each of the CBGs was successfully decoded).
Regarding Claim 14, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 13. Ognenoski further teaches that a quantity of respective ACK indications and respective NACK indications is equal to the quantity of CBGs of the first TB (“The WTRU may send a HARQ ACK or NACK 740. The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to the received TB/CBG. The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to a timing report (e.g. network configured timing) The HARQ ACK/NACK may be sent based on or in response to a new data indicator (NDI) in the DCI. The WTRU may send a HARQ ACK if the TB/CBG was successfully decoded” – See [0096]; “The WTRU may transmit a HARQ-ACK or a HARQ- NACK for each of the third number of CBGs 955” – See [0104]; The UE transmits HARQ ACK/NACK feedback for each of the CBGs. Thus, a number of ACK/NACK indications equals a number of CBGs in the TB).
Regarding Claim 15, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine the CBG configuration as a function of the indicated channel metric (“The WTRU may determine the second number of CBGs based on one or more measurements. The measurement may be, for example, PDUs delay/latency, PDU packet loss, statistical information on ACKs and NACKs, PDUs code block error distribution, soft buffer status statistics, and/or receiver characteristics (e.g. sensitivity thresholds)” – See [0104]; The UE determines the number of CBGs based on the measurements corresponding to the indicated channel metric).
Regarding Claim 16, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive a message, from the network entity, confirming or denying the CBG configuration (“The network may perform scheduling 725. The network may send and the WTRU may receive downlink control information (DCI) 730 The DCI may indicate scheduling information. The DCI may include modified information based on the WTRU predictions/indications” – See [0096]; The UE receives DCI from the network entity which modifies/denies the CBG configuration provided by the UE in step 715).
Regarding Claim 17, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive an updated policy for determining an updated CBG configuration for a second TB; and the updated policy comprises an indication of at least one of: an updated channel metric for determining the updated CBG configuration; or an updated conservativity level for determining the updated CBG configuration (See Fig. 10; As shown in Fig. 10, the flow executes in a loop such that the network entity provides, to the UE, a policy for determining a CBG configuration in step 1015. The flow loops back to steps 1005/1010/1015 when the WTRU determines that the precision is not sufficient in step 1030. When the step 1015 is executed a second time after looping back, the policy is an “updated” policy since it is provided after the initial policy).
Claims 18, 29, and 30 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 21 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claims 5 and 7.
Claim 25 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claims 11-13.
Claim 26 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 15.
Claim 27 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 16.
Claim 28 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ognenoski et al. (WO 2024/173222) in view of Teyeb et al. (US 2022/0264620).
Regarding Claim 3, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski does not explicitly teach that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, a first message requesting capability information of the UE indicating a set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining; and transmit a second message including capability information of the UE indicating the set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining.
However, Teyeb teaches receiving, from the network entity, a first message requesting capability information of the UE indicating a set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining and transmitting a second message including capability information of the UE indicating the set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining (“n one aspect there is provided method performed by a UE. The method includes the UE receiving a capability request message transmitted by a network node of a radio access network, RAN, implementing a first radio access technology, RAT, wherein the first RAT is either New Radio, NR, or Long Term Evolution, LTE. in response to receiving the capability request message, the UE generates a capability response message that indicates whether the UE supports a certain type of measurement” – See [0068]; The UE receives a capability request related to measurement types (channel metrics) that are supported by the UE. In response, the UE provides a second message indicating measurement types that the UE is capable of determining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ognenoski to receive, from the network entity, a first message requesting capability information of the UE indicating a set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining; and transmit a second message including capability information of the UE indicating the set of channel metrics that the UE is capable of determining. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the network entity to configure the proper measurements that are compatible with the UE’s capability (See Teyeb, [0101]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ognenoski in view of Teyeb teaches the apparatus of Claim 3. Teyeb further teaches that the indicated channel metric is based on the set of channel metrics (“Using the capability information provided by the UE, the network (NR) will be able to configure the proper idle/inactive mode measurements that are compatible to the UE's capability” – See [0101]; “the control message includes a dedicated measurement configuration for configuring the UE to perform measurements” – See [0132]; The measurement configuration configures a channel metric based on the set of metrics that the UE supports).
Claim 20 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ognenoski et al. (WO 2024/173222) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0403587).
Regarding Claim 8, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski does not explicitly teach that the indication of the policy comprises an index value to a look up table (LUT) including a plurality of different policies for determining the CBG configuration; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine the policy based on the index value and the LUT.
However, Lee teaches that the indication of the policy comprises an index value to a look up table (LUT) including a plurality of different policies for determining the CBG configuration; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine the policy based on the index value and the LUT (“The configuration information may include an identifier of the AI model. That is, the base station may transmit information on an index of the AI model, which is an object to be evaluated, to the UE according to the configuration information. When a plurality of AI models are to be evaluated, an index of the AI model may be included in the configuration information in the form of a sequence. In this case, the configuration information may be set according to an index of each AI model, or information for mapping the configuration information and the index of the AI model may also be included” – See [0076]; A plurality of AI models (policies) are included in a sequence/mapping (LUT). The UE receives an indication of a model/policy in the form of an index value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ognenoski such that the indication of the policy comprises an index value to a look up table (LUT) including a plurality of different policies for determining the CBG configuration; and the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to determine the policy based on the index value and the LUT. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the UE with information necessary to identify the policy being configured by the network entity, when a plurality of policies are available (See Lee, [0076]).
Claim 23 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 8.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ognenoski et al. (WO 2024/173222) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2022/252169).
Regarding Claim 9, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Ognenoski does not explicitly teach that the CBG configuration indicates a quantity of code blocks (CBs) per CBG.
However, Liu teaches that the CBG configuration indicates a quantity of code blocks (CBs) per CBG (“At block 610, the network entity receives, from the UE, an indication of a preferred CBG allocation scheme for re-transmission of at least one CB of the one or more CBs” – See [0078]; “the CBG time domain based allocation scheme may include twelve CBs per CBG” – See [0066]; The CBG configuration indicates a number of CBs per CBG (e.g., twelve CBs per CBG)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ognenoski such that the CBG configuration indicates a quantity of code blocks (CBs) per CBG. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the UE to provide the network entity with a preferred CBG allocation scheme for retransmission of at least one CB of one or more CBs (See Liu, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ognenoski in view of Liu teaches the apparatus of Claim 9. Liu further teaches that the first TB includes a total number of CBs; and based on the quantity of CBs per CBG and the total number of CBs of the first TB, the indication of the quantity of CBs per CBG indicates a quantity of CBGs of the first TB (“Assuming the PDSCH TB is segmented into 48 CBs (e.g., CB0-CB47) and a maximum number of CBGs is four CBGs (e.g., CBG0, CBG1, CBG2, and CBG3), the CBG time domain based allocation scheme may include twelve CBs per CBG (e.g., 48 CBs/4 CBGs=12 CBs per CBG)” – See [0066]; The first TB includes 48 CBs, wherein the indication of the quantity of twelve CBs per CBG indicates a quantity of four CBGs in the first TB).
Regarding Claim 12, Ognenoski teaches the apparatus of Claim 11. Ognenoski does not explicitly teach that the first TB includes a total number of CBs; and based on the quantity of CBGs of the first TB and the total number of CBs of the first TB, the indication of the quantity of CBGs of the first TB indicates a quantity of CBs per CBG.
However, Liu teaches that the first TB includes a total number of CBs; and based on the quantity of CBGs of the first TB and the total number of CBs of the first TB, the indication of the quantity of CBGs of the first TB indicates a quantity of CBs per CBG (“Assuming the PDSCH TB is segmented into 48 CBs (e.g., CB0-CB47) and a maximum number of CBGs is four CBGs (e.g., CBG0, CBG1, CBG2, and CBG3), the CBG time domain based allocation scheme may include twelve CBs per CBG (e.g., 48 CBs/4 CBGs=12 CBs per CBG)” – See [0066]; The first TB includes 48 CBs, wherein the indication of the quantity of four CBGs in the first TB indicates a quantity of twelve CBs per CBG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ognenoski such that the first TB includes a total number of CBs; and based on the quantity of CBGs of the first TB and the total number of CBs of the first TB, the indication of the quantity of CBGs of the first TB indicates a quantity of CBs per CBG for the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 9.
Claim 24 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights