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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 15, and 28 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly discovered prior art of record Jung et al. (US 2022/0279538), hereinafter Jung, teaches the newly added claim limitations. Jung teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling: “Assuming that UL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding UL grant of PUSCH and a priority of a configured PUCCH resource and that DL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding DL assignment of PDSCH and a priority of associated HARQ-ACK feedback, a UE can determine which PUSCH or PUCCH it will transmit among colliding PUSCHs and PUCCHs, according to PHY dropping/multiplexing rules. In one example, lower priority uplink channels (i.e. PUSCH and PUCCH) can include Rel-15 NR uplink channels that are dynamically scheduled or semi-persistently activated based on Rel-15 NR DCI formats or that are configured based on Rel-15 NR RRC parameters” (Jung ¶ 0029).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 12-13, and Claim 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0187226), hereinafter Choi, and further in view of Georgeaux et al. (US 2015/0215956), hereinafter Georgeaux, Luo et al. (US 2020/0145965), hereinafter Luo, and Jung et al. (US 2022/0279538), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches: A method for handling a collision between uplink transmission and downlink transmission, comprising: performing by the terminal the uplink transmission or receiving by the terminal the downlink transmission from a base station, according to the priority order: “As the first method of determining the priority, if downlink transmission 1 710 is 5G and uplink transmission 2 711 is 5G, the terminal gives priority to the transmission that is transmitted earlier in time. That is, the terminal receives downlink transmission 1 710 completely, and does not transmit a portion 715 of uplink transmission 2 711 that overlaps a portion 714 of downlink transmission 1 710 in the time domain, but only transmit the remaining portions of uplink transmission 2 711” (Choi ¶ 0151).
Choi does not explicitly teach: a terminal that employs a half-duplex frequency division multiplexing manner for communication and determining by the terminal a priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, based on types of transmission information and resource allocation manners, in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission; wherein the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner; wherein the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 1, Georgeaux teaches: a terminal that employs a half-duplex frequency division multiplexing manner for communication: “the method according to the invention is actually a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing the duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0084) and determining by the terminal a priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, based on at types of transmission information and resource allocation manners, in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “At least one the abovementioned purposes is achieved with a half-duplex (HD) frequency division duplexing (FDD) for data wireless communication systems, implementing an uplink and downlink prioritization respectively for a HD-FDD type mobile communication terminal during a transition between a downlink (DL) sub-frame, labelled n, and an uplink (UL) sub-frame, labelled n+1” (Georgeaux ¶ 0022) and “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission. In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favour the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi with Georgeaux to achieve the predictable result of dynamically prioritizing transmission/emission and reception along with overcoming the favor granted to transmission/emission in previous 3gPP standards. According to Georgeaux “the 3GPP standard has the drawback to systematically favor the emission of the cellular terminal to its reception. One purpose of the invention is to provide a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing a duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0019-0020).
Georgeaux does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner; wherein the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 1, Luo teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner: “In addition to the various techniques for configuration of resource assignments described above, wireless communications systems may further support overwriting rules (e.g., or priority rules) for such configuration techniques. That is, wireless communications systems may have a set of overwriting rules to determine which configuration is to be used in instances where more than one resource assignment or slot configuration is received for a given set of resources. For example, flexible resources in semi-static slot configuration may be overwritten to downlink or uplink symbols by SFI or implicit indication (e.g., RRC resource type configuration may be overwritten by SFI or implicit configuration of resource type). As another example, flexible resources in SFI may be overwritten (e.g., to uplink or downlink) by a dynamic DCI grant” (Luo ¶ 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Choi and Georgeaux with Luo to achieve the predictable result of improving resource management and slot format updating. According to Luo: “Generally, the described techniques provide for improved resource management (e.g., in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network) as well as efficient slot format updating” (Luo ¶ 0005).
Luo does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 1, Jung teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling: “Assuming that UL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding UL grant of PUSCH and a priority of a configured PUCCH resource and that DL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding DL assignment of PDSCH and a priority of associated HARQ-ACK feedback, a UE can determine which PUSCH or PUCCH it will transmit among colliding PUSCHs and PUCCHs, according to PHY dropping/multiplexing rules. In one example, lower priority uplink channels (i.e. PUSCH and PUCCH) can include Rel-15 NR uplink channels that are dynamically scheduled or semi-persistently activated based on Rel-15 NR DCI formats or that are configured based on Rel-15 NR RRC parameters” (Jung ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Choi, Georgeaux, and Luo with Jung to achieve the predictable result of maintaining up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serves UE's URLLC traffics. According to Jung: “At least some embodiments can provide detailed rules to drop or multiplex a CSI report(s) with other UCI and/or UL data based on an indicated physical layer priority of a PUCCH resource for the CSI report(s). This priority indication can be used by a network entity to maintain up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serve(s) UE's URLLC traffics” (Jung ¶ 0012).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the priority order comprises at least one of: determining a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on transmission time: “As the first method of determining the priority, if downlink transmission 1 710 is 5G and uplink transmission 2 711 is 5G, the terminal gives priority to the transmission that is transmitted earlier in time” (Choi ¶ 0151); determining a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on priority information of transmission channels: “The second method of determining the priority is to prioritize transmission or reception performed in a primary cell. If downlink transmission 1 710 is an downlink transmission performed in the primary cell, and uplink transmission 2 711 is an uplink transmission performed in a secondary cell, the terminal receives downlink transmission 1 710 completely, and transmits only the remaining portion of uplink transmission 2 711 without transmitting the portion 715 of uplink transmission 2 711, which overlaps the portion 714 of downlink transmission 1 710 in the time domain” (Choi ¶ 0152); determining a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on types of transmission information: “As the third method of determining the priority, the terminal determines which transmission is to be prioritized in an overlapping portion in view of the type of channel, the type of uplink control information (UCI), the payload size, and the like . . . in the case where uplink transmission 1 610 is an uplink data channel including control information, uplink transmission 2 611 is an uplink data channel including only data information, and uplink transmission 1 610 and uplink transmission 2 611 temporally collide as shown in FIG. 6 (indicated by reference numerals 614 and 615), the terminal first transmits an uplink data channel including control information of uplink transmission 1 610. That is, the terminal does not transmit the portion 615, which is a portion overlapping the uplink data channel of uplink transmission 2 611, and transmits only the remaining portions of uplink transmission” (Choi ¶ 0135) or in other words the priority is determined based on the type of transmission information, for example control information has a higher priority over other information in the UL; or determining a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on resource allocation manners.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 3, Choi, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 1.
Choi, Luo, and Jung do not teach: determining by the terminal the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: determining by the terminal the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission according to transmission indication information, wherein the transmission indication information is configured to indicate a transmission behavior of the terminal in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission.
Regarding Claim 3, Georgeaux teaches: determining by the terminal the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: determining by the terminal the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission according to transmission indication information: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080), wherein the transmission indication information is configured to indicate a transmission behavior of the terminal in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favour the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and Figs 7-9 above) where figures 7-9 show a DL and an UL transmission overlapping, or colliding, and the favoring of the UL or DL depends on the implementation signaled by the base station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Luo, and Jung with Georgeaux to achieve the predictable result of dynamically prioritizing transmission/emission and reception along with overcoming the favour granted to transmission/emission in previous 3gPP standards. According to Georgeaux “the 3GPP standard has the drawback to systematically favour the emission of the cellular terminal to its reception. One purpose of the invention is to provide a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing a duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0019-0020).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 3.
Choi, Luo, and Jung do not teach: wherein the transmission indication information comprises priority information, and the priority information is configured to indicate a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, wherein the priority information comprises at least one of: first priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission; or second priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission.
Regarding Claim 4, Georgeaux teaches: the transmission indication information comprises priority information, and the priority information is configured to indicate a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080), wherein the priority information comprises at least one of: first priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission: “In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favour the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080); or second priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission: “or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9 . . . the method according to the invention is actually a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing the duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and 0084 and Figs. 7-9 above) meaning the priority information can either prioritize uplink or downlink.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Luo, and Jung with Georgeaux to achieve the predictable result of dynamically prioritizing transmission/emission and reception along with overcoming the favour granted to transmission/emission in previous 3gPP standards. According to Georgeaux “the 3GPP standard has the drawback to systematically favour the emission of the cellular terminal to its reception. One purpose of the invention is to provide a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing a duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0019-0020).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein the transmission indication information is predefined by a protocol: “As the first method of determining the priority, if uplink transmission 1 610 is 5G and uplink transmission 2 611 is 5G, the terminal gives priority to the transmission that is transmitted earlier in time” (Choi ¶ 0133).
Choi, Luo, and Jung do not teach: the transmission indication information is obtained by receiving a downlink signaling from the base station.
Regarding Claim 12, Georgeaux teaches: the transmission indication information is obtained by receiving a downlink signaling from the base station: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Luo, and Jung with Georgeaux to achieve the predictable result of dynamically prioritizing transmission/emission and reception along with overcoming the favor granted to transmission/emission in previous 3gPP standards. According to Georgeaux “the 3GPP standard has the drawback to systematically favour the emission of the cellular terminal to its reception. One purpose of the invention is to provide a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing a duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0019-0020).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises at least one of: the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission occupying a same time domain unit: “the terminal transmits uplink transmission 1 610 in its entirety, and does not transmit a portion 615 of uplink transmission 2 611, which overlaps a portion 614 of uplink transmission 1 610 in the time domain, but only transmits the remaining portions of uplink transmission 2 611” (Choi ¶ 0133 and Choi Fig. 6 above); or a time interval between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being less than handover guard time, wherein the handover guard time is obtained by receiving a downlink signaling from the base station.
Regarding Claim 28, Choi teaches: A terminal for handling a collision between uplink transmission and downlink transmission, a processor: “These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine” (Choi ¶ 0030); and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor: “Here, it will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by computer program instructions . . . These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-usable or computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner such that the instructions stored in the computer-usable or computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means that implement the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks” (Choi ¶ 0030); wherein the processor is configured to: perform the uplink transmission or receive the downlink transmission from a base station, according to the priority order: “As the first method of determining the priority, if downlink transmission 1 710 is 5G and uplink transmission 2 711 is 5G, the terminal gives priority to the transmission that is transmitted earlier in time. That is, the terminal receives downlink transmission 1 710 completely, and does not transmit a portion 715 of uplink transmission 2 711 that overlaps a portion 714 of downlink transmission 1 710 in the time domain, but only transmit the remaining portions of uplink transmission 2 711” (Choi ¶ 0151).
Choi does not teach: determine a priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on types of transmission information and resource allocation manners, in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission; wherein the terminal employs a half-duplex frequency division multiplexing manner for communications; wherein the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; and the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 28, Georgeaux teaches determine a priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission based on types of transmission information and resource allocation manners, in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “At least one the abovementioned purposes is achieved with a half-duplex (HD) frequency division duplexing (FDD) for data wireless communication systems, implementing an uplink and downlink prioritization respectively for a HD-FDD type mobile communication terminal during a transition between a downlink (DL) sub-frame, labelled n, and an uplink (UL) sub-frame, labelled n+1” (Georgeaux ¶ 0022) and “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission. In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favour the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080); wherein the terminal employs a half-duplex frequency division multiplexing manner for communications: “the method according to the invention is actually a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing the duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi with Georgeaux to achieve the predictable result of dynamically prioritizing transmission/emission and reception along with overcoming the favor granted to transmission/emission in previous 3gPP standards. According to Georgeaux “the 3GPP standard has the drawback to systematically favor the emission of the cellular terminal to its reception. One purpose of the invention is to provide a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing a duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0019-0020).
Georgeaux does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; and the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 28, Luo teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner: “In addition to the various techniques for configuration of resource assignments described above, wireless communications systems may further support overwriting rules (e.g., or priority rules) for such configuration techniques. That is, wireless communications systems may have a set of overwriting rules to determine which configuration is to be used in instances where more than one resource assignment or slot configuration is received for a given set of resources. For example, flexible resources in semi-static slot configuration may be overwritten to downlink or uplink symbols by SFI or implicit indication (e.g., RRC resource type configuration may be overwritten by SFI or implicit configuration of resource type). As another example, flexible resources in SFI may be overwritten (e.g., to uplink or downlink) by a dynamic DCI grant” (Luo ¶ 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Choi and Georgeaux with Luo to achieve the predictable result of improving resource management and slot format updating. According to Luo: “Generally, the described techniques provide for improved resource management (e.g., in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network) as well as efficient slot format updating” (Luo ¶ 0005).
Luo does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; and the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 28, Jung teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling: “Assuming that UL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding UL grant of PUSCH and a priority of a configured PUCCH resource and that DL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding DL assignment of PDSCH and a priority of associated HARQ-ACK feedback, a UE can determine which PUSCH or PUCCH it will transmit among colliding PUSCHs and PUCCHs, according to PHY dropping/multiplexing rules. In one example, lower priority uplink channels (i.e. PUSCH and PUCCH) can include Rel-15 NR uplink channels that are dynamically scheduled or semi-persistently activated based on Rel-15 NR DCI formats or that are configured based on Rel-15 NR RRC parameters” (Jung ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Choi, Georgeaux, and Luo with Jung to achieve the predictable result of maintaining up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serves UE's URLLC traffics. According to Jung: “At least some embodiments can provide detailed rules to drop or multiplex a CSI report(s) with other UCI and/or UL data based on an indicated physical layer priority of a PUCCH resource for the CSI report(s). This priority indication can be used by a network entity to maintain up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serve(s) UE's URLLC traffics” (Jung ¶ 0012).
Claims 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #77 R1-142374, hereinafter Ericsson.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 3.
Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung fail to teach: the transmission indication information comprises duration allocation information, and the duration allocation information is configured to indicate a duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and a duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized.
Regarding Claim 6, Ericsson teaches: the transmission indication information comprises duration allocation information: “Alternatively, if prioritization levels are not defined, the conflict can be resolved by defining a UE-specific subframe pattern, similar to the TDD subframe configuration. In this case, the timing of Uplink-Downlink-Guard subframe is known to both eNB and UE once it is configured” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4), and the duration allocation information is configured to indicate a duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and a duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: “the timing of Uplink-Downlink-Guard subframe is known to both eNB and UE once it is configured. The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 6.
Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung fail to teach: during the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission; and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission; or during the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission is determined based on a first rule; and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission is determined based on a second rule; or the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized are periodic.
Regarding Claim 7, Ericsson teaches: during the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission: “the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4); and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe . . . When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4); or the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized are periodic: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 6.
Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: the duration is defined according to any of following time-domain units: frame, subframe, time slot or orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol.
Regarding Claim 10, Ericsson teaches: the duration is defined according to any of following time-domain units: frame, subframe “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4) wherein the duration is defined in terms of subframes, time slot or orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 6.
Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: in response to a first part of a duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, and a second part of the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the first part or transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the second part; or, during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that the uplink transmission is performed preferentially or the downlink transmission is performed preferentially.
Regarding Claim 11, Ericsson teaches: in response to a first part of a duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, and a second part of the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4): during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the first part or transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the second part: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4) meaning that the transmission performed according to the configuration sent in the initial message. Thus, the UL or DL transmission will be performed according to the configuration of the subframe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Choi, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Claims 15-16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 15, Georgeaux teaches: A method for handling a collision between uplink transmission and downlink transmission, comprising: transmitting by a base station transmission indication information to a terminal that employs a half-duplex frequency division multiplexing manner for communication: “A half-duplex (HD), frequency division duplexing (FDD), method for wireless communication systems, implementing an uplink and downlink prioritization respectively for a HD-FDD type mobile communication terminal during a transition between a downlink (DL) sub-frame” (Georgeaux Abstract), wherein the transmission indication information is configured to indicate a transmission behavior of the terminal in response to the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission. In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favor the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and Figs 7-9 below) where figures 7-9 show a DL and an UL transmission overlapping, or colliding, and the favoring of the UL or DL depends on the implementation signaled by the base station; wherein the transmission indication information comprises priority information: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080), the priority information comprises priority information based on at least one of types of transmission information or resource allocation manners: “or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9 . . . the method according to the invention is actually a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing the duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and 0084 and Figs. 7-9 below), and the priority information based on types of transmission information and resource allocation manners is configured to indicate a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission : “At least one the abovementioned purposes is achieved with a half-duplex (HD) frequency division duplexing (FDD) for data wireless communication systems, implementing an uplink and downlink prioritization respectively for a HD-FDD type mobile communication terminal during a transition between a downlink (DL) sub-frame, labelled n, and an uplink (UL) sub-frame, labelled n+1” (Georgeaux ¶ 0022) and “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission. In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favour the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Georgeaux Figs 7-9
Georgeaux does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner; the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signalin6.
Regarding Claim 15, Luo teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises: a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through downlink control information (DCI) dynamic resource allocation manner being higher than a priority of uplink or downlink transmission through a radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically allocation manner: “In addition to the various techniques for configuration of resource assignments described above, wireless communications systems may further support overwriting rules (e.g., or priority rules) for such configuration techniques. That is, wireless communications systems may have a set of overwriting rules to determine which configuration is to be used in instances where more than one resource assignment or slot configuration is received for a given set of resources. For example, flexible resources in semi-static slot configuration may be overwritten to downlink or uplink symbols by SFI or implicit indication (e.g., RRC resource type configuration may be overwritten by SFI or implicit configuration of resource type). As another example, flexible resources in SFI may be overwritten (e.g., to uplink or downlink) by a dynamic DCI grant” (Luo ¶ 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Georgeaux with Luo to achieve the predictable result of improving resource management and slot format updating. According to Luo: “Generally, the described techniques provide for improved resource management (e.g., in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) network) as well as efficient slot format updating” (Luo ¶ 0005).
Luo does not teach: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling.
Regarding Claim 15, Jung teaches: the priority order between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission further comprises at least one of: a priority of transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling; a priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH); or the priority of transmitting the PUSCH or PUCCH that is dynamically scheduled by the DCI, being higher than a priority of transmitting a PDSCH that is semi-statically scheduled through the RRC signaling: “Assuming that UL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding UL grant of PUSCH and a priority of a configured PUCCH resource and that DL DCI and/or an RRC configuration indicates a priority of a corresponding DL assignment of PDSCH and a priority of associated HARQ-ACK feedback, a UE can determine which PUSCH or PUCCH it will transmit among colliding PUSCHs and PUCCHs, according to PHY dropping/multiplexing rules. In one example, lower priority uplink channels (i.e. PUSCH and PUCCH) can include Rel-15 NR uplink channels that are dynamically scheduled or semi-persistently activated based on Rel-15 NR DCI formats or that are configured based on Rel-15 NR RRC parameters” (Jung ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Choi, Georgeaux, and Luo with Jung to achieve the predictable result of maintaining up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serves UE's URLLC traffics. According to Jung: “At least some embodiments can provide detailed rules to drop or multiplex a CSI report(s) with other UCI and/or UL data based on an indicated physical layer priority of a PUCCH resource for the CSI report(s). This priority indication can be used by a network entity to maintain up-to-date CSI information for UE's PCell or for TRPs or a serving cell that serve(s) UE's URLLC traffics” (Jung ¶ 0012).
Regarding Claim 16, Georgeaux teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the priority information further comprises at least one of: first priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission: “In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favor the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080); or second priority information configured to indicate that a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission: “or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9 . . . the method according to the invention is actually a method for dynamically prioritizing management of emission and reception blocks within the scope of implementing the duplexing scheme for a HD-FDD mode” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and 0084 and Figs. 7-9 above) meaning the priority information can either prioritize uplink or downlink.
Regarding Claim 29, Georgeaux teaches: A base station for handling a collision between uplink and downlink transmission: “the base station can inform the terminal of the priority the terminal should give to reception or emission. In the present case, the terminal could then know if it has to favor the emission to the reception as is proposed by the 3GPP standard or if it has to implement another prioritization as those illustrated by FIGS. 7, 8 and 9” (Georgeaux ¶ 0080 and Figs 7-9 above) where figures 7-9 show a DL and an UL transmission overlapping, or colliding, and the favoring of the UL or DL depends on the implementation signaled by the base station; comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 15: ”Advantageously, the base station can comprise means for emitting an allocation message using system information” (Georgeaux ¶ 0038). While Georgeaux does not explicitly state any one of these individual components, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these components are necessary for performing the methods described in the disclosure of Georgeaux and would be considered the means for emitting an allocation message using system information since the processor and memory would be required for interpreting the system information and transmitting the allocation message.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ericsson and Rico Alvarino et al. (US 2017/0324528) hereinafter Rico Alvarino.
Regarding Claim 18, Georgeaux teaches: The method of claim 16 wherein the priority information based on resource allocation manners is configured to indicate a resource allocation manner of the uplink transmission and a resource allocation manner of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “According to another aspect of the invention, it is provided a user equipment, in particular a station or a mobile communication terminal, connected to a wireless communication system with half-duplex (HD) frequency division duplexing (FDD) implementing a downlink and uplink prioritization respectively during a transition between a downlink (DL) sub-frame, labelled n, and an uplink (UL) sub-frame, labelled n+1” (Georgeaux ¶ 0039).
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not explicitly teach: wherein the priority information based on types of transmission information is configured to indicate an information type of the uplink transmission and an information type of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission; wherein the priority information comprises at least one of: priority information based on transmission time, configured to indicate start time of the uplink transmission and start time of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission; priority information based on transmission channels, configured to indicate a physical channel for the uplink transmission and a physical channel for the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission.
Regarding Claim 18, Ericsson teaches: priority information comprises at least one of: priority information based on transmission time, configured to indicate start time of the uplink transmission and start time of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission; or priority information based on transmission channels, configured to indicate a physical channel for the uplink transmission and a physical channel for the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “the timing of Uplink-Downlink-Guard subframe is known to both eNB and UE once it is configured. The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Ericsson does not teach: wherein the priority information based on types of transmission information is configured to indicate an information type of the uplink transmission and an information type of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission.
Rico Alvarino teaches: wherein the priority information based on types of transmission information is configured to indicate an information type of the uplink transmission and an information type of the downlink transmission to determine the priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission: “Also, as described hereinafter, SRS transmission component 198 may implement algorithms for managing collisions between such SRS transmissions and UL or DL operation on other CCs and for making adjustments based on, for example, a prioritization of channels, types of control information, carriers, etc” (Rico Alvarino ¶ 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, Jung, and Ericsson with Rico Alvarino to achieve the predictable result of addressing collisions between UL and DL on configured CCs. According to Rico Alvarino: “the UE may be separately configured to use an inactive uplink portion of a downlink-only CC to transmit SRS to the base station. At times there may be a collision between such an SRS transmission and uplink transmissions or the reception of downlink transmissions on another configured CC. Aspects presented herein enable the UE to address the challenges associated with such collisions” (Rico Alvarino ¶ 0010).
Claims 19-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ericsson.
Regarding Claim 19, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 15.
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung fail to teach: the transmission indication information comprises duration allocation information, and the duration allocation information is configured to indicate a duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and a duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized.
Regarding Claim 19, Ericsson teaches: the transmission indication information comprises duration allocation information: “Alternatively, if prioritization levels are not defined, the conflict can be resolved by defining a UE-specific subframe pattern, similar to the TDD subframe configuration. In this case, the timing of Uplink-Downlink-Guard subframe is known to both eNB and UE once it is configured” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4), and the duration allocation information is configured to indicate a duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and a duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: “the timing of Uplink-Downlink-Guard subframe is known to both eNB and UE once it is configured. The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 19.
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: wherein, during the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission; and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission; ordering the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission is determined based on a first rule; and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission is determined based on a second rule; or the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized are periodic.
Regarding Claim 20, Ericsson teaches: wherein, during the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the uplink transmission is higher than a priority of the downlink transmission; and during the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized, a priority of the downlink transmission is higher than a priority of the uplink transmission: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4); or the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized and the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized are periodic : “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 23, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 19.
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: the duration is defined according to any of following time-domain units: frame, subframe, time slot or orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol.
Regarding Claim 23, Ericsson teaches: the duration is defined according to any of following time-domain units: frame, subframe: “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4), time slot or orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Regarding Claim 24, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 19.
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: wherein in response to a first part of a duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, and a second part of the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the first part or transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the second part; or, during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that the uplink transmission is performed preferentially or the downlink transmission is performed preferentially
Regarding Claim 24, Ericsson teaches: wherein in response to a first part of a duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the uplink transmission is prioritized, and a second part of the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being in the duration during which the downlink transmission is prioritized: during the duration of the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission, it is pre-defined or pre-configured that transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the first part or transmission is performed according to the priority order determined in the second part : “The periodic DL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the DL subframe, and the periodic UL channel/signal is guaranteed to be received when they coincide with the UL subframe. When the periodic DL channel/signal falls outside of the designated DL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for uplink or guard), then those DL channel/signals are skipped by the UE. When the periodic UL channel/signal falls outside of the designated UL subframes (i.e., fall under subframes for downlink or guard), then those UL channel/signals are dropped by the UE” (Ericsson Section 4 Solution 3 Page 4) meaning that the transmission performed according to the configuration sent in the initial message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Ericsson to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the UE and Base Station are in agreement about the priority and reception of UL and DL resources. According to Ericsson: “Mechanisms need to be defined such that both eNB and UE know what to expect when operating in HD-FDD mode. Below three possible solutions are described” (Ericsson Section 4 Page 3).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 25, Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung teach: The method of claim 15.
Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung do not teach: wherein the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises at least one of: the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission occupying a same time-domain unit; or a time interval between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being less than handover guard time.
Choi teaches: wherein the collision between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission comprises at least one of: the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission occupying a same time-domain unit: “the terminal transmits uplink transmission 1 610 in its entirety, and does not transmit a portion 615 of uplink transmission 2 611, which overlaps a portion 614 of uplink transmission 1 610 in the time domain, but only transmits the remaining portions of uplink transmission 2 611” (Choi ¶ 0133 and Choi Fig. 6 above); or a time interval between the uplink transmission and the downlink transmission being less than handover guard time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Georgeaux, Luo, and Jung with Choi to achieve the predictable result of avoiding interreference problems caused by harmonics within a terminal or UE. According to Choi “it is possible to solve an interference problem and a self-interference problem due to harmonics and inter-modulation products that may be generated according to a configuration related to uplink transmission of a terminal.” (Choi ¶ 0018).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473