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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims foreign priority to application of CHINA: 202110954025.5 (filed 08/19/2021).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU et al. (WO 2021004316 A1, hereinafter LU, note: corresponding US 2022/0132496 A1 is being used for English translation and rejection citation purposes), in view of YIN, ZHANPING (WO 2020145357 A1, hereinafter YIN, note: corresponding US 2022/0070900 A1 is being used for rejection citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, LU teaches a first node for wireless communications, comprising (in general, see sections including at least paragraphs 29-92 with fig. 2-3):
a first receiver, which receives a first information block, the first information block being used to determine a first factor (LU, see at least para. 70, “…MaxCodeRate 1 (for URLLC) and MaxCodeRate 2 (for eMBB) are a maximum code rate of a PUCCH configured by a high layer and used to transmit a URLLC service and that of a PUCCH configured by the high layer and used to transmit an eMBB service, respectively…”); and
a first transmitter, which transmits a target Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), the target PUCCH at least carrying a first bit sub-block, the first bit sub-block comprising at least one bit (LU, see at least para. 33, for an unlimited example, “…a PUCCH carrying the first UCI may be referred to as a first PUCCH…”, note that a PUCCH carrying the second UCI may be referred to as a second PUCCH);
wherein the target PUCCH carries zero, one or more bit belonging to a second bit sub-block, the second bit sub-block comprising at least one bit (LU, see at least para. 33, for an unlimited example, “…a PUCCH carrying the second UCI may be referred to as a second PUCCH…”, note that a PUCCH carrying the first UCI may be referred to as a first PUCCH),
the first bit sub-block and the second bit sub-block being different (LU, see at least para. 33, “…For example, a PUCCH carrying the first UCI may be referred to as a first PUCCH, and a PUCCH carrying the second UCI may be referred to as a second PUCCH…”, note that, not only the two being differently named but their contents could also be different),
the first bit sub-block is with higher priority than the second bit sub-block (LU, see at least para. 39, “...Optionally, a priority of the first UCI is higher than a priority of the second UCI...”, note that the priorities of the two can be reversed depending on their contents);
a sum of a number of bit comprised in the first bit sub-block and a number of bit associated with the second bit sub-block is greater than 2 (LU, see at least fig. 2 along with para. 31, 35, and/or 56, “…in a case that the first UCI and the second UCI are carried in a PUCCH for transmission, the first UCI and the second UCI are multiplexed, for transmission, on the PUCCH resource of the first PUCCH carrying the first UCI. For example, in a case that a HARQ-ACK of URLLC and a HARQ-ACK of eMBB are transmitted on a PUCCH, a PUCCH resource of URLLC is used to carry the HARQ-ACK of URLLC and the HARQ-ACK of eMBB…”, note that each of the “first bit sub-block” and “second bit sub-block” is interpreted to be any one or more of the following in LU: first UCI, second UCI, OACK1, OCRC1 bits, OACK2, OCRC2 bits, etc.);
where the number of the bit comprised in the first bit sub-block and the number of the bit associated with the second bit sub-block are used together to determine a first Resource Block (RB) numerical value (LU, see at least para. 57-60 in view of para. 71-73, for an unlimited example, “…the total bit quantity includes: the sum of a bit quantity of the first UCI and a bit quantity of the second UCI; or the sum of the bit quantity of the first UCI and a commuted bit quantity of the second UCI, where the commuted bit quantity of the second UCI is a function of the bit quantity of the second UCI…”);
a resource occupied by the target PUCCH belongs to a target resource, with a number of RBs comprised in the target resource in frequency domain being equal to a second RB numerical value (LU, see at least para. 71-73, for an unlimited example, “…a quantity of first physical resource blocks (PRB) used by the first UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a first PUCCH format; and a quantity of second PRBs used by the second UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a second PUCCH format…”, note that “…in a case that the second PRB quantity is greater than a third PRB quantity, bits of the second UCI can be discarded until the second PRB quantity is less than or equal to the third PRB quantity, where the third PRB quantity is equal to a value obtained by subtracting the first PRB quantity from a maximum PRB quantity of the PUCCH resource…”);
the target resource is a PUCCH resource (LU, see at least fig. 3, e.g. any UCIs are carried in PUCCH time-frequency resources);
a relative magnitude of the first RB numerical value and the second RB numerical value is used together with the first factor to determine a number of bit belonging to the second bit sub-block and carried by the target PUCCH (LU, see at least para. 71-73, for an unlimited example, “…a quantity of first physical resource blocks (PRB) used by the first UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a first PUCCH format; and a quantity of second PRBs used by the second UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a second PUCCH format…”, note that “…in a case that the second PRB quantity is greater than a third PRB quantity, bits of the second UCI can be discarded until the second PRB quantity is less than or equal to the third PRB quantity, where the third PRB quantity is equal to a value obtained by subtracting the first PRB quantity from a maximum PRB quantity of the PUCCH resource…”).
LU does not specifically teach the first factor being equal to a configured maximum coding rate.
YIN teaches the first factor being equal to a configured maximum coding rate (YIN, in general, see sections including at least para. 112-120, in particular, see at least para. 112, “…The maxCodeRate may be configured jointly considering more PRB allocations above. In other words, the enhanced PUCCH formats for URLLC may be configured with a lower maxCodeRate compared with PUCCH resources for eMBB. Thus, for the same payload range, the number of PRBs for URLLC PUCCH may be higher than that of an eMBB PUCCH resource…”, in other words, the maxCodeRate is configurable depending on services).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YIN into the apparatus of LU for improving communication flexibility and efficiency (YIN, see para. 5).
Regarding claim 2, LU in view of YIN teaches a coding rate corresponding to the first bit sub-block and the number of the bit comprised in the first bit sub-block are used together to determine a third RB numerical value; when the first RB numerical value is no greater than the second RB numerical value, the target PUCCH carries all bit belonging to the second bit sub-block; when the first RB numerical value is greater than the second RB numerical value, a difference between the second RB numerical value and the third RB numerical value is used together with the first factor to determine the number of the bit belonging to the second bit sub-block and carried by the target PUCCH. (LU, see at least para. 70-73 in view of para. 35, “…For example, all or some of the bits of the second UCI may be discarded in a case that all bits of the first UCI and the second UCI are not allowed to be transmitted due to a maximum code rate of the first uplink channel…”; YIN, see at least para. 112, for one example, “…the enhanced PUCCH formats for URLLC may be configured with a lower maxCodeRate compared with PUCCH resources for eMBB…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YIN into the apparatus of LU for improving communication flexibility and efficiency (YIN, see para. 5).
Regarding claim 3, LU in view of YIN teaches the first receiver receives a first signaling (LU, see at least para. 70, e.g. configured by higher layer);
wherein the first signaling is used to determine the target resource from a target resource set, the target resource set comprising at least one PUCCH resource, a sum of the number of the bit comprised in the first bit sub-block and the number of the bit associated with the second bit sub-block being used to determine the target resource set (LU, see at least para. 71-72 in view of sections including para. 74-83, for one example, but not limited to, “…a quantity of first physical resource blocks (PRB) used by the first UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a first PUCCH format; and a quantity of second PRBs used by the second UCI in the PUCCH resource may be a minimum PRB quantity that does not exceed a maximum code rate of a second PUCCH format…”; YIN, see at least para. 115-119, e.g. various PUCCH formats with PRBs for UCIs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YIN into the apparatus of LU for improving communication flexibility and efficiency (YIN, see para. 5).
Regarding claim 4, LU in view of YIN teaches the target resource set is one of K1 resource sets, the K1 resource sets being signaling configured or pre-defined, K1 being a positive integer greater than 1; the K1 resource sets respectively correspond to K1 value ranges, the sum of the number of the bit comprised in the first bit sub-block and the number of the bit associated with the second bit sub-block belongs to a target value range, the target value range being one of the K1 value ranges, the target resource set being a resource set corresponding to the target value range among the K1 resource sets. (LU, see at least para. 71-72 in view of sections including para. 74-83, for one example, but not limited to, “…The first PUCCH format is a PUCCH format used by the first UCI. The second PUCCH format is a PUCCH format used by the second UCI…”; YIN, see at least para. 115-119, e.g. various PUCCH formats with PRBs for UCIs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YIN into the apparatus of LU for improving communication flexibility and efficiency (YIN, see para. 5).
