DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 11/07/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 18 have been amended.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 12/04/2025 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, Applicant argues that neither Kim nor Yang teaches/suggests the amended claim feature: “…and the first priority is used to determine the second offset set.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. With respect to this amended claim limitation, Applicant has not provided specific support for this newly amended claim feature within its disclosure, but support is identified as being directly associated with Applicant’s Embodiment 7A, which is reproduced in its entirety below (from the corresponding PG Pub.).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on the above disclosure, the a first priority simply being high or low can be used to determine a second offset set, at para. [0778]. This could be reasonably interpreted to be related to a high-priority URLLC UL communication vs. a lower priority eMBB UL communication, as described in Lin, at col. 7, lines 3-16. Embodiment 7A also recites: “a first priority is used for an interpretation of first field in the second signaling,” at para. [0781], without providing any further context/description, thereby creating substantial ambiguity as to the meaning of the terms “first field” and “second signaling,” as they relate to Embodiment 7A. Next, the same embodiment, at para. [0782] recites: “[i]n one embodiment, the second offset set is the same as the first offset set,” lending to the reasonable interpretation that these “same” two offset sets, i.e., beta offset sets, would also have the same priority associated therewith. For instance, the identical offset set(s) could both be associated with high-priority URLLC UL communications, or alternatively, the same offset sets could each be associated with lower priority eMBB UL communications. Again, no examples are provided to clarify any intended interpretations.
Notably, there is little if any context provided within the disclosure supporting Embodiment 7A, provided above in paras. [0776]-[0783]. As such, the Examiner may apply the Office’s BRI standard to interpret the amended claim language in the same broad manner as is used to describe/provide support for this claim language in Applicant’s own disclosure.
Applicant further argues that: “Kim does not disclose selecting between different offset sets, and certainly not to select the second offset set based on a priority determined from earlier/other signaling.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. However, the independent claims do not explicitly recite any selecting step, as argued. Instead, these claims recite: a receiver receiving both first signaling and second signaling, where a format of the second signaling is used to determine a relation and the first priority is used to determine the second offset set, as well as a transmitter configured to transmit a first signal. Determination and selection are different actions/steps.
Applicant similarly argues that Yang does not disclose the same alleged selecting step, which is not explicitly recited in the independent claims. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments against Kim and Yang are determined not to be persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a selecting step/process) is not recited in the rejected claims at issue. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, in the instant Office Action a new grounds of rejection is applied to reject each of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 under §103, based on the combination of Lin with Kim and Yang. As such, Applicant is referred to the corresponding rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, provided herewith.
For all of the above reasons, Applicants arguments provided, with respect to independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, are determined not to be persuasive (as asserted against Kim and Yang), or are otherwise effectively rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection, the combination of Lin, which is relied upon to reject the contested claim feature where, “the first priority is used to determine the second offset set.”
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2019/0215823 A1, Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0068083 A1, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”), in further view of US Patent No. 11,375,483 B2, Lin et al. (hereinafter “Lin”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Kim teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communications (UE 10 communicating in wireless network of Fig. 1), the UE comprising:
a receiver (transceiver w/receiver 2335 of Fig. 18), configured to:
receive a first signaling used to determine a radio resource block and a first priority, the first signaling includes a first offset value that indicates a first offset and a format of the first signaling is used to determine that the first offset is related to the first priority (paras. [0120]-[0124], [0128]-[0134], [0179], [0192]-[0193], and [0250]-[0255] —configuration information for a PUSCH or PUCCH reporting priority/type can be received by a UE via RRC signal, MAC CE, or UL grant —this received signaling can include a format, along with CSI type reporting configuration and a beta-offset value —the beta offset can be associated with a number of coded symbols and a priority of a CSI type, i.e., CSI types I and II, and CSI type II priorities can be designated in table form, i.e., Table 4); and
receive, after the first signaling, a second signaling used to determine a bit block and a second priority, wherein the second signaling includes a second offset value that indicates a second offset, and a format of the second signaling, that is different than the format of the first signaling, is used to determine that the second offset is unrelated to the second priority (paras. [0128]-[0134], [0176]-[0180], [0185], and [0250]-[0255] — configuration information for a PUSCH or PUCCH reporting priority/type can be received by a UE via RRC signal, MAC CE, or UL grant —this received signaling can include a format different from the first signaling, i.e., PUCCH as opposed to PUSCH, along with CSI type reporting configuration and a beta-offset value —the beta offset can be associated with a number of coded symbols therein and may be unrelated to priority, i.e., for PUCCH CSI reporting); and
a transmitter (transceiver w/transmitter 2335 of Fig. 18) configured to transmit a first signal in the radio resource block, wherein the first signal includes a sub-signal that carries a bit block (paras. [0108], [0122]-[0128], and [0184]-[0185]; and block S142 of Fig. 14—the UE can transmit a PUSCH or PUSCH CSI reporting signal in a designated resource/RB, where the CSI report includes sub-signal identifying a number of bits in a part II, i.e., w/RI, CQI, and coefficient per layer for part-II CSI);
wherein only the second offset of the first offset and the second offset is used to determine a number of resource elements (REs) in the radio resource block occupied by the sub-signal (paras. [0189]-[0191], [0197], and [0246] —a beta offset for CSI part II can be utilized to determine number REs occupied for the CSI reporting of a HARQ-ACK payload piggyback scenario)
However, Kim does not explicitly teach:
where the first offset value indicates a first offset of a first offset set, and where the second offset value indicates a second offset in a second offset set.
Yang does teach:
where a beta offset index/value indicates a first offset of a first offset set, and where the another beta offset index/value indicates a second offset in a different offset set (paras. [0029], [0065]-[0068], [0074]-[0076], and [0089] —beta offset values configured for CSI reporting (w/different priorities) can be dynamic, where beta offsets can be indicated via a corresponding beta offset index in a provisioned offset table having an offset set).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim’s CSI reporting solution having different priorities and signaling formats with dynamic beta offset configuration via provisioned offset tables, as taught by Yang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate improved, dynamic beta offset selection via beta offset index for a particular offset set based on signaling type and/or reporting priorities, as recognized by Yang (paras. [0029], [0065]-[0068], [0074]-[0076], and [0089]).
Kim and Yang do not explicitly teach:
where the first priority (related to a first offset set) that is used to determine the second offset set.
Lin does teach:
a first priority related to a first offset set that is used to determine a second offset set (col. 7, lines 21-33, col. 7, ln. 54 to col. 8, ln. 5, col. 9, ln. 59 to col. 10, ln. 20, and col. 15, lines 8-15 —a first priority can be associated with URLLC and a second priority can be associated with eMBB or another URLLC communication (or vice-versa), i.e., with the first and second priority being un/related —In this scenario, the first priority can be used to determine a second offset set/sequence comprised of its own beta offset indexes, i.e., [2, 4, 8, 12] —the Examiner notes that in describing Embodiment 7A, associated with Fig. 7A, Applicant’s disclosure recites that: “[i]n one embodiment, the second offset set is the same as the first offset set,” and that “when the first priority is the first reference priority, the second offset set is the first reference offset set, in-line with the above interpretation).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Yang’s CSI reporting solution having different priorities and signaling formats with dynamic beta offset configuration via provisioned offset tables, to have a first offset set related priority used to determine another offset set, as taught by Lin.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate improved, dynamic beta offset selection based on signaling type and reporting priorities, as recognized by Lin (col. 7, lines 21-33, col. 7, ln. 54 to col. 8, ln. 5, col. 9, ln. 59 to col. 10, ln. 20, and col. 15, lines 8-15).
With respect to claim 2, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches:
The UE according to claim 1, wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a second signal; wherein the second signaling is used to determine time-frequency resources occupied by the second signal, and the second bit block is related to the second signal; or, the number of RE(s) in the radio resource block occupied by the second sub-signal is equal to a minimum value of a first value and a first limit value, and the second offset is used to determine the first value (Kim: paras. [0128]-[0133] and [0250]-[0255] —a second signal or RS can be received for a scenario where UCI is transmitted on the PUCCH and at least a portion of part-2 UCI is dropped on the PUSCH —in this scenario, a beta offset of second signaling can be used to allocate resources of the PUCCH for a corresponding CSI feedback signal —the term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section —this claim appears to include multiple punctuation issues that should be corrected corresponding to the §112(b) English translation issue(s) indicated above).
With respect to claim 4, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the first priority is used to determine the second offset set (Kim: paras. [0141]-[0144] and [0187]-[0190]; and Table 4 —a high-priority indication for wideband CSI can be used to determine the beta offset parameters for a subband CSI).
With respect to claim 5, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches the UE of claim 1.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the receiver is also configured to receive an indication of the second offset set.
Yang does teach:
wherein the receiver is also configured to receive an indication of the second offset set.
(paras. [0073]-[0076], and [0089] —a UE can receive a beta-offset indicator/index corresponding to a set of four beta offsets for a second offset set, i.e., via DCI, corresponding to a second offset set).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and Lin’s CSI reporting solution having different priorities and signaling formats with dynamic beta offset configuration via provisioned offset tables, as taught by Yang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate improved, dynamic beta offset selection via beta offset index for a particular offset set based on signaling type and/or reporting priorities, as recognized by Yang (paras. [0029], [0065]-[0068], [0074]-[0076], and [0089]).
With respect to claim 6, this claim recites similar subject matter to independent claim 1, except claim 6 is directed to a base station (Kim: terminal/node 10 of wireless network of Fig. 1), with a transmitter/receiver (Kim: transceiver 23 of Fig. 15). As such, claim 6, is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches:
The base station claim 6, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit a second signal; and wherein the second signaling is used to determine time-frequency resources occupied by the second signal, and the bit block is related to the second signal; or, the number of RE(s) in the radio resource block occupied by the second sub-signal is equal to a minimum value of a first value and a first limit value, and the second offset is used to determine the first value (Kim: paras. [0128]-[0133] and [0250]-[0255] —a second signal or RS can be transmitted for a scenario where UCI is sent on the PUCCH and at least a portion of part-2 UCI is dropped on the PUSCH —in this scenario, a beta offset of second signaling can be used to allocate resources of the PUCCH for a corresponding CSI feedback signal —the term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section —this claim appears to include multiple punctuation issues that should be corrected corresponding to the §112(b) English translation issue(s) indicated above).
With respect to claim 9, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches:
The base station according to claim 6, wherein the first priority is used to determine the second offset set (Kim: paras. [0141]-[0144] and [0187]-[0190]; and Table 4 —a high-priority indication for wideband CSI can be used to determine the beta offset parameters for a subband CSI).
With respect to claim 10, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches:
The base station according to claim 6, wherein the second transmitter is further configured to transmit a third information block; wherein the second offset set is unrelated to the first priority; the third information block is used to indicate the second offset set (Kim: paras. [0128]-[0135], [0141]-[0144], and [0156]-[0157] —the beta-offset values corresponding to the lower-priority data type can be unrelated to the high-priority data, and vice versa —the term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section —this claim appears to include multiple punctuation issues that should be corrected corresponding to the §112(b) English translation issue(s) indicated above).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2, except claim 12 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4, except claim 14 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5, except claim 15 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 6, except claim 16 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7, except claim 17 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9, except claim 19 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 10, except claim 20 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang and Lin, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 10.
Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yang and Lin, in further view of US Patent No. 11,968,676 B2, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
With Respect to Claim 3, Kim in view of Yang and Lin teaches the first node according to claim 1.
However, Kim in view of Yang and Lin does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first receiver also receives an indication of a first reference offset set and a second reference offset set; wherein a first reference priority corresponds to the first reference offset set, and a second reference priority corresponds to a the second reference offset set;
on a condition that the first priority is the first reference priority, the first offset set is the first reference offset set; and on a condition that the first priority is the second reference priority, the first offset set is the second reference offset set.
Li does teach:
wherein the first receiver also receives an indication of a first reference offset set and a second reference offset set; wherein a first reference priority corresponds to the first reference offset set, and a second reference priority corresponds to a the second reference offset set (col. 7, ln. 1, to col. 8, ln. 38; and Table 1 —a UE can receive DCI with a beta offset indicator(s) corresponding to both: low-priority service, i.e., eMBB, beta offset and high-priority, i.e., URLLC, beta offset sets, such as that represented in the different columns of Table 1);
on a condition that the first priority is the first reference priority, the first offset set is the first reference offset set; and on a condition that the first priority is the second reference priority, the first offset set is the second reference offset set (col. 5, lines 5-51, col. 7, ln. 6 to col. 8, ln. 38; and Table 1 —when the beta offset indicator indicates the high-priority UCI service as a reference priority, the corresponding parameter set is utilized, and when the beta offset indicator indicates the lower-priority UCI service as a reference priority, the corresponding parameter set is utilized, as depicted in Table 1);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Yang and Lin’s beta offset prioritization solution with reference beta offset parameter set designation per UCI priority/data type, as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify multiplexing of both low-priority UCI and high-priority UCI onto a high-priority PUSCH, as recognized by Li (col. 7, ln. 6 to col. 8, ln. 38).
With respect to claim 8, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 8 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang, Lin, and Li, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang, Lin, and Li, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kim in view of Yang, Lin, and Li, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2025/0392424 A1, Wong et al: teaches NR priority communications for eMBB, mMTC, URLLC, and eURLLC UL data with dynamic grants, preemption and various other interference mitigation solutions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418