DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 9 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 15, and 26 are currently amended; claims 2, 3, 6, 11-13, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are cancelled; claims 4, 5, 7-10, 14, and 18-25 are previously presented; claims 29 and 30 have been added. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 14, 15, 18-26, 29, and 30 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 9, filed 9 April 2026, with respect to “Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 26 which incorporates the subject matter of now canceled claims 27 and 28” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bala’s Threshold does not function as a “Portion Factor configured to limit a maximum portion of resources that UCI can occupy”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant lists four reasons, which the examiner will address one at a time herein.
In response to point #1, the applicant argues that the claim language of the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resources implies an active constraint that prevents UCI from exceeding a defined proportion. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner points out that the claims do not impose a limit in its method. The claims determine to transmit UCI and identifies a number of UCI resource elements in PUSCH transmission, where identifying the number of UCI resource elements obtains a first value and a second value, where the first value is associated with scaling rate and total number of REs per layer, and where the second value is associated with a portion factor and total number of REs per layer. This association does not necessitate that there is an active constraint happening with the second value. The examiner notes that while the applicant’s arguments does cite how the portion factor is used with a min() function, this is not in the claim language itself and is moot to the argument. Further, the wherein clause as written merely limits a maximum portion of resources that can be occupied by the UCI. This in effect is limiting the maximum value of something. So, if for example, let’s say there are 30 resource elements in total, the maximum value would be 30 REs. Maybe we determine the UCI uses 20 REs, which is less than the maximum amount. When you limit the maximum value by 10%, then the maximum value would become 27 REs. However, this would have no effect on the UCI determining to use 20 REs as 20 REs is still less than the new limited maximum value of 27 REs. In short, the limitation as written is that a maximum portion of resources that UCI can occupy is limited by the Portion Factor, not that the number of resources the UCI uses is necessarily limited by the portion factor at all.
In response to #2, the applicant argues that “a maximum portion of resources” is a proportional cap relative to total resources. The applicant then continues to argue that the portion factor in their disclosure is described as a fractional value drawn from (0.5, 0.65, 0.8, 1.0) for instance that defines the fractional shares of the total RE that the UCI can occupy. The examiner notes that this is separate from the aspect of the wherein clause as the wherein clause does not state that the portion factor is the portion or maximum portion, but instead that the portion factor is configured to LIMIT a maximum portion. In a practical manner, supposing you have the total number of REs per layer as the rest of the claim dictates, any fractional amount would ultimately result in a set number. For instance if there are 30 REs in total, a 0.5 fractional amount would mean 15 REs. So converting between a fractional amount and an absolute numerical value is a non-factor in practice. The examiner also respectfully notes that portion and amount are often used interchangeably in the art.
In response to #3, this was previously addressed in #1 above. Simply put, the portion factor as written in the claim limits the MAXIMUM PORTION of resources that the UCI can occupy, which is NOT necessarily the number of resources that the UCI can occupy.
In response to #4, this was also previously addressed in #1 above. Simply put, the claim itself does not impose any limit. It only tries to do so through this wherein clause, which could be interpreted as an intended result. The examiner respectfully advises the applicant to consider specifying that limiting the UCI RE calculation, including the min() function they reference as a method step claim element rather than as within a wherein clause where it is limiting the wrong thing (maximum portion rather than the resources) and ensuring that the claim language is consistent with the intent.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 9 April 2026, with respect to “35 USC 103” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that The office’s motivation statement is insufficient.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine is to support UCI type requirements for PUSCH transmission.
In response to applicant's argument that the office has not articulated any reason why a person of ordinary skill would take Bala’s DM-RS density classification threshold and use it as a limit on a maximum portion on resources that can be used by the UCI, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 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, 4-7, 10, 15, 18-20, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al. (US 2021/0100024 A1), hereafter referred Bang, in view of WO 2018174564 A1, further in view of Bala et al. (US 2020/0213057 A1), hereafter referred Bala. A machine translation of WO 2018174564 A1 is provided and is hereafter referred Hwang.
Regarding claim 1, Bang teaches a method of communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining to transmit uplink control information (UCI) on a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (Bang, [0009]; a method performed by a terminal in a communication system includes receiving, from a base station, configuration information on a configured grant for a PUSCH by higher layer signaling, the configuration information including an indicator indicating whether to multiplex a HARQ-ACK information and configured grant uplink control information); and
performing the PUSCH transmission including the UCI REs (Bang, [0009]-[0011]; the method performed by a terminal includes transmitting, to the base station, uplink data on the PUSCH configured by the configuration information with the HARQ-ACK information and the CG-UCI, in case that the indicator indicates to multiplex the HARQ-ACK and the CG-UCI).
While Bang teaches identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based on a multiplexing rule (Bang, [0176]; in NR communication system, each piece of uplink control information may be mapped to PUSCH according to a predetermined multiplexing rule), Bang does not expressly teach identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme.
However, Hwang teaches identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme (Hwang, p. 12-20; the number of REs available is the number of REs used only for the actual data mapping except for DMRS among the REs allocated for the PUSCH where the RE to which the UCI is mapped may be excluded in calculating the available RE and a scaling factor may be a value set according to the number of available REs and may consist of a combination of {2, 3/2, 4/3} and the like).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hwang in order to enable the wireless device to efficiently select and manage TBS and MSC for uplink transmission (Hwang, p. 3).
Bang in view of Hwang does not expressly teach wherein identifying the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission includes obtaining a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping, and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy.
However, Bala teaches wherein identifying the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission includes obtaining a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the multiplexing of UCI may be determined according to a number of REs used for UCI transmission within the scheduled PUSCH resource, where the number of REs used for UCI transmission is smaller than a threshold, a UE may determine that UCI is not multiplexed for a PUSCH transmission to determine the DM-RS density, where the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value), and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bala in order to support the UCI type requirements for PUSCH transmission (Bala, [0173]).
Regarding claim 15, Bang teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
a transceiver (Bang, [0011] and [0048]; a terminal includes a transceiver and a processor coupled with the transceiver, where the methods can be implemented by computer program instructions stored in a computer readable memory that direct an apparatus to function according to the computer program);
a memory configured to store instructions (Bang, [0011] and [0048]; a terminal includes a transceiver and a processor coupled with the transceiver, where the methods can be implemented by computer program instructions stored in a computer readable memory that direct an apparatus to function according to the computer program); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory (Bang, [0011] and [0048]; a terminal includes a transceiver and a processor coupled with the transceiver, where the methods can be implemented by computer program instructions stored in a computer readable memory that direct an apparatus to function according to the computer program), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine to transmit uplink control information (UCI) on a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (Bang, [0009]; a method performed by a terminal in a communication system includes receiving, from a base station, configuration information on a configured grant for a PUSCH by higher layer signaling, the configuration information including an indicator indicating whether to multiplex a HARQ-ACK information and configured grant uplink control information); and
perform the PUSCH transmission including the UCI REs (Bang, [0009]-[0011]; the method performed by a terminal includes transmitting, to the base station, uplink data on the PUSCH configured by the configuration information with the HARQ-ACK information and the CG-UCI, in case that the indicator indicates to multiplex the HARQ-ACK and the CG-UCI).
While Bang teaches identify a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based on a multiplexing rule (Bang, [0176]; in NR communication system, each piece of uplink control information may be mapped to PUSCH according to a predetermined multiplexing rule), Bang does not expressly teach identify a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme.
However, Hwang teaches identify a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme (Hwang, p. 12-20; the number of REs available is the number of REs used only for the actual data mapping except for DMRS among the REs allocated for the PUSCH where the RE to which the UCI is mapped may be excluded in calculating the available RE and a scaling factor may be a value set according to the number of available REs and may consist of a combination of {2, 3/2, 4/3} and the like).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hwang in order to enable the wireless device to efficiently select and manage TBS and MSC for uplink transmission (Hwang, p. 3).
Bang in view of Hwang does not expressly teach wherein to identify the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission, the at least one processor is further configured to obtain a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping, and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy.
However, Bala teaches wherein to identify the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission, the at least one processor is further configured to obtain a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the multiplexing of UCI may be determined according to a number of REs used for UCI transmission within the scheduled PUSCH resource, where the number of REs used for UCI transmission is smaller than a threshold, a UE may determine that UCI is not multiplexed for a PUSCH transmission to determine the DM-RS density, where the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value), and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bala in order to support the UCI type requirements for PUSCH transmission (Bala, [0173]).
Regarding claim 26, Bang teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Bang, [0011] and [0048]; a terminal includes a transceiver and a processor coupled with the transceiver, where the methods can be implemented by computer program instructions stored in a computer readable memory that direct an apparatus to function according to the computer program), comprising:
means for determining to transmit uplink control information (UCI) on a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (Bang, [0009]; a method performed by a terminal in a communication system includes receiving, from a base station, configuration information on a configured grant for a PUSCH by higher layer signaling, the configuration information including an indicator indicating whether to multiplex a HARQ-ACK information and configured grant uplink control information); and
means for performing the PUSCH transmission including the UCI REs (Bang, [0009]-[0011]; the method performed by a terminal includes transmitting, to the base station, uplink data on the PUSCH configured by the configuration information with the HARQ-ACK information and the CG-UCI, in case that the indicator indicates to multiplex the HARQ-ACK and the CG-UCI).
While Bang teaches means for identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based on a multiplexing rule (Bang, [0176]; in NR communication system, each piece of uplink control information may be mapped to PUSCH according to a predetermined multiplexing rule), Bang does not expressly teach means for identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme.
However, Hwang teaches means for identifying a number of UCI resource elements (REs) in at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission based at least on a scaling rate that is greater than a value of one to obtain a lower code rate than one indicated by a modulation and coding scheme (Hwang, p. 12-20; the number of REs available is the number of REs used only for the actual data mapping except for DMRS among the REs allocated for the PUSCH where the RE to which the UCI is mapped may be excluded in calculating the available RE and a scaling factor may be a value set according to the number of available REs and may consist of a combination of {2, 3/2, 4/3} and the like).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hwang in order to enable the wireless device to efficiently select and manage TBS and MSC for uplink transmission (Hwang, p. 3).
Bang in view of Hwang does not expressly teach wherein identifying the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission includes obtaining a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping, and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy.
However, Bala teaches wherein identifying the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission includes obtaining a minimum of a first value and a second value, wherein the first value is associated with the scaling rate and a total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot of UCI mapping, and wherein the second value is associated with a portion factor and the total number of REs per layer of the PUSCH in at least one slot for UCI mapping (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the multiplexing of UCI may be determined according to a number of REs used for UCI transmission within the scheduled PUSCH resource, where the number of REs used for UCI transmission is smaller than a threshold, a UE may determine that UCI is not multiplexed for a PUSCH transmission to determine the DM-RS density, where the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value), and wherein the portion factor is configured to limit a maximum portion of resource that UCI can occupy (Bala, [0166]-[0170]; the threshold determined as a function of the number of available REs for a PUSCH transmission and any other numerical value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bala in order to support the UCI type requirements for PUSCH transmission (Bala, [0173]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Further, Bang teaches wherein the at least one slot of the PUSCH transmission overlaps in a time domain with a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Bang, [0011] and [0079]; identify that a transmission of the HARQ-ACK information overlaps with a PUSCH transmission configured by the configuration information, where a PUCCH resource used for an HARQ-ACK report).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Further, Bang teaches wherein the at least one slot is a first slot of the PUSCH transmission including a triggered aperiodic channel state information (CSI) (Bang, [0210]; for aperiodic CSI reporting based on DCI, the UE may perform a joint encoding method for generating uplink control information so as to generate the uplink control information to be included in CG-PUSCH).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Further, Bang teaches further comprising:
determining a starting bit of a different slot of the PUSCH transmission irrespective of whether the at least one slot includes multiplexed UCI (Bang, [0123]-[0125]; the UE may determine slot i+K or a PUSCH start symbol or time in slot i+K via received offset information K on the basis of a CORESET in which the PDCCH has been received); and
mapping data according to a continuous manner to the different slot based on determining the starting bit (Bang, [0177]-[0181]; the UE may map CSI part1 to PUSCH from the first OFDM symbol of PUSCH).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Further, Bang teaches wherein performing the PUSCH transmission includes:
allocating a set of bits of the UCI by a number corresponding to the at least one slot (Bang, Fig. 7, [0180]; it is assumed that the number of HARQ-ACK symbols to be mapped to PUSCH is 5 and one resource block is scheduled to PUSCH); and
mapping the UCI to the PUSCH transmission (Bang, Fig. 7, [0180]; a UE may map the HARQ-ACK with 5 symbols from a lowest RE index of a first OFDM symbol of the PUSCH).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Further, Bang teaches wherein the UCI corresponds to at least one of a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK), channel state information part 1 (CSI-Part 1), or CSI-Part 2 (Bang, [0176]; HARQ-ACK, CSI Part 1, CSI part 2, these three pieces of uplink control information may be transmitted via the uplink data channel and each piece of uplink control information may be mapped to PUSCH according to a predetermined multiplexing rule).
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala as applied to claims 7 and 22 above, and further in view of WO 2008/147122 A1, hereafter referred Khan.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 7 and the apparatus of claim 22 above. Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala does not expressly teach wherein the set of bits are allocated equally or semi-equally according to the number corresponding to the at least one slot.
However, Khan teaches wherein the set of bits are allocated equally or semi-equally according to the number corresponding to the at least one slot (Khan, p. 24, paragraph 1; when there is only one resource region, the number of coded bit is almost equally allocated among the multiple code blocks, where the number of coded bits assigned to code block j can be given by equation (5)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala to include the above recited limitations as taught by Khan in order to ensure about equal error protection on each code block (Khan, p. 21, paragraph 1).
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2014/0286255 A1), hereafter referred Nam.
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala does not expressly teach wherein identifying the number of UCI REs includes a sequentially mapping of the UCI to the at least one slot.
However, Nam teaches wherein identifying the number of UCI REs includes a sequentially mapping of the UCI to the at least one slot (Nam, [0141]-[0147]; when the UE determines to use the second HARQ-ACK/RI mapping method, the UE maps HARQ-ACK/RI in two SC-FDM symbols in the subframe in the embodiment associated with Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala to include the above recited limitations as taught by Nam in order to reduce UL DMRS overhead (Nam, [0118]).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Davydov et al. (US 2019/0045390 A1), hereafter referred Davydov.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala does not expressly teach wherein the number of REs is further identified based on a number of non-priori slots of the multi-slot PUSCH transmission.
However, Davydov teaches wherein the number of REs is further identified based on a number of non-priori slots of the multi-slot PUSCH transmission (Davydov, [0036]; a UE can determine an available number of REs and then determine a byte-aligned TBS according to the expression, where assuming a nominal data allocation is a rectangular grid of time-frequency resources, the overhead include guard periods or symbols indicated as unknown via slot format information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala to include the above recited limitations as taught by Davydov in order to ensure proper matching of the payload (Davydov, [0035]).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0288460 A1), hereafter referred Kim.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 15 above. Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala does not expressly teach wherein the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot is determined as the obtained minimum of the first value and the second value.
However, Kim teaches wherein the number of UCI REs in the at least one slot is determined as the obtained minimum of the first value and the second value (Kim, Fig. 14, [0207]-[0213]; the terminal determines the number of coded symbols for UCI transmission as a smaller value between the first value and the second value, where Kim teaches that a maximum number of PUSCH data symbols is interchangeable with a maximum number of REs or a maximum number of coded symbols).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Bang in view of Hwang further in view of Bala to include the above recited limitations as taught by Kim in order to allow for resource allocation of a UL grant to be dynamically indicated (Kim, [0206]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights