DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1–10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “checking, by a first device, a first bit sequence based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code, to obtain a second bit sequence.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what operation is being performed. The claim does not clearly indicate whether the first device performs a CRC check, appends a CRC code, removes a CRC code, or otherwise processes the first bit sequence using a CRC code.
Accordingly, the scope of “checking … based on a CRC code” is unclear. Claim 1 further recites “dividing, by the first device, the second bit sequence into P bit sequences” and “generating, by the first device, Q codewords based on the P bit sequences.” This language is indefinite because the relationship between the P bit sequences and the Q codewords is unclear. It is not reasonably certain whether one bit sequence corresponds to one codeword, multiple bit sequences correspond to one codeword, or Q and P are intended to have some fixed relationship. Therefore, the claim does not distinctly define the claimed data-processing relationship.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 16, and 17, these claims recite an MCS index indicating code rates and modulation orders corresponding to the Q codewords, and in some instances recite “Q sub-indexes.” The claims are indefinite because the terminology used does not clearly define what a first MCS index is in this context, how one MCS index corresponds to multiple code rates and modulation orders, what Q sub-indexes are, and what is meant by “one group of a code rate and a modulation order.” The relationship among the MCS index, the sub-indexes, and the Q codewords is therefore unclear.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 18, and 19 recite “whether the second device uses a first receiving mode.” The term “first receiving mode” is indefinite because it is not defined with sufficient clarity. The claims do not specify what the first receiving mode is, how it differs from any other receiving mode, or what objective criteria establish whether the second device uses that mode. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is uncertain.
Claims 6 and 14 recite “Q is less than P, and one of the Q codewords is mapped to one or two layers in the P transport layers.” This language is indefinite because it is unclear whether a single codeword may be mapped to either one layer or two layers, the mapping depends on a condition not stated in the claim, or one codeword may be split across one or two layers. The phrase “one or two layers” does not particularly point out the claimed mapping relationship with reasonable certainty.
Claims 7 and 8 recite that the second bit sequence is divided based on a “capacity of each of the P transport layers” (claim 7), and the capacity is based on transmit power, interference power, and noise power (claim 8). These claims are indefinite because the term “capacity” is not defined with sufficient clarity. It is unclear whether capacity refers to Shannon capacity, throughput, payload length, scheduling capacity, or some other metric. Claim 8 further fails to clearly explain how transmit power, interference power, and noise power determine the stated capacity. Thus, the bounds of the claimed limitation are not reasonably certain.
Claim 20 recites that the apparatus receives Q codewords and a first MCS index and then determines code rates and modulation orders corresponding to the Q codewords based on the first MCS index. This claim is indefinite for the same reason as claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 16, and 17: the relationship among the MCS index, the code rates, the modulation orders, and the Q codewords is not clearly defined with reasonable certainty.
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 1-2, 10, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20190305887 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 112042139 A) and further in view of Blankenship (US 20100239035 A1.)
Regarding claim 1, 15 and 20, Jang discloses a method for operating a first device in a wireless communication system, including generating a first bit sequence including information, generating a second bit sequence including at least one of the first bit sequence, at least one CRC bit, at least one frozen bit, or at least one PC bit, generating a transmission bit sequence by performing polar encoding and rate matching for the second bit sequence, and transmitting the transmission bit sequence to a second device. See Jang ¶¶ [0031], [0072], [0078], [0095]-[0101], [0128]–[0132], [0184]–[0190], [0207]–[0209], [0213]–[0239]. However, Jang does not expressly teach dividing the second bit sequence into P bit sequences, where P is a quantity of transport layers and is greater than or equal to 2; generating Q codewords based on the P bit sequences; or sending the Q codewords to a second device through the P transport layers. Zhang teaches the same general polar-coding framework and supplies additional support for the CRC/PC-bit structure of the transmitted sequence. Zhang discloses generating a first bit sequence, generating a second bit sequence including at least one of a first bit sequence, at least one CRC bit, at least one frozen bit, or at least one PC bit, generating a transmission bit sequence by performing polar coding and rate matching on the second bit sequence, and transmitting the transmission bit sequence to a second device. See Zhang Abstract and Zhang Claim 1. Zhang therefore reinforces the teachings of Jang regarding polar coding with CRC/PC-bit inclusion, but still does not expressly teach the claimed multi-layer division and multiple-codeword transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jang and Zhang because both references are directed to the same field of wireless polar-coded transmission using CRC/PC-bit-based outer coding, and the combination would have yielded a predictable polar-coding implementation with redundant-bit handling. The combination would merely use known polar-coding techniques for their intended purpose. Blankenship teaches the missing multi-layer transmission aspect. Blankenship discloses receiving a first set of modulation symbols corresponding to a first transport block, partitioning the first set of modulation symbols into multiple parts, assigning each part to one of multiple MIMO layers, and transmitting the modulation symbols mapped onto the multiple MIMO layers. See Blankenship ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0045], [0054], [0061], [0064], [0088]–[0089]. Blankenship further teaches that transport blocks include a plurality of code blocks, that whole code blocks should be kept on a single layer as much as possible, and that CRC-based layer assignment facilitates SIC. See Blankenship ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0035], [0069]–[0077], [0079]–[0084]. 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 polar-coded transmission scheme of Jang, as supplemented by Zhang, to include the multi-layer partitioning and transmission concept of Blankenship in order to distribute encoded data across multiple transport layers, improve layered transmission efficiency, and facilitate receiver processing such as SIC. The combination would merely apply known techniques according to their established functions and would have produced a predictable result.
Regarding clams 2 & 16, Jang teaches generating a first bit sequence, generating a second bit sequence including CRC bit(s), frozen bit(s), and/or PC bit(s), generating a transmission bit sequence by polar encoding and rate matching, and transmitting the transmission bit sequence to a second device. See Jang ¶¶ [0031], [0072], [0078], [0095]–[0101], [0184]–[0190], [0207]–[0239], Jang does not expressly teach sending an MCS index to indicate code rates and modulation orders corresponding to multiple codewords. Zhang likewise teaches a polar-coding transmission framework involving a first bit sequence, CRC bit(s), frozen bit(s), and/or PC bit(s), polar coding, rate matching, and transmission to a second device. See Zhang Abstract and Zhang Claim 1. Zhang therefore reinforces Jang’s transmission framework, but Zhang also does not expressly teach sending an MCS index that indicates code rates and modulation orders corresponding to multiple codewords. Blankenship teaches that different modulation and coding schemes may be used in different uplink layers, and that per-layer MCS may be realized by assigning different code rates to the uplink layers. Specifically, Blankenship states that “different modulation and coding schemes may be used in different uplink layers” and that “per-layer MCS may only be realized by assigning different code rates to the uplink layers.” See Blankenship ¶ [0094]. Blankenship also discusses mapping code blocks to uplink layers and facilitating SIC based on the layer mapping. See Blankenship ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0071], [0079]–[0084], [0094]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polar-coded multi-layer transmission scheme of Jang, as supplemented by Zhang, to further include the MCS signaling concept taught by Blankenship, because Blankenship expressly teaches that layered wireless transmissions may use different modulation and coding schemes on different layers and that per-layer code rates may be controlled in a layer-mapped transmission system. Incorporating an MCS index would have been a predictable use of a known signaling mechanism to convey the code rate and modulation order associated with each transmitted codeword or layer, thereby improving link adaptation and allowing the transmitter and receiver to use compatible coding/modulation parameters.
Claim 10 recites corresponding features of claims 1 and 2; therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY QUOC NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-3139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights