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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-19, 27-28, 33-37 are pending. The rejections of claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE et al., US 2023/0180245 A1, (“BAE”), in view of Papasakellariou, US 2020/0137695 A1, (“Papasakellariou”).
Regarding claim 1:
BAE discloses a method performed by a communication device (e.g., Fig. 1, 100), the method comprising:
running a multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels without considering presence of channels designated as high priority channels to create a set of non-overlapping low priority channels; running the multiplexing procedure for all high priority channels without considering presence of low priority channels to create a set of non-overlapping high priority channels ((e.g., [0230], [0247], [0248], [0275], UE acquires non-overlapping UL channel(s) for each priority in one slot); and
responsive to there being an overlap between a non-overlapping low priority channel and a non-overlapping high priority channel, resolving the overlap (e.g., [0230], [0247], [0248], [0275], UE performs inter-priority UL multiplexing if there is a UL channel collision between UL channels with different priorities) wherein resolving the overlap comprises dropping low priority channel state information (CSI) and low priority scheduling requests (e.g., [0293]-[0295], UE drops all the LP UCIs).
BAE does not disclose wherein at least one of running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels and running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as high priority channels comprises running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI).
Papasakellariou teaches running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI) (e.g., Page 36, Claims 4 and 7, “a third DCI format indicating multiplexing of first HARQ-ACK information in a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH),”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Papasakellariou to include the feature that wherein at least one of running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels and running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as high priority channels comprises running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI) in order to enable flexible configuration of multiplexing procedure.
Regarding claim 2:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap comprises implementing a channel carrying both high priority information and low priority information (e.g., [0278]-[0285], [0289]-[0296]).
Regarding claim 3:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap comprises resolving the overlap per sub-slot of a channel (e.g., [0247], [0337], [0349]).
Regarding claim 5:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap further comprises dropping low-priority data responsive to the low-priority data colliding with a channel carrying high priority data (e.g., [0230], [0247], [0248], [0275]).
Regarding claim 6:
BAE further discloses wherein responsive to a low priority channel overlapping with more than one high priority channel, resolving the overlap comprises resolving the overlap between the low priority channel and a subset of the more than one high priority channel (e.g., [0299]).
Regarding claim 7:
BAE further discloses wherein the subset of the more than one high priority channel comprises a single high priority channel and resolving the overlap comprises resolving the overlap between the low priority channel and the single high priority channel (e.g., [0299]).
Regarding claim 8:
BAE further discloses wherein the single high priority channel comprises any one of an overlapping high priority channel that starts the earliest and an overlapping high priority channel that has a longest length (e.g., [0257], [0260], [0268]).
Regarding claim 9:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap includes creating a new channel and resolving the overlap comprises resolving any overlaps in the new channel (e.g., [0275], [0293]-[0295]).
Regarding claim 10:
BAE further discloses wherein responsive to a high priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, or a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, overlapping with a low priority PUCCH that contains hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ-feedback and other low priority uplink control information, UCI, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the low priority HARQ-feedback onto the high priority PUSCH or the high priority PUCCH and not the other low priority UCI (e.g., [0294]-[0295]).
Regarding claim 14:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap comprises resolving collisions between overlapping physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) before resolving other overlapping channels (e.g., [0275]-[0276]).
Regarding claim 15:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping low priority PUSCH that collide with high priority PUSCH (e.g., [0276]).
Regarding claim 18:
BAE further discloses wherein resolving the overlap comprises resolving the overlap based on at least one radio resource control, RRC, parameter (e.g., [0292], [0353])
Regarding claim 19:
BAE further discloses wherein the at least one RRC parameter comprises one or more of: a highPriorityUciOnLowPriorityPuschEnabled parameter which when enabled, resolving the overlap includes multiplexing High-priority uplink control information, UCI, on low-priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, while low-priority UCI would not be multiplexed on high-priority PUSCH; a lowPriorityUciOnHighPriorityPuschEnabled parameter which when enabled, resolving the overlap includes multiplexing low-priority UCI on high-priority PUSCH while low-priority UCI would not be multiplexed on high-priority PUSCH; a lowPriorityHarqAckOnHighPriorityPucch parameter which when enabled, resolving the overlap includes multiplexing only low-priority hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledge, HARQ-ACK, on high-priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH; and a lowPriorityHarqAckSrOnHighPriorityPucch: parameter which when enabled, resolving the overlap includes multiplexing only low-priority HARQ-ACK and/or scheduling request, SR, on high-priority PUCCH (e.g., [0352]-[0354]).
Regarding claim 27:
BAE discloses a communication device (e.g., Fig. 2, 100) comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 2, 102); and memory (Fig. 2, 104) coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry causes the communication device to perform operations comprising: running a multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels without considering presence of channels designate as high priority channels to create a set of non-overlapping low priority channels; running the multiplexing procedure for all high priority channels without considering presence of low priority channels to create a set of non-overlapping high priority channels; and responsive to there being an overlap between a non-overlapping low priority channel and a non-overlapping high priority channel, resolving the overlap. (See similar features in rejection of claim 1.)
BAE does not disclose wherein at least one of running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels and running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as high priority channels comprises running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI).
Papasakellariou teaches running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI) (e.g., Page 36, Claims 4 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Papasakellariou to include the feature that wherein at least one of running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels and running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as high priority channels comprises running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI), in order to enable flexible configuration of multiplexing procedure.
Regarding claims 28 and 33-37:
See similar features in rejections of claims 2, 3, and 5-8 above.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE in view of Papasakellariou, and further in view of Chen et al, US 2022/0394704 A1, (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 11:
BAE does not disclose wherein responsive to a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carrying high priority uplink control information, UCI, overlaps with a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH.
Chen teaches responsive to a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carrying high priority uplink control information, UCI, overlaps with a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH (e.g., [0054]-[0056], Fig. 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Chen to include the feature that responsive to a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carrying high priority uplink control information, UCI, overlaps with a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH, in order to reduce delays for high priority services.
Regarding claim 12:
BAE does not disclose wherein multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH comprises puncturing the high priority UCI into the low priority PUSCH.
Chen teaches wherein multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH comprises puncturing the high priority UCI into the low priority PUSCH (e.g., [0054]-[0056], Fig. 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Chen to include the feature that wherein multiplexing the high priority UCI from the high priority PUCCH onto the low priority PUSCH comprises puncturing the high priority UCI into the low priority PUSCH, in order to reduce delays for high priority services.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE in view of Papasakellariou, and further in view of LI, US 2023/0199761 A1, (“LI”).
Regarding claim 13:
BAE does not disclose wherein responsive to a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH overlaps with a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, that contains hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ-feedback and other high priority uplink control information, UCI, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority HARQ-feedback onto the low priority PUSCH or the high priority PUCCH while not multiplexing high priority UCI.
LI teaches responsive to a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH overlaps with a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, that contains hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ-feedback and other high priority uplink control information, UCI, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority HARQ-feedback onto the low priority PUSCH or the high priority PUCCH while not mutiplexing other high priority UCI (e.g., [0102], [0108], [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of LI to include the feature that wherein responsive to a low priority physical uplink shared channel, PUSCH overlaps with a high priority physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, that contains hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ-feedback and other high priority uplink control information, UCI, resolving the overlap comprises multiplexing the high priority HARQ-feedback onto the low priority PUSCH or the high priority PUCCH while not multiplexing other high priority UCI, in order to optimize uplink performance of the UE.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAE in view of Papasakellariou, and further in view of Yang, US 2020/0260478 A1, (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 16:
BAE does not disclose wherein resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH scheduled by configured grant that collide with PUSCH scheduled by DCI.
Yang teaches resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH scheduled by configured grant that collide with PUSCH scheduled by DCI (e.g., [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Yang to include the feature that wherein resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH scheduled by configured grant that collide with PUSCH scheduled by DCI in order to improve latency for dynamic scheduling PUSCH transmission.
Regarding claim 17:
BAE does not disclose wherein resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH for which there is no data to transmit that collide with PUSCH for which there is data to transmit.
Yang teaches resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH for which there is no data to transmit that collide with PUSCH for which there is data to transmit (e.g., [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of BAE in view of Yang to include the feature that wherein resolving collisions between overlapping PUSCH comprises dropping PUSCH for which there is no data to transmit that collide with PUSCH for which there is data to transmit in order to improve latency for dynamic scheduling PUSCH transmission.
Response to Arguments
Rejections of independent claims 1 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Papasakellariou does not teach or suggest the feature “at least one of running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as low priority channels and running the multiplexing procedure for all channels designated as high priority channels comprises running the multiplexing procedure based on whether priority multiplexing or prioritization/cancelling is designated in downlink control information (DCI).” See Remarks, page 15 of 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Claim 4 of Papasakellariou recites “a third DCI format indicating multiplexing of first HARQ-ACK information in a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)… multiplexing the first HARQ-ACK information in the first PUSCH transmission only when the first PUSCH and the first PUCCH have same priority.” Thus, Papasakellariou discloses a DCI indicating a multiplexing procedure for uplink channels based on priority of the uplink channels, where multiplexing is only performed when the uplink channels have the same priority. For at least the reason discussed above, Examiner submits Papasakellariou discloses the claim feature above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights