DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 10/15/25.
Claim(s) 1-18, 31, 35 & 37 is/are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0264604 A1 in view of Hamss, U.S.US 2022/0078768 A1.
As to claim 35, Olsson teaches network infrastructure equipment for use in a wireless telecommunication system, wherein the network infrastructure equipment comprising:
controller circuitry;
transceiver circuitry, wherein the controller circuitry and the transceiver circuitry are configured to operate together such that the network infrastructure equipment is operable to:
receive, from a terminal device, uplink control information transmitted using uplink radio resources, wherein the uplink control information includes acknowledgement signaling in respect of one or more previous transmissions of downlink signaling from the network infrastructure equipment to the terminal device (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 9; i.e., [0009] the indicating the pre-emption priority level further comprises transmitting a field indicating the pre-emption priority level for a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgement, ACK, the field included in the DCI message, the DCI message one of scheduling);
determine that the acknowledgement signaling includes a negative acknowledgment indicating at least one of the one or more previous transmissions of downlink signaling from the network infrastructure equipment to the terminal device has not been successfully received by the terminal device (Olsson, page 2, paragraph 17, 20-21; i.e., [0017] multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgments, ACKs, multiplexed according to OAcK=ΣPPL= 1NAcK O ACK,PPD and OACK PPL represents a number of HARQ ACK information bits of priority value n and N AcK total represents a number of pre-emption priority levels; [0020] a beta factors field in a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, configuration information element, IE; and a multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgments, ACKs, physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, resource list parameter indicating a pre-emption priority level for each of the multiple HARQ ACKs).
But Olsson failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determine that the acknowledgement signaling includes a negative acknowledgment indicating at least one of the one or more previous transmissions of downlink signaling from the network infrastructure equipment to the terminal device has not been successfully received by the terminal device; in response determining that the acknowledgement
signaling includes the negative acknowledgement, allocate radio resources for the terminal device to transmit uplink data in the same way as if the terminal device had sent uplink control information including a scheduling request.
However, Hamss teaches the limitation wherein determine that the acknowledgement signaling includes a negative acknowledgment indicating at least one of the one or more previous transmissions of downlink signaling from the network infrastructure equipment to the terminal device has not been successfully received by the terminal device (Hamss, page 7, paragraph 83; i.e., [0083] Having uplink
control information messages with low reliability can impact the reliability of downlink and/or uplink data transmission. For example, unreliable HARQ-ACK feedback may result
in high probability of NACK-to-ACK or NACK/ACK missed detection. A WTRU
102 may multiplex the control signaling of different services having different latency and reliability requirements (e.g., services such as eURLLC, URLLC, eMBB and/or Massive
machine type communication (mMTC) among others), within in the same control message, which may impact the latency and/or reliability of transmissions ( e.g., the eURLLC transmissions). For example, multiplexing HARQ feedback of a URLLC with eMBB HARQ feedback); in response determining that the acknowledgement signaling includes the negative acknowledgement, allocate radio resources for the terminal device to transmit uplink data in the same way as if the terminal device had sent uplink control information including a scheduling request (Hamss, page 7, paragraph 83 & 88; i.e., [0083] Having uplink control information messages with low reliability can impact the reliability of downlink and/or uplink data transmission. For example, unreliable HARQ-ACK feedback may result in high probability of NACK-to-ACK or NACK/ACK missed detection. A WTRU 102 may multiplex the control signaling of different services having different latency and reliability requirements (e.g., services such as eURLLC, URLLC, eMBB and/or Massive machine type communication (mMTC) among others), within in the same control message, which may impact the latency and/or reliability of transmissions ( e.g., the eURLLC transmissions). For example, multiplexing HARQ feedback of a URLLC with eMBB HARQ feedback; [0088] plurality of time-frequency resources 200-1, 200-2 ...
200-N may carry control signaling for a plurality of services (e.g., control DCI scheduling for eMBB 210, DCI scheduling for URLLC service/eURLLC service 220, PDSCH for
eMBB 230, PDSCH for URLLC service/eURLLC service 240 and PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK feedback 250, among others. The time-frequency resources 200 may separately carry DCI scheduling for the eMBB service 210 and DCI scheduling for eURLLC service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify base stations and/or network
elements from Hamss to base station controller from Olsson to utilize multiple transceivers for each sector of the cell (Hamss, page 2, paragraph 31).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 11-14, 17, 31 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0264604 A1 in view of Bae, U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0084644 A1, and further in view of Hamss, U.S.US 2022/0078768 A1.
As to claim 1, Olsson teaches a method of operating a terminal device in a wireless telecommunications system, the method comprising:
determining first uplink control information should be transmitted using a first set of radio resources (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 11-12; i.e., [0012] transmitting a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control. In some embodiments of this aspect, the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is one of a priority field and a pre-emption priority level field);
determining the first uplink control information is associated with a first priority level (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 11-12; i.e., [0011] the indicating the pre-emption priority level comprises indicating the preemption priority level in at least one of: a beta offset indicator; a radio resource control, RRC, signaling; a field within a channel state information report configuration information element, IE; and a multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgments, ACKs, physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, resource list parameter indicating a pre-emption priority level for each of the multiple HARQ ACKs; [0012] transmitting a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control, RRC, the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is one of a priority field and a pre-emption priority level field);
determining second uplink control information should be transmitted using a second set of radio resources (Olsson, page 2, paragraph 17, 20-21; i.e., [0017] In some embodiments of this aspect, resolving the conflict between the at least two uplink channels is further based on whether a timeline for uplink control information, UCI, multiplexing permits the wireless device to multiplex the at least two uplink channels. In some embodiments of this aspect, resolving the conflict between the at least two uplink channels further comprises when the pre-emption priority levels of the at least two uplink channels are a same, transmit the earliest uplink channel of the at least two uplink channels);
determining the second uplink control information is associated with a second priority level (Olsson, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] receiving a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control, RRC, configuration and a downlink control information, DCI, message. In some embodiments of this aspect, the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is one of a priority field and a pre-emption priority level field in a logical channel configuration information element);
transmitting the selectively multiplexed control information using the selected set of radio resources (Olsson, page 4, paragraph 31 & 34; i.e., [0031] uplink control information, UCI, multiplexing permits the wireless device to multiplex the at least two uplink channels. In some embodiments of this aspect, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the wireless device to resolve the conflict between the at least two uplink channels by being configured to cause the wireless device to when the pre-emption priority levels of the at least two uplink channels are a same, transmit the earliest uplink channel of the at least two uplink channels and drop the other of the at least two uplink channels; [0034] a radio resource control, RRC, signaling).
But Olsson failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determining if there is an overlap between the first set of radio resources upon which the first uplink control information should be transmitted and the second set of radio resources upon which the second uplink control information should be transmitted; in response to determining that there is the overlap between the first set of radio resources upon which the first uplink control information should be transmitted; performing a multiplexing operation selected from a plurality of different multiplexing operations based on which of a plurality of different priority relationships exists between the first priority level and the second priority level according to predetermined control information, wherein the plurality of different priority relationships includes (a) the first priority level being a higher priority level than the second priority level, (b) the second priority level being a higher priority level than the first priority level, and (c) the first priority level being a same priority level as the second priority level, and wherein the plurality of different multiplexing operations includes (i) multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information in a first manner, (ii) multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information in a second manner different from the first manner, and (iii) not multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information; selecting a set of radio resources to use for transmitting the selectively multiplexed control information which includes the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information selectively multiplexed in the selected multiplexing operation.
However, Bae teaches the limitation wherein determining if there is an overlap between the first set of radio resources upon which the first uplink control information should be transmitted and the second set of radio resources upon which the second uplink control information should be transmitted (Bae, page 9, paragraph 195, 198 & 202; page 13, paragraph 264 & 266; page 14, paragraph 282; i.e., [0195] different radio resources to which at least one uplink control information is allocated overlap with each other; [0264] Next, the UE 1510 may determine whether the first radio resource and the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) which is the other radio resource for the first service overlap on at least a part of the time axis or the frequency axis; [0266] When the first radio resource to which the first scheduling request is allocated and the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) overlap as the determination result, the UE; [0282] Next, the gNB 1520 may receive at least one uplink
control information allocated to different radio resources of which at least some among the plurality of resources overlap through the radio resource for the low-latency request service (S1420). ); in response to determining that there is the overlap between the first set of radio resources upon which the first uplink control information should be transmitted (Bae, page 9, paragraph 195, 198 & 202; page 13, paragraph 264 & 266; page 14, paragraph 282; i.e., [0202] For example, when first uplink control information and second uplink control information overlap on at least one of the time axis or the frequency axis, the UE 1510 may multiplex the second uplink control information related to a second service having a higher priority than a first service through a radio resource allocated for a second service together with the first uplink control information, and transmit the multiplexed second uplink control information to the gNB 1520. As yet another example, the UE 1510 may joint-encode the second uplink control information corresponding to the second service having the higher priority than the first service together with the first uplink control information. As still yet another example, the UE 1510 may scramble the second uplink control information corresponding to the second service having the higher priority than the first service together with the first uplink control information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson to substitute set of resources from Bae for a service from Olsson to support increased data
traffic, a dramatic increase in per-user data rate, acceptance of a significant increase in the number of connected devices, very low end-to-end latency, and high-energy efficiency (Bae, page 1, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify 5G NR from Lee for 3GPP from Olsson to supporting an ever-increasing end user data rate and system capacity (Lee, page 1, paragraph 4).
However, Hamss teaches the limitation wherein selecting a set of radio resources to use for transmitting the selectively multiplexed control information which includes the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information selectively multiplexed in the selected multiplexing operation (Hamss, page 11, paragraph 144; page 12, paragraph 144-145; i.e., [0144] The WTRU 102 may determine a priority associated with the data or the uplink control information (e.g., a
service-related priority and/or a transmission profile); [0145] the WTRU 102 may determine the priority of a given PUSCH transmission as the RRCconfigured
LCH priority of the highest priority LCH mapped to the PDU carried by the PUSCH transmission); performing a multiplexing operation selected from a plurality of different multiplexing operations based on which of a plurality of different priority relationships exists between the first priority level and the second priority level according to predetermined control information, wherein the plurality of different priority relationships includes (a) the first priority level being a higher priority level than the second priority level, (b) the second priority level being a higher priority level than the first priority level, and (c) the first priority level being a same priority level as the second priority level (Hamss, page 17, paragraph 219-229; page 18, paragraph 231 & 237; i.e., [0219] determine whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission. After this determination whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission; [0220] (i) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission (e.g., if yes), at block 740, the WTRU 102 may generate the multiplexed transmission, including a PDU, [0221] (ii) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission cannot be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission; [0224] the WTRU 102 may rank the transmissions per type (PUSCH, UCI, or SR), and may keep and/or maintain the top priority transmission per type ( e.g., only the top priority transmission per type) prior to running/executing the prioritization process. The WTRU 102 may drop the remaining lower priority (e.g., non-top priority) transmissions for each type; [0228] the WTRU 102 may determine a priority for each transmission ( e.g., a priority for the PUSCH and a priority for the SR). At block 815, the WTRU 102 may determine whether the priority of the PUSCH is less than the priority of the SR. If the priority of the PUSCH is less than the priority of the SR); and wherein the plurality of different multiplexing operations includes (i) multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information in a first manner, (ii) multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information in a second manner different from the first manner, and (iii) not multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information (Hamss, page 17, paragraph 219-229; page 18, paragraph 231 & 237; i.e., [0219] determine whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission. After this determination whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission; [0220] (i) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission (e.g., if yes), at block 740, the WTRU 102 may generate the multiplexed transmission, including a PDU, [0221] (ii) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission cannot be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission; [0224] the WTRU 102 may rank the transmissions per type (PUSCH, UCI, or SR), and may keep and/or maintain the top priority transmission per type ( e.g., only the top priority transmission per type) prior to running/executing the prioritization process. The WTRU 102 may drop the remaining lower priority (e.g., non-top priority) transmissions for each type; [0228] the WTRU 102 may determine a priority for each transmission ( e.g., a priority for the PUSCH and a priority for the SR). At block 815, the WTRU 102 may determine whether the priority of the PUSCH is less than the priority of the SR. If the priority of the PUSCH is less than the priority of the SR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify base stations and/or network
elements from Hamss to base station controller from Olsson to utilize multiple transceivers for each sector of the cell (Hamss, page 2, paragraph 31)
As to claim 2, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the selected set of radio resources to use for transmitting the selectively multiplexed control information is a selected one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources (Olsson, page 4, paragraph 31 & 34; i.e., [0031] uplink control information, UCI, multiplexing permits the wireless device to multiplex the at least two uplink channels. In some embodiments of this aspect, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the wireless device to resolve the conflict between the at least two uplink channels by being configured to cause the wireless device to when the pre-emption priority levels of the at least two uplink channels are a same, transmit the earliest uplink channel of the at least two uplink channels and drop the other of the at least two uplink channels; [0034] a radio resource control, RRC).
As to claim 5, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the selected set of radio resources to use for transmitting the selectively multiplexed control information is a third set of radio resources which is different from the first set of radio (Olsson, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] receiving a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control, RRC, configuration and a downlink control information, DCI, message. In some embodiments of this aspect, the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is one of a priority field and a pre-emption priority level field in a logical channel).
As to claim 8, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first uplink control information includes a scheduling request (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 9; i.e., [0009] the indicating the pre-emption priority level further comprises transmitting a field indicating the pre-emption priority level for a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgement, ACK, the field included in the DCI message, the DCI message one of scheduling).
As to claim 11, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second uplink control information includes acknowledgement signaling in respect of previous downlink signaling (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 9; i.e., [0009] the indicating the pre-emption priority level further comprises transmitting a field indicating the pre-emption priority level for a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest, HARQ, acknowledgement, ACK, the field included in the DCI message, the DCI message one of scheduling).
As to claim 12, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 11, wherein the second priority level is determined from an indication received in association with a resource allocation message for the previous downlink signaling (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 12; i.e., [0012] receiving a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control, RRC, configuration and a downlink control information, a priority field and a pre-emption priority level field in a logical channel configuration information element).
As to claim 13, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first priority level is determined from a service type for the first uplink control information or the second priority level is determined from a service type for the second uplink control information (Olsson, page 1, paragraph 8; i.e., [0008] allow the wireless device to resolve a conflict between the uplink channel associated with the pre-emption priority level and at least one other uplink channel for a same uplink resource. the uplink channel associated with the indicated pre-emption priority level is one of a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, and a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the pre-emption priority level is associated with at least one uplink control information).
As to claim 14, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of: the first priority level is determined from the first set of radio resources or the second priority level is determined from the second set of radio resources (Olsson, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] receiving a field indicating at least one set of logical channels, LCHs, that are allowed to use an uplink grant for a physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH. In some embodiments of this aspect, the uplink grant is one of an uplink configured grant and a dynamic grant and the field indicating the at least one set of LCHs is in one of a radio resource control, RRC).
As to claim 17, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of: the first priority level is determined from a time duration for the first set of radio resources or the second priority level is detained from a time duration for the second set of radio resources (Olsson, page 14, paragraph 129; i.e., [0129] a LCH is allowed or not allowed to use a dynamic grant or configured grant based on transmission parameters such as transmission duration, start and/or duration (in symbols), modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table to use, subcarrier spacing).
As to claim 37, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Olsson-Bae failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first operation includes multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information, and the second operation includes not multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information.
However, Hamss teaches the limitation wherein the first operation includes multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information, and the second operation includes not multiplexing the first uplink control information and the second uplink control information (Hamss, page 17, paragraph 219-229; page 18, paragraph 231 & 237; i.e., [0219] determine whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission. After this determination whether the lower-priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission; [0220] (i) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission can be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission (e.g., if yes), at block 740, the WTRU 102 may generate the multiplexed transmission, including a PDU, [0221] (ii) if the WTRU 102 determines that the lower priority transmission cannot be multiplexed with the prioritized transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify base stations and/or network
elements from Hamss to base station controller from Olsson to utilize multiple transceivers for each sector of the cell (Hamss, page 2, paragraph 31).
Claim(s) 31 is/are directed to a system claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 31 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0264604 A1 in view of Bae, U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0084644 A1, and Hamss, U.S.US 2022/0078768 A1, and further in view of Lohr, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2007/0121542 A1.
As to claim 3, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the selected one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources is the one which finishes earliest in time.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the selected one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources is the one which finishes earliest in time (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] The Hybrid ARQ protocol between a Node B and a user equipment allows for rapid retransmissions of erroneously received
data units, and may thus reduce the number of RLC (Radio Link Control) retransmissions and the associated delays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 4, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the selected one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources is the one which would result in the selectively multiplexed control information being transmitted with the lowest code rate.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the selected one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources is the one which would result in the selectively multiplexed control information being transmitted with the lowest code rate (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 15; i.e., [0015] maximum rate/power a user equipment is allowed to transmit during uplink transmission by allocating a set of different transport formats (modulation scheme, code rate, etc.) to each user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 6, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 5. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the third set of radio resources is selected to start at the earliest of start times for the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the third set of radio resources is selected to start at the earliest of start times for the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources (Lohr, page 4, paragraph 46; i.e., [0046] the start time and the validity period a user equipment is allowed to transmit. Updates of the "Node B controlled TFC Subsets" for different user equipment may be coordinated by the scheduler in order to avoid transmissions from multiple user equipment overlapping in time to the extent possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 7, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein selectively control information is transmitted using a transmission format selected to match that associated with the one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources which results in the selectively multiplexed control information being transmitted with the lowest code rate.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein selectively control information is transmitted using a transmission format selected to match that associated with the one of the first set of radio resources and the second set of radio resources which results in the selectively multiplexed control information being transmitted with the lowest code rate (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] The Hybrid ARQ protocol between a Node B and a user equipment allows for rapid retransmissions of erroneously received data units, and may thus reduce the number of RLC (Radio Link Control) retransmissions and the associated delays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 9, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 8. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first priority level is determined from a scheduling request identifier for the scheduling request.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the first priority level is determined from a scheduling request identifier for the scheduling request (Lohr, page 8, paragraph 89; i.e., [0089] the service type identification may be interest for example. In this respect, another embodiment of the invention foresees
to include a service type indicator in a scheduling request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 10, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 9. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first priority level is determined from a transmission periodicity configured for the scheduling request identifier.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the first priority level is determined from a transmission periodicity configured for the scheduling request identifier (Lohr, page 8, paragraph 89; i.e., [0089] the service type identification may be interest for example. In this respect, another embodiment of the invention foresees
to include a service type indicator in a scheduling request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 16, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein at least one of: determining a maximum allowable code rate for the first uplink control information and determining the first priority level from the maximum allowable code rate for the first uplink control information or determining a maximum allowable code rate for the second uplink control information and determining the second priority level from the maximum allowable code rate for the second uplink control information.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein at least one of: determining a maximum allowable code rate for the first uplink control information and determining the first priority level from the maximum allowable code rate for the first uplink control information or determining a maximum allowable code rate for the second uplink control information and determining the second priority level from the maximum allowable code rate for the second uplink control information (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 15; i.e., [0015] maximum rate/power a user equipment is allowed to transmit during uplink transmission by allocating a set of different transport formats (modulation scheme, code rate, etc.) to each user equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
As to claim 18, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein at least one of: the first priority level is determined from a transmission format for the first uplink control information or the second priority level is determined from a transmission format for the second uplink control information.
However, Lohr teaches the limitation wherein the first priority level is determined from a transmission format for the first uplink control information or the second priority level is determined from a transmission format for the second uplink control information (Lohr, page 5, paragraph 56; i.e., [0056] The data is transmitted within the transport channels during periodic Intervals commonly referred to as transmission time Interval (TTI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Channel from Lohr for uplink channel from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to maximize throughput/capacity by e.g. allocating transmission opportunities to the users in favorable channel conditions (Lohr, page 1, paragraph 11).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0264604 A1 in view of Bae, U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0084644 A1, and Hamss, U.S.US 2022/0078768 A1, and further in view of Marupaduga, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 10,660,095 B1.
As to claim 15, Olsson-Bae-Hamss teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Olsson-Bae-Hamss failed to teach the claim limitation wherein at least one of: the first uplink control information is classified as high priority data or as low priority data based on a comparison of the first priority level with a first predefined threshold priority level or the second uplink control information is classified as high priority data or as low priority data based on a comparison of the second priority level with a second predefined threshold priority level.
However, Marupaduga teaches the limitation wherein at least one of: the first uplink control information is classified as high priority data or as low priority data based on a comparison of the first priority level with a first predefined threshold priority level or the second uplink control information is classified as high priority data or as low priority data based on a comparison of the second priority level with a second predefined threshold priority level (Marupaduga, col 10, lines 55 – col 11, lines 8; i.e., the base station on the in-band carrier, the base station could decide at that time whether the WCD's priority level is threshold high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Olsson-Bae-Hamss to substitute shared interface resource from Marupaduga for suitable interface from Olsson-Bae-Hamss to for carrying data from the base station to WCDs and (ii) downlink control channels (Marupaduga, col 1, lines 45-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18, 31, 35 & 37 has/have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments include the failure of previously applied art to expressly disclose “performing a multiplexing operation selected from a plurality of different multiplexing operations based on which of a plurality of different priority relationships exists between the first priority level and the second priority level according to predetermined control information, wherein the plurality of different priority relationships includes (a) the first priority level being a higher priority level than the second priority level, (b) the second priority level being a higher priority level than the first priority level, and (c) the first priority level being a same priority level as the second priority level” (see Applicant’s response, 10/15/25, page 15-16). It is evident from the detailed mappings found in the above rejection(s) that Hamss disclosed this functionality (see Hamss, page 17, paragraph 219-229; page 18, paragraph 231 & 237). Further, it is clear from the numerous teachings (previously and currently cited) that the provision for “performing a multiplexing operation selected from a plurality of different multiplexing operations based on which of a plurality of different priority relationships exists between the first priority level and the second priority level according to predetermined control information, wherein the plurality of different priority relationships includes (a) the first priority level being a higher priority level than the second priority level, (b) the second priority level being a higher priority level than the first priority level, and (c) the first priority level being a same priority level as the second priority level” was widely implemented in the networking art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments drawn toward distinction of the claimed invention and the prior art teachings on this point are not considered persuasive.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Siomina, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20140126403 A discloses overlap between the plurality of radio resources.
Uemura, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20180184348 A1 discloses priority level; multiplexing of the radio resource.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416