Regarding claim 6, LU in view of YIN teaches
the number of the bit comprised in the first bit sub-block and the number of the bit associated with the second bit sub-block are used together to determine a first sum value (LU, see claim 1 rejection above, NOTE: each of the “first bit sub-block” and “second bit sub-block” is interpreted to be any one or more of the following in LU: first UCI, second UCI, OACK1, OCRC1 bits, OACK2, OCRC2 bits, etc.);
a first coding rate is equal to a coding rate corresponding to the first bit sub-block, a first modulation order is equal to a modulation order of the target PUCCH, a first resource numerical value is equal to a number of resource elements comprised in one RB used for control information bits (LU, see at least para. 74-83, in particular, see para. 78 and 80);
a product of the first RB numerical value, the first coding rate, the first modulation order and the first resource numerical value is no smaller than the first sum value, while a product of the first RB numerical value subtracted by 1, the first coding rate, the first modulation order and the first resource numerical value is smaller than the first sum value (LU, see at least para. 82-83, for example, but not limited to. the two cases disclosed)
Regarding claim 7, LU in view of YIN teaches the first bit sub-block only comprises information bit, any bit comprised in the first bit sub-block is a HARQ-ACK bit; any bit comprised in the second bit sub-block is a coded bit obtained by coding a HARQ-ACK bit, a bit associated with the second bit sub-block is a HARQ-ACK bit used for generating the second bit sub-block. (LU, see at least fig. 2 along with para. 31, 35, and/or 56, e.g. “…in a case that the first UCI and the second UCI are carried in a PUCCH for transmission, the first UCI and the second UCI are multiplexed, for transmission, on the PUCCH resource of the first PUCCH carrying the first UCI. For example, in a case that a HARQ-ACK of URLLC and a HARQ-ACK of eMBB are transmitted on a PUCCH, a PUCCH resource of URLLC is used to carry the HARQ-ACK of URLLC and the HARQ-ACK of eMBB…”)
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 8 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a second node of claim 8 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the first node of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, in view of claim 8 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3+4, 6, and 7, respectively.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU in view of YIN, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20210266941 A1, hereinafter PARK).
Regarding claim 5, LU in view of YIN teaches a priority index associated with the first bit sub-block is equal to a first priority index; a priority index associated with the second bit sub-block is equal to a second priority index; the first priority index and the second priority index are unequal; a priority index associated with the target resource is equal to a larger one of the first priority value and the second priority index. (LU, see at least para. 39-40 along with para. 92, “…Optionally, a priority of the first UCI is higher than a priority of the second UCI. For example, the first UCI is UCI of a URLLC service, and the second UCI is UCI of an eMBB service. In this case, the first UCI and the second UCI can be multiplexed and transmitted on an uplink channel corresponding to the UCI of the higher priority, to ensure that not only the UCI of the higher priority but also the UCI of the lower priority can be transmitted…”)
LU in view of YIN differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose a value of a priority index, a first priority index value, the first priority index value being a non-negative integer, and a second priority index, the second priority index value being a non-negative integer.
PARK, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches similar or known mechanism of a value of a priority index, a first priority index value, the first priority index value being a non-negative integer, and a second priority index, the second priority index value being a non-negative integer (see at least para. 189, “…Having the high priority means that a value of the corresponding priority may be the smallest value or the greatest value…”, in other words, priorities are of values which can be configured to be large or small values per usage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PARK into the apparatus of LU in view of YIN for providing ways for efficiently transmitting control information by terminals (PARK, see at least para. 8).
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 8 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5 except this claim is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights