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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “in Xiao, it is the prioritization of the uplink grant, not the prioritization of the HARQ process identifiers, that controls which HARQ process is to be used for transmission. Accordingly, Xiao does not teach or suggest determin[ing] to prioritize a first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (HARQ PID) among a plurality of HARQ PIDs, as claimed“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Xiao discloses receiving an uplink grant and identifying the corresponding HARQ process, i.e. HARQ PID. Then determining based on UL grant priority and the enablement of priority to transmit from the HARQ process (p5). The “determination to prioritize the first HARQ PID” is taught by the condition where the enabling priority indicator is TRUE. Under the condition enabling priority indicator == FALSE, the uplink grant and corresponding HARQ process is not considered for transmission based on priority of data during resource conflicts (p75-91). There is no prioritization of uplink grant or HARQ processes. Under the condition enabling priority indicator == TRUE, the uplink grant and corresponding HARQ process is considered for transmission based on priority of data during resource conflicts (p75-91). The priority is obtained from a “procedure for determining the priority of an uplink grant”. This procedure determines the highest priority logical channel (LCH) based on the data multiplexed for the uplink grant. However, if the HARQ entity does not received from the uplink grant reception, the HARQ entity can obtain the priority of the uplink grant from the “procedure for determining the priority of an uplink grant”. The HARQ entity can indicate to the HARQ process the priority as it delivers the uplink grant to the HARQ process. Also, in the situation where MAC CE is only available for transmission, the priority is assigned a predefined value and indicated to the uplink grant or HARQ process (p93). Thus Xiao discloses the determination to prioritize based on the “enabling priority indicator” where HARQ PIDs are prioritized, and the CG resource corresponds with the HARQ process.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 36-51 still stands.
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.
Claim(s) 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2022/0353899) (“Xiao”) in view of Seidel et al. (US 2022/0224447) (“Seidel”).
For claims 36 and 44; Xiao discloses: receive configuration information associated with a configured grant (CG) resource, wherein the configuration information indicates that intra-WTRU prioritization is enabled for the CG resource (paragraph 4, 93: resolve a DG/CG PUSCH conflict between different HARQ processes, a CG/CG conflict between different HARQ processes, and an uplink grant/MAC PDU conflict in the same HARQ process by setting an enabling priority indicator); in accordance with the configuration information, determine to prioritize a first hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (HARQ PID) among a plurality of HARQ PIDs (paragraph 75-91: for the received configured uplink grant, it is determined whether a second configuration condition is satisfied… 4) The PUSCH duration of the configured uplink grant overlaps with the PUSCH duration of the uplink grant in the same serving cell received on the PDCCH or overlaps with PUSCH duration of another configured uplink grant in the same serving cell, but the configured uplink grant has a higher priority… 3) Deliver the configured uplink grant and the HARQ information associated therewith to the HARQ entity) based on a priority of a logical channel (LCH), wherein the LCH is associated with first data (paragraph 93: the priority of a dynamic grant may be indicated…or may be the highest priority of a logical channel (i.e., the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to the contained data) corresponding to data that can be transmitted or can be multiplexed or to be multiplexed or has been multiplexed by this uplink grant (performed through a multiplexing and assembly procedure according to a logical channel priority (LCP)) or the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to data contained in a MAC PDU to be generated for this uplink grant), and wherein the first data is associated with the first HARQ process (paragraph 5: identifying, for a received uplink grant, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process corresponding to the uplink grant); and transmit, based on the determination to prioritize the first HARQ PID, the first data on the CG resource using a HARQ process indicated by the first HARQ PID (paragraph 5: identifying, for a received uplink grant, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process corresponding to the uplink grant; determining whether the uplink grant is used for a new transmission or a retransmission; and in the case of determining that the uplink grant is used for the new transmission, for an uplink grant with physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) duration not overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant, or an uplink grant with PUSCH duration only overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant with a lower priority, or a dynamic uplink grant with PUSCH duration not overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant having a higher priority, if a corresponding MAC PDU (Media Access Control protocol data unit) is obtained, then instructing the identified HARQ process to trigger the new transmission of the MAC PDU).
Xiao discloses an association between the LCHs and HARQ processes using LCH priority to determine HARQ processes to add data for a CG/DG, but Xiao does not expressly disclose a mapping of LCHs to HARQ PIDs, but Seidel from similar fields of endeavor teaches: LCH is associated with HARQ PID (paragraph 237: Logical Channels can be linked to HARQ entities and/or processes in the respective configuration of this Logical Channel. That means, if a grant is received on the PDCCH, the UE reads the Downlink Control Information (DCI) of the PDCCH and recognizes the HARQ process identity). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the mapping as described by Seidel in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overhead by indexing LCHs to HARQ processes.
For claims 37 and 45; Xiao discloses: wherein the LCH is a first LCH, wherein the plurality of HARQ PIDs comprises the first HARQ PID and a second HARQ PID associated with second data, wherein the second data is associated with a second LCH, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the priority of the first LCH is higher than a priority of the second LCH; and determine that the first HARQ PID has a higher priority than the second HARQ PID based on the determination that the priority of the first LCH is higher than the priority of the second LCH (paragraph 93: If the priority of an uplink grant is determined by a MAC PDU corresponding thereto or the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding thereto, then the priority comparison between uplink grants is comparing the priorities of MAC PDUs corresponding thereto or comparing the priorities of highest priority logical channels corresponding thereto… the HARQ entity can obtain the priority of the uplink grant from the “procedure for determining the priority of an uplink grant”).
For claims 40 and 48; Xiao discloses: based on the enablement of the intra-WTRU prioritization (paragraph 4, 93: resolve a DG/CG PUSCH conflict between different HARQ processes, a CG/CG conflict between different HARQ processes, and an uplink grant/MAC PDU conflict in the same HARQ process by setting an enabling priority indicator), determine to prioritize the first data for the CG resource in accordance with the priority of the LCH associated with the first data (paragraph 93: the priority of a dynamic grant may be indicated…or may be the highest priority of a logical channel (i.e., the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to the contained data) corresponding to data that can be transmitted or can be multiplexed or to be multiplexed or has been multiplexed by this uplink grant (performed through a multiplexing and assembly procedure according to a logical channel priority (LCP)) or the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to data contained in a MAC PDU to be generated for this uplink grant); and determine that the first data is associated with the first HARQ PID, wherein the prioritization of the first HARQ PID is determined based on the prioritization of the first data for the CG resource; (paragraph 75-91: for the received configured uplink grant, it is determined whether a second configuration condition is satisfied… 4) The PUSCH duration of the configured uplink grant overlaps with the PUSCH duration of the uplink grant in the same serving cell received on the PDCCH or overlaps with PUSCH duration of another configured uplink grant in the same serving cell, but the configured uplink grant has a higher priority… 3) Deliver the configured uplink grant and the HARQ information associated therewith to the HARQ entity), (paragraph 5: identifying, for a received uplink grant, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process corresponding to the uplink grant; determining whether the uplink grant is used for a new transmission or a retransmission; and in the case of determining that the uplink grant is used for the new transmission, for an uplink grant with physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) duration not overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant, or an uplink grant with PUSCH duration only overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant with a lower priority, or a dynamic uplink grant with PUSCH duration not overlapping with PUSCH duration of another uplink grant having a higher priority, if a corresponding MAC PDU (Media Access Control protocol data unit) is obtained, then instructing the identified HARQ process to trigger the new transmission of the MAC PDU).
Xiao discloses an association between the LCHs and HARQ processes using LCH priority to determine HARQ processes to add data for a CG/DG, but Xiao does not expressly disclose a mapping of LCHs to HARQ PIDs, but Seidel from similar fields of endeavor teaches: LCH is associated with HARQ PID (paragraph 237: Logical Channels can be linked to HARQ entities and/or processes in the respective configuration of this Logical Channel. That means, if a grant is received on the PDCCH, the UE reads the Downlink Control Information (DCI) of the PDCCH and recognizes the HARQ process identity). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the mapping as described by Seidel in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overhead by indexing LCHs to HARQ processes.
For claims 41 and 49; Xiao discloses the subject matter in claim 36 as described above in the office action. Xiao discloses: LCH priority associated with data (paragraph 93: the priority of a dynamic grant may be indicated…or may be the highest priority of a logical channel (i.e., the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to the contained data) corresponding to data that can be transmitted or can be multiplexed or to be multiplexed or has been multiplexed by this uplink grant (performed through a multiplexing and assembly procedure according to a logical channel priority (LCP)) or the priority of a highest priority logical channel corresponding to data contained in a MAC PDU to be generated for this uplink grant).
Xiao discloses an association between the LCHs and HARQ processes using LCH priority to determine HARQ processes to add data for a CG/DG, but Xiao does not expressly disclose a mapping of LCHs to HARQ PIDs, but Seidel from similar fields of endeavor teaches: LCH is associated with HARQ PID (paragraph 237: Logical Channels can be linked to HARQ entities and/or processes in the respective configuration of this Logical Channel. That means, if a grant is received on the PDCCH, the UE reads the Downlink Control Information (DCI) of the PDCCH and recognizes the HARQ process identity). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the mapping as described by Seidel in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve multiplexing data to proper HARQ process by priority.
Claim(s) 38, 39, 42, 46, 47, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Seidel as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Loehr et al. (US 2022/0345252) (“Loehr”).
For claims 38 and 46; Xiao discloses the subject matter in claim 36 as described above in the office action.
Xiao does not expressly disclose, but Loehr from similar fields of endeavor teaches: before a transmission of the first data, attempt a transmission of the second data, wherein the attempted transmission of the second data is not successful, and multiplex the second data on a transport block (paragraph 61: a MAC and/or RLC protocol may facilitate retransmissions being prioritized over new RLC PDUs and multiplexed into a new TB scheduled by an initial UL grant). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the retransmission as described by Loehr in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overall throughput of different priority data.
For claims 39 and 47; Xiao discloses the subject matter in claim 36 as described above in the office action.
Xiao does not expressly disclose, but Loehr from similar fields of endeavor teaches: before the transmission of the first data, attempt a transmission of the first data, wherein the attempted transmission of the first data is not successful, and multiplex the first data on a transport block (TB), wherein the transmission of the first data comprises a transmission of the TB (paragraph 61: a MAC and/or RLC protocol may facilitate retransmissions being prioritized over new RLC PDUs and multiplexed into a new TB scheduled by an initial UL grant). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the retransmission as described by Loehr in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overall throughput of different priority data.
For claims 42 and 50; Xiao discloses the subject matter in claim 36 as described above in the office action.
Xiao does not expressly disclose, but Loehr from similar fields of endeavor teaches: determine that a third HARQ PID is associated with third data, wherein the third data is multiplexed or configured to be multiplexed on a transport block; and determine that a priority of the third HARQ PID associated with the third data is higher than a priority of a fourth HARQ PID, wherein the fourth HARQ PID indicates a HARQ process for which no data is multiplexed or configured to be multiplexed (paragraph 56: if a UE receives a retransmission grant (e.g., UL) for a HARQ process ID for which a HARQ buffer is empty, e.g. due to a higher priority UL grant having preempted a transmission of a TB for that HARQ process ID, the UE generates a new TB according to the retransmission grant and transmits the TB on the scheduled resources, e.g. UL resources). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the retransmission as described by Loehr in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overall throughput of different priority data.
Claim(s) 43 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Seidel as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2022/0124792) (“Fu”).
For claims 43 and 51; Xiao discloses the subject matter in claim 36 as described above in the office action.
Xiao does not expressly disclose, but Fu from similar fields of endeavor teaches: determine that the configuration information comprises a CG retransmission timer (CGRT); and determine, based on the configured CGRT, that an autonomous retransmission is to be performed on the CG resource, wherein the performance of the autonomous retransmission comprises a transmission of the first data when the CGRT expires, and wherein the determination to prioritize the first HARQ PID is further based on the enablement of the intra-WTRU prioritization and the determination that the configuration information comprises the CGRT (paragraph 230: if the deprioritized MAC PDU2 is not scheduled, not transmitted, or not cleared during a time period from when the CG timer is started to when the CG timer expires, the terminal device may use a 1-st configured grant resource after the CG timer expires to transmit the deprioritized MAC PDU2, which is beneficial to ensure a timely transmission of the deprioritized data, and reduce a transmission delay). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the retransmission as described by Fu in the LCH/HARQ process intra-UE prioritization as described by Xiao. The motivation is to improve overall throughput of different priority data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2024/0097827); Lee discloses if the receiving UE distributes/allocates/determines transmit power to a plurality of PSFCHs requiring simultaneous transmission in consideration of the (associated) priority of each PSFCH, the receiving UE may consider/determine PSFCH transmission for retransmission related to a TB (and/or a SL HARQ process) which reaches MAX_RETXNUM as the lowest priority among a plurality of PSFCH transmissions having the same associated priority.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights