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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the first full paragraph of page 8 and the first two full paragraphs of page 9 contend that either Yang or Yuan, respectively as an individual reference, fails to disclose or teach certain limitations. However, it must be noted that all of these limitations at issue were rejected by a combination of references, not by either Yang or Yuan alone. Thus, the examiner does not find these arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the second full paragraph on page 8 and the third full paragraph of page 9 are to the effect that even if Yang and Yuan are combined, the combination would be limited to and only be applicable to scenarios that are explicitly disclosed in either Yang or Yuan, respectively. With all due respect, this is unpersuasive, mainly because Applicant has not provided any supporting rationale as to why any combined teachings of Yang and Yuan would only be limited to scenarios and context that are explicitly described in those references. For many, if not most, combinations, it is properly contemplated that the combined teachings may be applicable in scenarios that may not be explicitly disclosed in the individual references, but are obvious to a PHOSITA in view of their knowledge level. The rejection takes pains to explain why the teachings cited in Yang and Yuan may be combined to reject the claim, and be applicable to the scenarios and contexts recited in the claims, and it is believed that this suffices to sustain the examiner’s burden in demonstrating obviousness under Section 103. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Please see rejection below for details.
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) 12,25,1-4,7,9-11,13,14,16-18,26,29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0274521 A1 to Yuan et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0104240 A1 to Yang.
As to claim 12, Yuan discloses An apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising: One or more memories comprising instructions: and One or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to (Fig. 1, paragraphs 2-5, 55-57, disclosing network device 101 and UEs):
transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), an indication of resources for communicating data in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) for the first UE (Fig. 9, paragraphs 85-88, “second” DCIs scheduling PUSCHs/PDSCHs for UE 1 and UE 2, respectively; note that DcI is transmitted from a BS to the UE(s): see Fig. 1, paragraphs 2-5, 55-57, such DCI teaching the recited “indication”), when resources for the PUSCH at least partially overlaps with resources for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) for a second UE scheduled by the network entity (Fig. 9, paragraphs 85-88, “second” DCIs scheduling PUSCHs/ PDSCHs for UE 1 and UE 2, respectively, where the two PUSCHs/PDSCHs for the two UEs 1 and 2 overlap, thus teaching the scenario where PUSCH is scheduled for a UE 1 and PDSCH is scheduled for a UE 2, where this PUSCH and this PDSCH overlap each other; further, paragraph 87: “resource 904 [for UE 1] and the resource 905 [for UE2] may … overlap or partially overlap in resource allocation”, where the overlapped resource “910 [sic, should be 920]” and non-overlapped resource “920 [sic, should be 910]” may be assigned different communication parameters such as MCS levels, thus teaching this limitation); and
receive, from the first UE, the PUSCH with the data on the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the resources for the scheduled PDSCH. (Fig. 9, paragraphs 85-88, see discussion above, where the data communicated in the “non-overlapped resource 920 [sic, should be 910]” teaches the recited “data on the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the resources for the scheduled PDSCH.”)
Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose resources for multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); the UCI multiplexed on a subset of the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with another conflicting resource.
Yang discloses resources for multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Fig. 12a, paragraphs 11,75,130-144, disclosing “the UCI can be piggybacked on the PUSCH” and “UCI-piggybacked PUSCH”); the UCI multiplexed on a subset of the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with another conflicting resource (Fig. 12a, paragraphs 11,75,130-144, disclosing, e.g., [paragraph 140] “if the UE initially succeeds in LBT [listen before talk data transmission] for the non-overlapped PUCCH resources, the UE may transmit the PUCCH including UCI on the non-overlapped PUCCH resources. In addition, the UE may attempt to sequentially perform the LBT operation for both of the overlapped PUSCH starting symbol and the non-overlapped PUSCH starting symbol, may determine the candidate starting symbol initially succeeding in LBT to be the starting symbol, and may then transmit the UCI-piggybacked PUSCH”, teaching to a phosita that one possibility is that the UCI can be transmitted through “UCI-piggybacked PUSCH” in a region in “non-overlapped PUSCH” [i.e., not overlapping with pucch, the “another conflicting resource” that overlaps partially with pusch] in which the LbT process is successful, thus teaching multiplexing UCI in a subset of PUScH that is non-overlapping with another conflicting resource [i.e., PUcCH], teaching this limitation).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate and/or combine Yang’s teachings above with Yuan’s teachings to reject this claim. In particular, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that the data communicated/included in Yuan’s teaching of “transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), an indication of resources for communication data in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) for the first UE” may be embodied by the UCI multiplexed in the PUSCH as disclosed in Yang, since these pieces of data are all communicated through the PUSCH, so that these two teachings are combinable to reject “transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), an indication of resources for multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) for the first UE”.
For the same reasons, Yang’s teaching of “the UCI multiplexed on a subset of the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with another conflicting resource” is combinable with Yuan’s teaching of “receive, from the first UE, the PUSCH with the data on the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the resources for the scheduled PDSCH”, to reject “receive, from the first UE, the PUScH with the UCI multiplexed on a subset of the resources for the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the resources for the scheduled pdsch”. These teachings are respectively combinable to a PHOSITA because it is obvious to make a corresponding connection between the multiplexed UCI in Yang, and the “data” that is communicated in the non-overlapping PUSCH resources disclosed in Yuan, so that Yang’s multiplexed UCI may be embodied/substituted by the “data” in non-overlapping PUSCH resources taught in Yuan, and vice versa, thus rendering these two teachings combinable. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor of channel resource management. The suggestion or motivation to combine would have been to improve the allocation, configuration, management of wireless channel resources for channels such as PUSCH, PDSCH,PUCCH, PDCCH. (Yuan, paragraphs 1-30; Yang, paragraphs 1-20). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claims 1 and 25, see rejection for claim 12.
As to claim 2, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Yuan further discloses wherein the PUSCH comprises a configured grant (CG) PUSCH or a dynamically scheduled PUSCH. (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCI schedules the PUSCHs dynamically)
As to claim 3, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Yuan further discloses wherein the PDSCH comprises a semi-persistently scheduled (SPS) PDSCH or a dynamically scheduled PDSCH. (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCI schedules the PDSCHs dynamically)
As to claim 4, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Yuan further discloses wherein: the PDSCH is scheduled via a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates the resources for the PDSCH that overlap with the PUSCH (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCI schedules the PDSCHs dynamically) ; and
the resources for communication the data comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources of the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the PDSCH (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCI schedules the PUSCHs/PDSCHs dynamically, wherein there are PUsCH resources for UE 1, for example, that do not overlap PDSCH resources assigned to UE 2, teaching this limitation).
Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Yang discloses multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Fig. 12a, paragraphs 11,75,130-144, disclosing “the UCI can be piggybacked on the PUSCH” and “UCI-piggybacked PUSCH”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate and/or combine Yang’s teachings above with Yuan’s teachings to reject this claim. In particular, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that the data communicated/included in Yuan’s teaching of “the resources for communicating the data comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources of the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the PDSCH” may be embodied by the UCI multiplexed in the PUSCH as disclosed in Gou, since these pieces of data are all communicated through the PUSCH, so that these two teachings are combinable to reject “the resources for multiplexing the UCI comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources of the PUSCH that are non-overlapping with the PDSCH”. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor of channel resource management. The suggestion or motivation to combine would have been to improve the allocation, configuration, management of wireless channel resources for channels such as PUSCH, PDSCH,PUCCH, PDCCH. (Yuan, paragraphs 1-30; Yang, paragraphs 1-20). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 7, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Yuan further discloses wherein: the PDSCH is intended for another UE; and the resources for communicating the data comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources identified by an indication from a network entity that scheduled the PDSCH. (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCIs schedule the PDSCHs and PUSCHs for different UEs)
Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Yang discloses multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Fig. 12a, paragraphs 11,75,130-144, disclosing “the UCI can be piggybacked on the PUSCH” and “UCI-piggybacked PUSCH”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate and/or combine Yang’s teachings above with Yuan’s teachings to reject this claim. In particular, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that the data communicated/included in Yuan’s teaching of “the resources for communicating the data comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources identified by an indication from a network entity that scheduled the PDSCH” may be embodied by the UCI multiplexed in the PUSCH as disclosed in Yang, since these pieces of data are all communicated through the PUSCH, so that these two teachings are combinable to reject “the resources for MUXing the UCI comprise one or more time uplink (UL) resources identified by an indication from a network entity that scheduled the PDSCH.”. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor of channel resource management. The suggestion or motivation to combine would have been to improve the allocation, configuration, management of wireless channel resources for channels such as PUSCH, PDSCH,PUCCH, PDCCH. (Yuan, paragraphs 1-30; Yang, paragraphs 1-20). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 7.
Yuan further discloses wherein the indication is provided via a downlink control information (DCI). (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCIs schedule the PDSCHs and PUSCHs for different UEs)
As to claim 10, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 9.
Yuan further discloses wherein the DCI schedules the PUSCH. (paragraphs 85-88, disclosing that the “second” DCIs schedule the PDSCHs and PUSCHs for different UEs)
As to claim 11, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 9.
Yuan further discloses wherein the DCI comprises a different DCI that is not scheduling the PUSCH. (paragraphs 77-79, disclosing that the “second” DCIs may contain other control information)
As to claims 13,14,16-18, see rejections for claims 2,3,9,10,11, in the same order .
As to claims 26,29, see rejections for claims 4,7, in the same order .
Claim(s) 8,15,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0274521 A1 to Yuan et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0104240 A1 to Yang, further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0071935 A1 to Papasakellariou et al.
As to claim 8, Yuan and Yang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 7.
Yuan and Yang do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the PDSCH comprises a semi-persistently scheduled (SPS) PDSCH; and the indication is provided in a previous SPS occasion.
Papasakellariou discloses wherein: the PDSCH comprises a semi-persistently scheduled (SPS) PDSCH; and the indication is provided in a previous SPS occasion. (paragraph 64: SPS PDSCH)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate and/or combine Papasakellariou’s teachings above with Yang and Yuan’s teachings to reject this claim, since these references all pertain to control signaling for wireless signals. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor of channel resource management. The suggestion or motivation to combine would have been to improve the allocation, configuration, management of wireless channel resources for channels such as PUSCH, PDSCH,PUCCH, PDCCH. (Kishiyama, paragraphs 1-10; Yuan, paragraphs 1-30; Yang, paragraphs 1-20; Papasakellariou, paragraphs 1-43). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claims 15,30, see rejections for claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 27, 6, 28, 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
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 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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463