DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December18, 2025 has been entered, wherein claims 3 and 10 are cancelled, claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE et al. (HE hereafter) (US 20230199750 A1) in view of Palaios et. al. (Palaios hereafter) (US 20230146147 A1), and On Restrictions in Multiplexing of High and Low Priority LCH in CG (NPL hereafter) (R2-1912457) (IDS provided).
Regarding claim 1 HE teaches, A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information configuring a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource (configured grant PUSCH (CG-PUSCH) resource from the gNB ) as a common resource (CG-UCI may include) for a plurality of UEs (multiple UEs may be communicating with the gNB over the 5G NR-U) for a first transmission by the UE and a second transmission by a second UE (CG-UCI includes the code block group transmission indicator (CBG-TI) as the ending symbol of the CG-PUSCH in the last slot …this information allows the gNB to identify from which UE a received transmission has been sent), (HE; [0029]The method 300 is performed by the UE 110 allows for autonomous uplink transmission on 5G NR-U using a configured grant PUSCH (CG-PUSCH) resource from the gNB 120A or 120B without the need for a scheduling request first and subsequent uplink grant for the uplink transmission. At 305, the UE 110 generates the CG-UCI information. In some embodiments, the CG-UCI may include any combination of the following information: a HARQ process ID, new data indicator (NDI), redundancy version (RV),
channel occupancy time (COT) sharing information, the UE-ID, and listen-before-talk (LBT)
priority. In addition, the CG-UCI includes the code block group transmission indicator (CBG-TI) as the ending symbol of the CG-PUSCH in the last slot. Because multiple UEs may be communicating with the gNB over the 5G NR-U, this information allows the gNB to identify from which UE a received transmission has been sent).
HE fails to explicitly teach, wherein the UE independently determines whether to initiate channel occupancy on the PUSCH resource
determining a transmission priority for the first transmission on the shared channel PUSCH resource using a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure.
comparing the transmission priority to a threshold priority configured by a base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor Palaios teaches, wherein the UE independently determines (determining a reliability metric and selecting the LBT carriers) whether to initiate channel occupancy on the PUSCH resource (respective frequency of the LBT carrier, channel occupancy and/or path loss may be estimated) (Palaios; [0067-0070] … involving reporting of energy measurements or statistics on measured energy levels from the UE to the gNB …using energy measurements, as for example shown FIG. 4B, as a basis for determining a reliability metric and selecting the LBT carriers…. based on the respective frequency of the LBT carrier, channel occupancy and/or path loss may be estimated and be taken into account as input for calculation of the reliability metric)
determining a transmission priority (determines the order of priority… in an UL transmission) for the first transmission on the shared channel PUSCH resource (UE determines) using a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure (Logical channel Prioritization (LCP) procedure) (Palaios; [0005] When a UL grant is received, a Logical channel Prioritization (LCP) procedure at the MAC (Medium Access Control) layer in the UE determines the order of priority and amount of data from each logical channel to be multiplexed and transmitted in an UL transmission);
comparing (statistics indicate) the transmission priority to a threshold priority (occupancy above a threshold) configured by a base station (The gNB may also use such measurements and/or statistics as a basis for selecting the LBT carriers indicated to the UE) (Palaios; [0037] The gNB may also use such measurements and/or statistics as a basis for selecting the LBT carriers indicated to the UE. For example, if the measurements and/or statistics indicate that a certain LBT carrier is very busy, e.g., has an average occupancy above a threshold, the gNB may exclude this LBT carrier from the LBT carriers indicated to the UE);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE to include the above recited limitations as taught by Palaios in order to determine the order of priority and amount of data from each logical channel to be multiplexed and transmitted (Palaios; [0005]).
HE-Palaios fails to explicitly teach, in response to the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority, initiating a channel occupancy for the first transmission; and
in response to the transmission priority not exceeding the threshold priority, not initiating the channel occupancy for the first transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor NPL teaches, in response to the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority, initiating a channel occupancy for the first transmission (NPL; [2.1 Option 1] Restriction based on CAPC Threshold RRC defines a CAPC value, which acts as a threshold (CAPC = Th) …if CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a CG containing LCHs mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed… If higher priority LCH has data available for transmission, data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed with the data of higher priority LCH). (NPL; [2.1 Option 1] if CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a CG containing LCHs mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed together for transmission); and
in response to the transmission priority not exceeding the threshold priority, not initiating the channel occupancy for the first transmission ((NPL; [2.1 Option 1] data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed for transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios to include the above recited limitations as taught by NPL in order to enable faster transmission of high priority data (NPL; [Introduction]).
{Examiner is construing that in NPL 2.1 option 1 teaches restriction based on Channel Access Priority Class (CAPC), a CAPC value, which acts as a threshold. CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a Configured Grants (CG) containing Logical channels (LCHs) mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed together for transmission. If higher priority LCH has data available for transmission, data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed with the data of higher priority LCH. Therefore this process will not initiate a channel occupancy for transmission}.
Regarding claim 8 HE teaches, A user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory (HE; Fig. 2); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE (HE; Fig. 2) to:
receive configuration information configuring a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource (configured grant PUSCH (CG-PUSCH) resource from the gNB ) as a common resource (CG-UCI may include) for a plurality of UEs (multiple UEs may be communicating with the gNB over the 5G NR-U) for a first transmission by the UE and a second transmission by a second UE (CG-UCI includes the code block group transmission indicator (CBG-TI) as the ending symbol of the CG-PUSCH in the last slot …this information allows the gNB to identify from which UE a received transmission has been sent), (HE; [0029]The method 300 is performed by the UE 110 allows for autonomous uplink transmission on 5G NR-U using a configured grant PUSCH (CG-PUSCH) resource from the gNB 120A or 120B without the need for a scheduling request first and subsequent uplink grant for the uplink transmission. At 305, the UE 110 generates the CG-UCI information. In some embodiments, the CG-UCI may include any combination of the following information: a HARQ process ID, new data indicator (NDI), redundancy version (RV), channel occupancy time (COT)
sharing information, the UE-ID, and listen-before-talk (LBT) priority. In addition, the CG-UCI includes the code block group transmission indicator (CBG-TI) as the ending symbol of the CG-PUSCH in the last slot. Because multiple UEs may be communicating with the gNB over the 5G NR-U, this information allows the gNB to identify from which UE a received transmission has been sent).
HE fails to explicitly teach, wherein the UE independently determines whether to initiate channel occupancy on the PUSCH resource
determining a transmission priority for the first transmission on the shared channel PUSCH resource using a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure;
compare the transmission priority to a threshold priority configured by a base station;
Palaios teaches, wherein the UE independently determines (determining a reliability metric and selecting the LBT carriers) whether to initiate channel occupancy on the PUSCH resource (respective frequency of the LBT carrier, channel occupancy and/or path loss may be estimated) (Palaios; [0067-0070] … involving reporting of energy measurements or statistics on measured energy levels from the UE to the gNB …using energy measurements, as for example shown FIG. 4B, as a basis for determining a reliability metric and selecting the LBT carriers…. based on the respective frequency of the LBT carrier, channel occupancy and/or path loss may be estimated and be taken into account as input for calculation of the reliability metric)
determine a transmission priority (determines the order of priority… in an UL transmission) for the first transmission on the shared channel PUSCH resource (UE determines) using a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure (Logical channel Prioritization (LCP) procedure) (Palaios; [0005] When a UL grant is received, a Logical channel Prioritization (LCP) procedure at the MAC (Medium Access Control) layer in the UE determines the order of priority and amount of data from each logical channel to be multiplexed and transmitted in an UL transmission);
compare (statistics indicate) the transmission priority to a threshold priority (occupancy above a threshold) configured by a base station (The gNB may also use such measurements and/or statistics as a basis for selecting the LBT carriers indicated to the UE) (Palaios; [0037] The gNB may also use such measurements and/or statistics as a basis for selecting the LBT carriers indicated to the UE. For example, if the measurements and/or statistics indicate that a certain LBT carrier is very busy, e.g., has an average occupancy above a threshold, the gNB may exclude this LBT carrier from the LBT carriers indicated to the UE);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE to include the above recited limitations as taught by Palaios in order to determine the order of priority and amount of data from each logical channel to be multiplexed and transmitted (Palaios; [0005]).
HE-Palaios fails to explicitly teach, in response to the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority, initiating a channel occupancy for the first transmission; and
in response to the transmission priority not exceeding the threshold priority, not initiating the channel occupancy for the first transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor NPL teaches, in response to the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority, initiating a channel occupancy for the first transmission (NPL; [2.1 Option 1] Restriction based on CAPC Threshold RRC defines a CAPC value, which acts as a threshold (CAPC = Th) …if CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a CG containing LCHs mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed… If higher priority LCH has data available for transmission, data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed with the data of higher priority LCH). (NPL; [2.1 Option 1] if CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a CG containing LCHs mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed together for transmission); and
in response to the transmission priority not exceeding the threshold priority, not initiating the channel occupancy for the first transmission ((NPL; [2.1 Option 1] data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed for transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios to include the above recited limitations as taught by NPL in order to enable faster transmission of high priority data (NPL; [Introduction]).
{Examiner is construing that in NPL 2.1 option 1 teaches restriction based on Channel Access Priority Class (CAPC), a CAPC value, which acts as a threshold. CAPC 2 is set as the threshold, then a Configured Grants (CG) containing Logical channels (LCHs) mapped to CAPC 1 and CAPC 2 can be multiplexed together for transmission. If higher priority LCH has data available for transmission, data belonging to LCHs, having priority lower than the CAPC threshold, is not allowed to be multiplexed with the data of higher priority LCH. Therefore this process will not initiate a channel occupancy for transmission}.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NPL as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Pelletier et al. (Pelletier hereafter) (US 20210266953 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 9 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the threshold priority is preconfigured by a radio resource control (RRC) configuration parameter
However, in the same field of endeavor Pelletier teaches, wherein the threshold priority is preconfigured by a radio resource control configuration parameter (Pelletier; [0090] for NR, RRC controls the logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure by configuring mapping restrictions for each logical channel.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Pelletier in order to determine which transmission of the two should be prioritized (Pelletier; [0171]).
Regarding claims 4 and 11 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the transmission priority is determined based on a highest priority among priorities of logical channels with data available that are multiplexed or able to be multiplexed in a medium access control protocol data unit associated with a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource, an uplink grant, or both.
However, in the same field of endeavor Pelletier teaches, wherein the transmission priority is determined based on a highest priority among priorities of logical channels with data available that are multiplexed or able to be multiplexed in a medium access control protocol data unit associated with a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource, an uplink grant, or a combination thereof (Pelletier; [0083] To assemble a MAC Protocol Data Unit (PDU) for transmission, the WTRU may multiplex one or more MAC Service Data Units (SDU) from one or more logical channels (LCH) onto the TB to be delivered to the physical layer on the proper transport channel … characteristics may include the SCS, the maximum PUSCH transmission duration [0084] the one or more LCH(s) in the group have a similar priority level as other LCHs of the same LCG, or are associated with the same type of transmissions in some way…[0091] … MAC may use the TP indicated by a gNB for a given UL grant to determine which LCH or LCHs to evaluate when constructing the transport block…[0092] the WTRU may determine what data from which LCH is appropriate for multiplexing in a given TB.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Pelletier in order to determine which transmission of the two should be prioritized (Pelletier; [0171]).
Regarding claims 13 and 16 HE-Palaios-NPL the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the PUSCH resource is a configured grant uplink resource
However, in the same field of endeavor Pelletier teaches, wherein the PUSCH resource is a configured grant uplink resource (Pelletier; [0080] NR, the network (e.g., the eNB or gNB) may grant radio resources to a WTRU for a transmission on the UL shared channel (UL-SCH). The WTRU may receive such resource allocation either in a grant received on the Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) or in a configured resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Pelletier in order to determine which transmission of the two should be prioritized (Pelletier; [0171]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NPL as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wen et al. (Wen hereafter) (US 20220338240 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 12 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios -NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the transmission priority for the first transmission on the shared channel resource is determined to exceed the threshold priority if the shared channel resource is used for a retransmission of a transport block (TB)
However, in the same field of endeavor Wen teaches, wherein the transmission priority for the first transmission on the PUSCH resource is determined to exceed the threshold priority if the PUSCH resource is used for a retransmission of a transport block (TB) (Wen; [0104] …For example, the data from both LCH1 and LCH2 are included in the MAC PDU, LCH1 is configured with blind retransmission with slot aggregation and LCH2 is configured with single retransmission, the priority of LCH1 is higher than the priority of LCH2. The terminal device 110-1 may determine the preferred retransmission scheme of the MAC PDU based on the priority of LCH1, [0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wen in order to transmitting the data on the logical channel based on the first retransmission scheme (Wen; [0129]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NPL as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Li hereafter) (US 20190364586 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the threshold priority comprises a second transmission priority of the second transmission for the second UE, the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority comprises a first configured grant index of the UE being lower than a second configured grant index of the second UE, and the shared channel resource is a configured grant uplink resource.
However, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches, wherein the threshold priority comprises a second transmission priority of a second transmission for a second UE (Li; [0002] a radio base station eNodeB allocates an uplink grant (Uplink grant, UL grant) of one type of numerology/transmission time interval (Transmission Time Interval, TTI) length to each user equipment (User Equipment, UE), and the UE can use a resource according to only a logical channel priority. … the UE maximizes data transmission on the high-priority logical channels), the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority comprises a first configured grant index of the UE being lower than a second configured grant index of the second UE, (Li; [0092] The latency parameter configured by the eNB may be a latency required by quality of service or an index/pointer to a latency required by service QoS. The UE determines, based on the latency parameter required by the service QoS from the eNB, that only a UL grant of a first TTI length from the eNB can be used for a logical channel whose latency parameter is higher than a preset threshold, or that a UL grant of a second TTI length from the eNB is used for a logical channel whose latency parameter is lower than a preset threshold), and the shared channel resource is a configured grant uplink resource (Li; [0092] logical channels respectively corresponding to the UL grant of the first TTI length and the UL grant of the second TTI length from the eNB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to reduce a latency (Li; [0081]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NPL as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (Guo hereafter) (US 20230120455 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, wherein the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority comprises a configured grant instance of the user equipment being a last configured grant instance of the user equipment within a fixed frame period
However, in the same field of endeavor Guo teaches, wherein the transmission priority exceeding the threshold priority comprises a configured grant instance of the UE being a last configured grant instance of the UE within a fixed frame period (Guo; [0097] At block 1206, the wireless node outputs the grant for transmission to the first UE… [0098] … each of the resource allocations may occupy different RB resources and/or time resources. In some examples, the coordination may take transmission packet priority into account. For example, resources may be reserved for transmissions having a priority level that is at or above a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Guo in order to mitigate potential interference (Guo; [0097]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NPL as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu hereafter) (US 20230171816 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 19 HE-Palaios-NPL teaches, the claims 1 and 8,
HE-Palaios-NPL fails to explicitly teach, further comprising stopping the channel occupancy for the first transmission in response to the transmission priority not exceeding a second threshold priority
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu teaches, further comprising stopping the channel occupancy for the first transmission in response to the transmission priority not exceeding a second threshold priority (Liu; [0112] a channel access probability for the target traffic priority being lower than a threshold probability, an interference level at the terminal device exceeding a first
threshold level, an interference level at the network device exceeding a second threshold
level, a co-channel interference from a further data transmission having a further target traffic priority being detected, and a channel occupancy time sharing between the network device and the terminal device being to be stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL to include the above recited limitations as taught by Liu in order to facilitate flexible channel access (Liu; [0090]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE-Palaios-NP-Liu as applied to claims 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Turtinen (Turtinen hereafter) (US 20220217735 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20 HE-Palaios-NPL-Liu the claims 17 and 19,
HE-Palaios-NPL-Liu fails to explicitly teach, wherein the second threshold priority is the same as the threshold priority
However, in the same field of endeavor Turtinen teaches, wherein the second threshold priority is the same as the threshold priority (Turtinen; [0080] The threshold priority may be set as any suitable value. In some embodiments, the threshold priority may be set as a predefined value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of HE-Palaios-NPL-Liu to include the above recited limitations as taught by Turtinen in order to transmit traffic corresponding to the selected Channel Access Priority (Turtinen; [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILFRED THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0353. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thurs 9:00 am-4:00 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 R 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.
/W. T/Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416