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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 10/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 10 regarding wherein a value indicating a priority of the first UL transmission is indicated by control information from the another terminal, have been considered and are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Li teaches “Alternatively, an E2E (End to End) or D2D (device to device) connection may also be established between terminals 110. In a case that a connection is established between terminals, if one or more terminals function as a base station in communication between terminals, the one or more terminals may also be regarded as the base station 120, and other terminals may be regarded as the terminal 110. For example, in the V2X scenario” (see para. 34-35); for further clarification Li teach, “only other information corresponding to the primary TRP, such as CSI feedback or SR, is transmitted. According to the priority order of the HARQ feedback, CSI and SR, the information with the lower priority is discarded, and the information with the higher priority is transmitted… PUCCH information having a highest priority among the at least two pieces of PUCCH information is transmitted on the PUCCH resources corresponding to the at least two pieces of PUCCH information, (see para. 187)”. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Li to teach this concept by a terminal receiving configuration information like transmission priority, from another terminal in a V2X, E2E or D2D scenario and transmitted on the PUCCH resources. Thus, Li still meet the scope of the limitations.
B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 10 regarding wherein the first parameter related to the first priority is a priority threshold of URLLC, have been considered and are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Asterjadhi teaches “the predetermined QoS parameter corresponds to one or more of a low latency threshold or a service priority threshold”, see para. 22; for further clarification Asterjadhi teach, “the STA has data traffic associated with a quality of service (QoS) parameter, such as a QoS threshold. Such a QoS threshold may be, for example, a latency below which communications of associated data traffic are to be delivered to a receiving device”. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Asterjadhi to teach the first parameter being a priority threshold of URLLC. Thus Asterjadhi in view of Li still meet the scope of the limitations.
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 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) 10-12, 14-15 and 19, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. 20220224465) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200077421).
Regarding claim 10 Li discloses, a terminal, comprising:
a processor para. 10, “a processor” configured to determine, in a case where a first uplink (UL) transmission of transmitting a HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) response received from another terminal to a base station overlaps in at least in a time domain with a second uplink (UL) transmission to the base station para. 178, “when the PUCCH resource, for transmitting HARQ, corresponding to a certain TRP in the base station overlaps with the PUCCH resource, for transmitting other uplink information, the terminal may solve this problem by adopting the discarded priority definition method”, whether a priority of the second UL transmission is a first priority that is higher than a second priority, and which of the first UL transmission or the second UL transmission is to be performed based on a first parameter para. 102, “HARQ feedback information corresponding to the primary transmitting point” related to the first priority and a second parameter para. 102, “non-HARQ feedback information corresponding to the another transmitting point” related to the second priority para. 191, “According to the priority order of the HARQ feedback, CSI and SR, the information with the lower priority is discarded, and the information with the higher priority is transmitted”; and
a transmitter configured to perform the first UL transmission para. 191, “For example, if the HARQ feedback has the highest priority, the HARQ feedback is transmitted” or the second UL transmission, based on the determination. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen only one of the alternatives.
wherein a value indicating a priority of the first UL transmission is indicated by control information from the another terminal para. 34, “Alternatively, Alternatively, an E2E (End to End) or D2D (device to device) connection may also be established between terminals 110. In a case that a connection is established between terminals, if one or more terminals function as a base station in communication between terminals, the one or more terminals may also be regarded as the base station 120, and other terminals may be regarded as the terminal 110.
Li does not specifically discloses, wherein the first parameter related to the first priority is a priority threshold of URLLC. However, Asterjadhi teaches, “the predetermined QoS parameter corresponds to one or more of a low latency threshold or a service priority threshold”, see para. 22.
Li and Asterjadhi are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to the quality of transmissions.
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 the teachings of Asterjadhi in the system of Li so the system is able to establish the priority of the transmission according to the required levels of latency needed to achieve the quality of service desired. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to dynamic select the best quality possible for the best transmission based on the relevant parameter.
Claim 11 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12 Li discloses, wherein, in a case where the priority of the second UL transmission is the first priority, the processor determines which of the first UL transmission or the second UL transmission is to be performed, based on a comparison result between a value indicating a priority of the first UL transmission and the first parameter para. 195, “PUCCH information having a highest priority among the at least two pieces of PUCCH information is transmitted on the PUCCH resources corresponding to the at least two pieces of PUCCH information”.
Regarding claim 14 Li discloses, wherein, in a case where the priority of the second UL transmission is the first priority, the processor determines that the second UL transmission is to be performed in a case where the first parameter is not configured to the terminal para. 169, “The configuration sub-information of another transmitting point includes a resource offset of a second time-frequency resource relative to the first time-frequency resource, the second time-frequency resource is a time-frequency resource configured by the another transmitting point for the terminal for performing an HARQ feedback, and the another transmitting point is any transmitting point among the N transmitting points except the primary transmitting point”.
Regarding claim 15 Li discloses, wherein, in a case where the priority of the second UL transmission is the second priority, the processor determines which of the first UL transmission or the second UL transmission is to be performed, based on a comparison result between a value indicating a priority of the first UL transmission and the second parameter para. 191, “According to the priority order of the HARQ feedback, CSI and SR, the information with the lower priority is discarded, and the information with the higher priority is transmitted”.
Claim 19 recites a system corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. 20220224465) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200077421), further in view of Su (U.S. Pub. 20190327731).
Regarding claim 13 Li and Asterjadhi does not specifically discloses, wherein the processor determines that the first UL transmission is to be performed in a case where the value indicating the priority of the first UL transmission is less than the first parameter, and determines that the second UL transmission is to be performed in a case where the value indicating the priority of the first UL transmission is equal to or greater than the first parameter. However, Su teaches, “the UE may suspend non time-sensitive data and reduce UL HARQ processes which handle lower priority UL data to only transmit re-transmissions of lower priority data”, see para. 152.
Li, Asterjadhi and Su are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to the priority of transmissions.
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 the teachings of Su in the system of Li and Asterjadhi so the system selects other relevant elements besides the priority of the transmission in order to execute the operations depending on other factors. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable dynamic modification to the configuration of the traffic selection.
Claim(s) 16, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. 20220224465) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200077421), further in view of Jose et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200137768).
Regarding claim 16 Li and Asterjadhi does not specifically discloses, wherein the processor determines to perform the first UL transmission in a case where a value indicating the priority of the first UL transmission is less than the second parameter, and determines to perform the second UL transmission in a case where the value indicating the priority of the first UL transmission is equal to or greater than the second parameter. However, Jose teach, “For example, the UE may be configured to prioritize a transmission opportunity that carries most data in an event that the first transmission opportunity and the second transmission opportunity are determined to comprise an equal priority”, see para. 35.
Li, Asterjadhi and Jose are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to the priority of transmissions.
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 the teachings of Jose in the system of Li and Asterjadhi so the system could select other relevant elements besides the priority of the transmission in order to execute the operations depending on other performing parameters. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable dynamic modification to the configuration of the traffic selection.
Claim(s) 17, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. 20220224465) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200077421), further in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230354402).
Regarding claim 17 Li and Asterjadhi does not specifically discloses, wherein the first parameter and the second parameter are common to a parameter related to a priority of sidelink transmission para. 61, “A sidelink logical channel for new transmission is prioritized according to a sidelink logical channel prioritization process. Each sidelink logical channel has an associated priority represented by a PPPP and optionally an associated PPPR”.
Li, Asterjadhi and Yin are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to the priority of transmissions.
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 the teachings of Yin in the system of Li and Asterjadhi so the system could compare between multiple channel conditions besides the priority of the transmission in order to execute the operations depending on other factors. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain the best quality of services by dynamically decides the traffic selection considering multiple variables besides its priorities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471