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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2015 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
As no English translations have been received with respect to any of the foreign priority applications, the priority date given to this application is 2/9/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 16 and 24 recite “wherein the first uplink grant has a highest priority among uplink grants that overlap with the first uplink grant in a time domain”. The claim requires the first UL grant to overlap with itself and then it gets the highest priority designation. The specification does not support the idea of a first UL grant overlapping with itself and thus being the highest priority.
Appropriate correction required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16 and 24 recite “wherein the first uplink grant has a highest priority among uplink grants that overlap with the first uplink grant in a time domain”. The claim requires the first UL grant to overlap with itself and then it gets the highest priority designation. It is unclear how the priority is being determined or how an UL grant overlaps with itself to thus gain the highest priority designation.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alabbasi et al. “Alabbasi” US 2023/0021043.
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Alabbasi teaches a method and a user equipment (UE) performed in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver (Figure 13 and paragraph 61 teaches a UE handling overlapping transmissions with differing priorities) and configured to:
identify, by a medium access control (MAC) entity (Paragraph 7 and table 1 disclose MAC entity periodization processing), a priority of a first uplink grant was not excluded from prioritization candidates, wherein the first uplink grant has a highest priority among uplink grants that overlap with the first uplink grant in a time domain (Figure 1b, L1 is the first UL grant that has a high priority (not excluded from candidates). The first grant has the highest priority (H) with respect to the overlapping grants (L2 and L3); Paragraph 57);
determine, by the MAC entity, the first uplink grant as a prioritized uplink resource and a second uplink grant as a de-prioritized uplink grant, wherein the second uplink grant overlaps with the first uplink grant in the time domain, and wherein the de-prioritized uplink grant is excluded from the prioritization candidate (L1 grant overlaps with L2 (i.e. second UL grant). Since L1 is higher priority, L2 is de-prioritized; Paragraph 57 and Figure 1b),
identify a third uplink grant that was not excluded from the prioritization candidates, wherein the third uplink grant overlaps with the second uplink grant in the time domain (Figure 1B and paragraph 57 teach a third UL grant (L3) which is not excluded or de-prioritized and L3 overlaps with L2 (i.e. second UL grant)), and
determine, by the MAC entity, the third uplink grant as a second prioritized uplink grant (L3 (i.e. third UL grant) has a low priority (i.e. second prioritized UL grant); Paragraph 57 and Figure 1B).
Regarding claims 17 and 25, Alabbasi teaches the first UL grant is determined as the first prioritized UL grant when priorities of the second and third UL grant are not higher than the priority of the first UL grant (Figure 1B and paragraph 57 show L1 (i.e. first UL grant) has a higher priority than L2 and L3),
wherein the first UL grant is a dynamic or configured UL grant and the second UL grant is one of the dynamic or configured UL grant (the system employes both dynamic and configured grants; Paragraphs 5, 7, see also paragraph 75).
Regarding claims 18 and 26, Alabbasi teaches the first UL grant is a dynamic UL grant (the system employes both dynamic and configured grants; Paragraphs 5, 7, see also paragraph 75. Thus the first UL grant can be a dynamic UL grant), and
The first UL grant is determined as the first prioritized UL grant when a priority of a configured UL grant overlapping with the first UL grant in the time domain is not higher than the priority of the first UL grant (Figure 1b and paragraph 57 teaches L1 has a higher priority than L2. As the system employes both dynamic and configured grants; Paragraphs 5, 7, see also paragraph 75, the second UL grant (L2) is viewed as a configured grant which does not have a higher priority than L1).
Regarding claims 19 and 27, Alabbasi teaches the first UL grant is a configured UL grant (the system employes both dynamic and configured grants; Paragraphs 5, 7, see also paragraph 75. Thus the first UL grant can be a configured UL grant), and
The first UL grant is determined as the first prioritized UL grant when a priority of another configured UL grant that overlaps with the first UL grant in the time domain and a priority of the dynamic grant that overlaps is not higher than the than the priority of the first UL grant (Figure 1b and paragraph 57 teaches L1 has a higher priority than both L2 and L3. As the system employes both dynamic and configured grants; Paragraphs 5, 7, see also paragraph 75, the second UL grant (L2) is viewed as another configured grant which does not have a higher priority than L1 and L3 is viewed as a dynamic grant which also does not have higher priority than L1).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Alabbasi teaches the priority of the first UL grant or a priority of the second UL grant are identified, by the MAC entity, based on priorities of logical channels multiplexed in a MAC PDU or priorities of logical channels being available to be multiplexed in the MAC PDU (Paragraphs 6-7 and table 1 (which teaches a MAC PDU) teach multiple logical channels with varying priorities need to be configured and the traffic multiplexed (See also paragraph 56 talking about LCH data being multiplexed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-20 and 24-28 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411