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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 11-14 and 19, drawn to a user equipment (UE) determines a coding method for multiplexing a HARQ-ACK with different priorities on a high priority PUCCH resource, the coding method based on an UCI payload size.
Group II, claim(s) 15-18, drawn to a base station determines a coding method for multiplexing a HARQ-ACK with different priorities on a high priority PUCCH resource, the coding method based on an UCI payload size.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I and Group II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of multiplexed HARQ-ACK transmission on priority PUCCH resource, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #97, R1-1907754, “Summary on UCI enhancements for URLLC”, hereinafter R101907754.
R1-1907754’s section 4.1 Multiplexing rules between PUCCH and PUCCH, Sony’s proposal 6 and proposal 7 teach PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK for URLLC has higher priority than PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACKs for eMBB, and when URLLC PUCCH and eMBB PUCCH collides, if the URLLC PUCCH has spare capacity, the eMBB’s HARQ-ACKs can be multiplexed into the URLLC PUCCH. The shared technical feature is known in the art, thus Group I and Group II are lacking novelty and inventive step.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney/Agent Fei-Hung Yang on December 23, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 11-14 and 19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gou et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0077055).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, discloses a user equipment (UE) a method, comprising:
a processor and transmitting circuitry (paragraph 13), wherein
the processor (paragraph 13) is configured to:
determine a coding method for multiplexing a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) with different priorities on a high priority physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource (paragraphs 27-29: two HARQ-ACK codebooks have different priorities are multiplexed in a designated PUCCH resource. The designated PUCCH resource includes a PUCCH resource corresponding to the HARQ-ACK codebook having the higher priority in the plurality of HARQ-ACK codebooks), the coding method being determined based on an uplink control information (UCI) payload size (paragraph 56: two HARQ-ACK codebooks are multiplexed and transmitted in PUCCH format 2/3/4 (UCI) which has a number of bits greater than 2 bits (UCI payload). Paragraph 57: the PUCCH resource is in the format 2/3/4, then the two HARQ-ACK codebooks are encoded and modulated independently (separate coding), and paragraphs 25-26), and
multiplex the HARQ-ACK based on the determined coding method (paragraph 57: the PUCCH resource is in the format 2/3/4, then the two HARQ-ACK codebooks are encoded and modulated independently. The HARQ-ACK codebook with higher priority is mapped into the PUCCH resource first and then the HARQ-ACK with lower priority is mapped into the remaining resource of PUCCH); and
the transmitting circuitry is configured to transmit the multiplexed HARQ-ACK on the selected high priority PUCCH resource (paragraphs 25, 30, 57, 58: two PUCCH resources are multiplexed and transmitted).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0077055) in view of Takeda et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0377991).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations of claim 11 are disclosed above. Guo does not teach but Takeda discloses wherein the coding method comprises a joint coding, and the HARQ-ACK of different priorities are concatenated into a single codebook, and joint coded (paragraphs 76 and 132: UE concatenates and joint codes plurality of UCI/HARQ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Guo the coding method comprises a joint coding, and the HARQ-ACK of different priorities are concatenated into a single codebook, and joint coded.
The motivation would have been for better control (paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0077055) in view of Islam et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0250134).
Regarding claim 13, all limitations of claim 11 are disclosed above. Guo further teaches the coding method comprises a separate coding (paragraph 57: encoded and modulation independently).
Guo does not teach but Islam discloses a high priority HARQ-ACK codebook and a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook are coded and rate matched independently based on a maximum coding rate of a high priority PUCCH configuration and a low priority PUCCH configuration, respectively (figure 2; paragraphs 20, 25, 86, 92, 93: low and high priority HARQ-ACK bits are encoded separately and mapped to different resources in a PUCCH transmission… two maximum code rates can be configured for use in mapping low and high priority HARQ-ACK bits separately) and
rate matched outputs are concatenated together (paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Guo a high priority HARQ-ACK codebook and a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook are coded and rate matched independently based on a maximum coding rate of a high priority PUCCH configuration and a low priority PUCCH configuration, respectively, and rate matched outputs are concatenated together.
The motivation would have been to increase throughput and coverage.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0077055) in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0043462).
Regarding claim 14, all limitations of claim 11 are disclosed above. Guo does not teach but Hwang discloses the joint coding is used in a case a total number of bits of a high priority HARQ-ACK codebook and a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook is less than or equal to a threshold of a fixed value, and a separate coding is used when the payload size is more than the threshold (Tables 1 and 2, paragraphs 149, 158, 163, 164: coding selection based on HARQ/UCI bits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Guo the joint coding is used in a case a total number of bits of a high priority HARQ-ACK codebook and a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook is less than or equal to a threshold of a fixed value, and a separate coding is used when the payload size is more than the threshold.
The motivation would have been for error correction capability (paragraph 148).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0369349) disclose transmitting uplink signal with HARQ-ACK with different priorities in wireless communication.
Yin (US Pub. No. 2011/0242997) discloses extended UCI reporting via PUCCH.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466