DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
This action is responsive to the Applicant's amendments filed on 08/06/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. No claims have been amended. Any examiner's note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ Argument:
Andgart does not disclose at least transmit a message indicating: a decoding order for a user equipment (UE) to decode a first plurality of repetitions of a data transmission, iteration instructions indicating a quantity of iterations to perform on the first plurality of repetitions, or a combination thereof as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Andgart explicitly in paragraph [0016] discloses a method, performed in a radio network node (20), of receiving transmission feedback, the method comprising transmitting, using a set of transmission properties, a first sequence of two or more transport blocks to a receiving wireless device, wherein the transmitting is performed without waiting for acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback in-between transport block transmissions, and wherein each of the transport blocks in the first sequence relates to a same packet. The method in these embodiments also comprises receiving, from the receiving wireless device, the ACK/NACK feedback, indicating reception and decoding outcome of the transport block sequence in the receiving wireless device, wherein the ACK/NACK feedback defines a decoding margin of the decoding. Further, Andgart in paragraph [0047] teaches incremental redundancy allows a wireless device to attempt to receive and decode a first redundancy version of the transport block, and in case it fails, it receives a second redundancy version of the transport block, which it combines with the first one in so called soft combining and tries to decode. (Re)-transmissions of the same transport block occur at minimum 8 ms distance unless features such as automatic repetitions or Transmission time interval, TTI, bundling are used, by which several redundancy versions are transmitted in subsequent sub frames without waiting for feedback on whether a previous redundancy version was successfully decoded. Furthermore, in paragraph [0072] FIG. 1a illustrates a communication system comprising a radio network node, in LTE an eNodeB 20, and a wireless device 10, in LTE a UE, where the proposed technique may be implemented. In this example the eNodeB 20 transmits a sequence of transport blocks to the UE 10, one transport block after another, without waiting for an ACK/NACK report from the UE 10 in-between transmissions. Each transport block in the sequence relates to the same packet (e.g., each transport block in the sequence is a retransmission of the packet that can be used by the receiver in soft combinations with earlier-received transport blocks to assist with decoding). The UE acknowledges successful reception and indicates a margin of the successful decoding using an aspect of the proposed technique.
The examiner would like to point out that the transport block (TB) sequence (as per scheduling/sequence numbers) determines the order in which the receiver applies the decoding steps.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the concepts are taught in Andgart’s reference to the extent required by the actual claim language. Further, the interpretation of the claim language must be as broad as possible for the given art. If the Applicant needs a specific interpretation of the claim language, these details must be imported into the claims. These details cannot be read into the claim language when the claim language is so broad as to encompass other valid interpretations. Applicants are advised to review Andgart reference in its entirety for a complete and better understanding of the prior art applied. This may enhance the Applicants ability to formulate claim language that includes novelty of the application. It is the Examiner's conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not patentably distinct or novel over the prior arts of record. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly differentiates the claims from the prior art of record. Therefore, the applicants’ argument, although acknowledged, has not been found to be convincing and the application of the prior art in relation to the claimed invention is appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public
use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Andgart (US 2021/021124).
As per claim 1:
Andgart substantially teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the one or more memories store code comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the network entity to (see par. [0031]) transmit a message indicating a decoding order for a user equipment (UE) to decode a first plurality of repetitions of a data transmission, iteration instructions indicating a quantity of iterations to perform on the first plurality of repetitions, or a combination thereof (see par. [0016], [0019], [0047], [0053], [0058], [0072], [0081] - [0097], [0163]) transmit one or more repetitions of the first plurality of repetitions; and receive a feedback message corresponding to the one or more repetitions of the first plurality of repetitions based at least in part on the message (see par. [0080] - [0088], [0090 - 0103] and [0163).
As per claim 3:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the instructions to transmit the message are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit an indication of an index value corresponding to decoding the one or more repetitions at the UE, wherein the index value is based at least in part on a time-frequency resource location of the one or more repetitions or a repetition index of the first plurality of repetitions, and wherein the decoding order comprises the index value 2. (see par. [0107]-[0108]).
As per claim 4:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit an indication of a redundancy version sequence corresponding to a redundancy version pattern and the decoding order, wherein the one or more repetitions are transmitted in accordance with the redundancy version sequence (see par. [0047]-[0049]).
As per claim 5:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the instructions to transmit the message are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on at least one of a power change or a state change at the network entity, an indication for the UE to perform a threshold quantity of iterations on a repetition of the one or more repetitions and to combine the iterations with log-likelihood ratios of remaining repetitions of the one or more repetitions, the iteration instructions comprising the indication (par. [0057] - [0058]).
As per claim 6:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the instructions to transmit the message are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit a second plurality of repetitions associated with a first set of transmission parameters; receive a channel state information report based at least in part on the second plurality of repetitions; and transmit a second set of transmission parameters associated with the first plurality of repetitions (see par. [0112] - [0114]).
As per claim 7:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the first set of transmission parameters and the second set of transmission parameters comprise a modulation and coding scheme, a rank parameter, a power control parameter, a beamforming parameter, a transmission-reception point panel parameter, a quantity of repetitions, or any combination thereof (see par. [0047] - [0054] and [0125] - [0126]).
As per claim 8:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the decoding order is based at least in part on a priority of the data transmission, a quality of service of the data transmission, a latency of the data transmission, or any combination thereof (see Par. [0018], [0051], and [0091] - [0101]).
As per claim 9:
Andgart substantially teaches wherein the message schedules a downlink shared channel repetition (see par. [0055] - [0058]).
Claim 10, and 19, these claims are directed to a method and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 9.
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 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 of this title, 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 2, 5, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andgart (US 2021/021124) in view of El Asmar et al. "herein El Asmar" (US 2021/0099262).
As per claim 2:
Andgart substantially teaches the claimed invention described in claim 1 (as indicated above). However, Andgart does not explicitly teach an indication of a threshold quantity of repetitions, wherein the one or more repetitions comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions, and wherein the decoding order comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions. El Asmar, in an analogous art, teaches an indication of a threshold quantity of repetitions, wherein the one or more repetitions comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions, and wherein the decoding order comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions "measuring a metric of the channel quality over a number of R.sup.CSI SF (for example SNR, MI, Spectral Efficiency, etc) and comparing this channel metric to one or more pre-determined thresholds, with n. being the number of SFs ne{1 32}) obtained based on the UE PDSCH decoding performance with the same number of PDSCH repetition. The thresholds are indicative of a desired PER of the received data. Generally, these thresholds are pre-determined and stored only for the discrete set of repetitions defined by the standard {1,2,4,8,16,32}. However, for use with other communication schemes, they may be extended to any value of repetitions between 1 and 32 since it does not involve real-time computations and only pre-determined, constant values. With thresholds corresponding to the targeted PDSCH decoding PER available for any number of SFs, as soon as one SF has been measured for CQI, the UE can use the corresponding CQI metric and compare it to the pre-determined threshold. If it passes the threshold, the UE can assume that it would reach the target PER for PDSCH decoding with the repetition level corresponding to the number of received SF. If not, the UE continues updating the metric and comparing it to the appropriate thresholds for all the next SF until the threshold is surpassed" (see El Asmar Par. [0078-0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Andgart with the teachings of El Asmar by including an indication of a threshold quantity of repetitions, wherein the one or more repetitions comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions, and wherein the decoding order comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that transmitting an indication of a threshold quantity of repetitions, wherein the one or more repetitions comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions, and wherein the decoding order comprises the threshold quantity of repetitions would have achieved a reduction in power consumption and an increase in speed of decoding operation.
As per claim 5:
Not Andgart explicitly teach transmit based at least in part on at least one of a
power change or a state change at the network entity, an indication for the UE to
perform a threshold quantity of iterations on a repetition of the one or more repetitions
and to combine the iterations with log-likelihood ratios of remaining repetitions of the
one or more repetitions, the iteration instructions comprising the indication. El Asmar, in an analogous art, teaches transmit based at least in part on at least one of a power change or a state change at the network entity, an indication for the UE to perform a threshold quantity of iterations on a repetition of the one or more repetitions and to combine the iterations with log-likelihood ratios of remaining repetitions of the one or more repetitions, the iteration instructions comprising the indication "measuring a metric of the channel quality over a number of R.sup.CSI SF (for example SNR, MI, Spectral Efficiency, etc) and comparing this channel metric to one or more pre-determined thresholds, with n being the number of SFs ne{132}) obtained based on the UE PDSCH decoding performance with the same number of PDSCH repetition. The thresholds are indicative of a desired PER of the received data. Generally, these thresholds are pre-determined and stored only for the discrete set of repetitions defined by the standard {1,2,4,8,16,32}. However, for use with other communication schemes, they may be extended to any value of repetitions between 1 and 32 since it does not involve real-time computations and only pre-determined, constant values. With thresholds corresponding to the targeted PDSCH decoding PER available for any number of SFs, as soon as one SF has been measured for CQI, the UE can use the corresponding CQI metric and compare it to the pre-determined
threshold. If it passes the threshold, the UE can assume that it would reach the target
PER for PDSCH decoding with the repetition level corresponding to the number of
received SF. If not, the UE continues updating the metric and comparing it to the appropriate thresholds for all the next SF until the threshold is surpassed" (see El Asmar Par. [0078-0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Andgart with the teachings of El Asmar by performing a threshold quantity of iterations on a repetition of the one or more repetitions and to combine the iterations with log-likelihood ratios of remaining repetitions of the one or more repetitions, the iteration instructions comprising the indication.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that performing a threshold quantity of iterations on a repetition of the one or more repetitions and to combine the iterations with log-likelihood ratios of remaining repetitions of the one or more repetitions, the iteration instructions comprising the indication. would have achieved a reduction in power consumption and an increase in speed of decoding operation.
Claim 11, and 20, these claims are directed to a method and computer readable medium and are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ESAW T ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phonenumber for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is(703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights