DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 12/11/2025, claims 1-30 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2,8-9,11,14-15,17-20 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0314900 A1 as published on Oct. 1, 2020) in view of HAN et al. (US 2021/0058922 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Hosseini teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving, from a network entity, one or more control messages (See Fig. 9: the UE device 905 to receive multiple control channels related to uplink collision handling. ¶ [0194]) that collectively schedule three uplink control channels involving two scheduling overlaps (See Fig. 9: The collision handler 930 may determine a collision resolution configuration for transmission of the first uplink information and the second uplink information based on the first priority level and the second priority level. ¶ [0197]) between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 6: determining overlapping conditions between multiple PUCCHs (i.e., more than three). ¶ [0160] and ¶ [0162]), the one uplink control channel scheduled with across multiple transmission time intervals (See Fig. 3: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). ¶ [0109]);
performing a conflict resolution procedure to resolve the two scheduling overlaps, the conflict resolution procedure based at least in part on an order for resolving scheduling overlaps (See Figs. 1-2: The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. Additionally, or alternatively, the collision resolution configuration rules described herein may be applied to PUCCH collisions as well as PUCCH and PUSCH collision. Note: the two PUCCH and PUSCH are the three UL channels. ¶ [0123]) between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 6B further provides multiple PUCCH UL control channels 610, 615, and 635. ¶ [0167]), wherein the order in which overlaps between the one uplink control channel are resolved is based on the one uplink control channel being scheduled (See Figs. 6s: The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules (i.e., resolving the order) of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. ¶ [0123] and ¶ [0124]) with across multiple transmission time intervals (Hosseini: The communications over a carrier may be organized according to TTIs or slots, each of which may include user data as well as control information. ¶ [0100]); and
transmitting a resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels based at least in part on the conflict resolution procedure (See Figs. 2 and 9: transmitting at least a portion of the first uplink information or the second uplink information according to the collision resolution configuration via at least a portion of the first and second sets of time resources. See Hosseini’s claim 1 and ¶ [0188]).
Even though, Hosseini teaches scheduling uplink control channels using TTI and resolving a collision between two or more UL control channels, Hosseini doesn’t explicitly provide the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals.
However, Han discloses the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (Han’s Embodiment Ten: See Figs. 13 and 14: , In the case where a user terminal is configured for a subslot PUCCH repetition, the repetition cannot cross the subframe boundary. For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide repetition across multiple transmission time intervals as taught by Han to have incorporated in the system of Hosseini, so that it would not only provide to avoid collision between PUCCH repetitions but helps not to be affected the efficiency of resource usage. Han: ¶ [0188].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of the three or more…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 2; Hosseini in view of Han discloses the method further comprising: determining, from the three uplink control channels, a first set of uplink control channels with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals and a second set of uplink control channels, each of the second set of uplink control channels scheduled for transmission (Han: For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Regarding claim 8; Hosseini teaches the method wherein performing the conflict resolution procedure comprises: identifying one or more groups of overlapping uplink control channels of the three uplink control channels (Hosseini: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). When a single-slot PUCCH overlaps with a single-slot PUCCH or a single-slot PUSCH in slot n for a PUCCH group, a UE 115 may multiplex all UCI on either one PUCCH or one PUSCH based on one or more UCI multiplexing rules. ¶ [0109]); and selecting a respective uplink control channel from each group of overlapping uplink control channels based on a priority level associated with each uplink control channel of the three uplink control channels to generate the resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels (Hosseini: See Fig. 1 and 2: Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. Priority may be determined for some transmissions (e.g., CSI reports) based on the type of transmission (e.g., periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic). In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s)…¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 9; Hosseini teaches the method wherein the priority level is based at least in part on a type of transmission associated with each uplink control channel and a scheduled starting time of each uplink control channel (Hosseini: channel priority may be assigned based on transmission type, and feedback information (e.g., HARQ ACK codebook(s)) may have a higher priority than UCI or scheduling requests. In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH). In some cases, the prioritization of channels may include a combination of considerations (e.g., service type, transmission type, and physical channel type). ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 11; Hosseini teaches the method wherein identifying the one or more groups of overlapping uplink control channels comprises: identifying a temporally first uplink control channel of the three uplink control channels and uplink control channels of the three uplink control channels that overlap with the temporally first uplink control channel (Hosseini: See Fig. 6B; The described techniques relate to handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority). For example, a collision resolution configuration may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., normal channels first, and then low latency channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. Collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). Abstract).
Regarding claim 14; Hosseini teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: canceling, for each group of overlapping uplink control channels, a remainder of the uplink control channels (Hosseini: See Abstract).
Regarding claim 15; Hosseini teaches the method wherein performing the conflict resolution procedure comprises: generating an ordering of the three uplink control channels, where the order includes the ordering; and resolving the two scheduling overlaps based on the ordering and a priority level associated with each of the three uplink control channels (Hosseini: See Fig. 6B, The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station), and may indicate how the UE is to handle collisions between uplink transmissions of different priorities, different channel types, different service types, or carrying different information. For example, the collision resolution configuration may specify collision handling between multiple overlapping channels. ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 17; Hosseini in view of Han teaches the method wherein performing the conflict resolution procedure comprises: resolving scheduling overlaps based at least in part on the order until no scheduling overlaps involving an uplink control channel (Han: For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Regarding claim 18; Hosseini in view of Han discloses the method further comprising: determining the order based at least in part on determining a scheduled timing of the three uplink control channels and respective durations of the three uplink control channels (Han: For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Regarding claim 19; Hosseini teaches a method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising:
transmitting one or more control messages (See Figs. 2 and 9: the Base Station to transmit multiple control channels related to uplink collision handling to the UE. ¶ [0194]) that collectively schedule three uplink control channels involving two scheduling overlaps between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 9: The collision handler 930 may determine a collision resolution configuration for transmission of the first uplink information and the second uplink information based on the first priority level and the second priority level. ¶ [0197]), at least one of the three uplink control channels scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (See Fig. 3: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). ¶ [0109]);
performing a conflict resolution procedure to resolve the two scheduling overlaps, the conflict resolution procedure based at least in part on an order for resolving scheduling overlaps between the three uplink control channels (See Figs. 1-2: The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. Additionally, or alternatively, the collision resolution configuration rules described herein may be applied to PUCCH collisions as well as PUCCH and PUSCH collision. Note: the two PUCCH and PUSCH are the three UL channels. ¶ [0123]) between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 6B further provides multiple PUCCH UL control channels 610, 615, and 635. ¶ [0167]), wherein the order in which overlaps between the one uplink control channel are resolved is based on the one uplink control channel being scheduled (See Figs. 6: URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may remain (i.e., resolved in order due to same priorities). URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may have similar priorities and because they are overlapping, URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may be multiplexed to form multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630. Then, multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630 may be transmitted (i.e., scheduled to transmit). ¶ [0162]) with across multiple transmission time intervals (Hosseini: The communications over a carrier may be organized according to TTIs or slots, each of which may include user data as well as control information. ¶ [0100]); and
receiving a resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels based at least in part on the conflict resolution procedure (See Figs. 2 and 9: receiving at the UE a portion of the first uplink information or the second uplink information according to the collision resolution configuration via at least a portion of the first and second sets of time resources. See Hosseini’s claim 1 and ¶ [0188]).
Even though, Hosseini teaches scheduling uplink control channels using TTI and resolving a collision between two or more UL control channels, Hosseini doesn’t explicitly provide the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals.
However, Han discloses the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (Han’s Embodiment Ten: See Figs. 13 and 14: , In the case where a user terminal is configured for a subslot PUCCH repetition, the repetition cannot cross the subframe boundary. For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide repetition across multiple transmission time intervals as taught by Han to have incorporated in the system of Hosseini, so that it would not only provide to avoid collision between PUCCH repetitions but helps not to be affected the efficiency of resource usage. Han: ¶ [0188].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of the three or more…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 20; Hosseini in view of Han discloses the method further comprising: determining, from the three uplink control channels, a first set of uplink control channels with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals and a second set of uplink control channels, each of the second set of uplink control channels scheduled for transmission (Han: For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Regarding claim 26; Hosseini teaches the method wherein performing the conflict resolution procedure comprises: identifying one or more groups of overlapping uplink control channels of the three uplink control channels (Hosseini: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). When a single-slot PUCCH overlaps with a single-slot PUCCH or a single-slot PUSCH in slot n for a PUCCH group, a UE 115 may multiplex all UCI on either one PUCCH or one PUSCH based on one or more UCI multiplexing rules. ¶ [0109]); and selecting a respective uplink control channel from each group of overlapping uplink control channels based on a priority level associated with each uplink control channel of the three uplink control channels to generate the resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels (Hosseini: See Fig. 1 and 2: Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. Priority may be determined for some transmissions (e.g., CSI reports) based on the type of transmission (e.g., periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic). In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s)…¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 27; Hosseini teaches the method wherein the priority level is based at least in part on a type of transmission associated with each uplink control channel and a scheduled starting time of each uplink control channel (Hosseini: channel priority may be assigned based on transmission type, and feedback information (e.g., HARQ ACK codebook(s)) may have a higher priority than UCI or scheduling requests. In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH). In some cases, the prioritization of channels may include a combination of considerations (e.g., service type, transmission type, and physical channel type). ¶ [0111]).
Regarding claim 29; Hosseini teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network entity, one or more control messages (See Fig. 9: the UE device 905 to receive multiple control channels related to uplink collision handling. ¶ [0194]) that collectively schedule three uplink control channels involving two scheduling overlaps between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 9: The collision handler 930 may determine a collision resolution configuration for transmission of the first uplink information and the second uplink information based on the first priority level and the second priority level. ¶ [0197]), at least one of the three uplink control channels scheduled with across multiple transmission time intervals (See Fig. 3: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). ¶ [0109]);
perform a conflict resolution procedure to resolve the two scheduling overlaps, the conflict resolution procedure based at least in part on an order for resolving scheduling overlaps (See Figs. 1-2: The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. Additionally, or alternatively, the collision resolution configuration rules described herein may be applied to PUCCH collisions as well as PUCCH and PUSCH collision. Note: the two PUCCH and PUSCH are the three UL channels. ¶ [0123]) between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 6B further provides multiple PUCCH UL control channels 610, 615, and 635. ¶ [0167]), wherein the order in which overlaps between the one uplink control channel are resolved is based on the one uplink control channel being scheduled (See Figs. 6: URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may remain (i.e., resolved in order due to same priorities). URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may have similar priorities and because they are overlapping, URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may be multiplexed to form multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630. Then, multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630 may be transmitted (i.e., scheduled to transmit). ¶ [0162]) with across multiple transmission time intervals (Hosseini: The communications over a carrier may be organized according to TTIs or slots, each of which may include user data as well as control information. ¶ [0100]); and
transmit a resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels based at least in part on the conflict resolution procedure (See Figs. 2 and 9: transmitting at least a portion of the first uplink information or the second uplink information according to the collision resolution configuration via at least a portion of the first and second sets of time resources. See Hosseini’s claim 1 and ¶ [0188]).
Even though, Hosseini teaches scheduling uplink control channels using TTI and resolving a collision between two or more UL control channels, Hosseini doesn’t explicitly provide the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals.
However, Han discloses the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (Han’s Embodiment Ten: See Figs. 13 and 14: , In the case where a user terminal is configured for a subslot PUCCH repetition, the repetition cannot cross the subframe boundary. For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide repetition across multiple transmission time intervals as taught by Han to have incorporated in the system of Hosseini, so that it would not only provide to avoid collision between PUCCH repetitions but helps not to be affected the efficiency of resource usage. Han: ¶ [0188].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of the three or more…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 30; Hosseini teaches a network entity comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the network entity to:
transmit one or more control messages (See Figs. 2 and 9: the Base Station to transmit multiple control channels related to uplink collision handling to the UE. ¶ [0194]) that collectively schedule three uplink control channels involving two scheduling overlaps between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 9: The collision handler 930 may determine a collision resolution configuration for transmission of the first uplink information and the second uplink information based on the first priority level and the second priority level. ¶ [0197]), at least one of the three uplink control channels scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (See Fig. 3: collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH) may result in a multiplexing behavior that is designed for handling single slot (e.g., single TTI) collisions between two channels (e.g., between a PUCCH and a PUCCH or between a PUCCH and a PUSCH). ¶ [0109]);
perform a conflict resolution procedure to resolve the two scheduling overlaps, the conflict resolution procedure based at least in part on an order for resolving scheduling overlaps between the three uplink control channels (See Figs. 1-2: The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. Additionally, or alternatively, the collision resolution configuration rules described herein may be applied to PUCCH collisions as well as PUCCH and PUSCH collision. Note: the two PUCCH and PUSCH are the three UL channels. ¶ [0123]) between the three uplink control channels (See Fig. 6B further provides multiple PUCCH UL control channels 610, 615, and 635. ¶ [0167]), wherein the order in which overlaps between the one uplink control channel are resolved is based on the one uplink control channel being scheduled (See Figs. 6: URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may remain (i.e., resolved in order due to same priorities). URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may have similar priorities and because they are overlapping, URLLC PUCCH 620 and URLLC PUSCH 625 may be multiplexed to form multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630. Then, multiplexed URLLC PUSCH 630 may be transmitted (i.e., scheduled to transmit). ¶ [0162]) with across multiple transmission time intervals (Hosseini: The communications over a carrier may be organized according to TTIs or slots, each of which may include user data as well as control information. ¶ [0100]); and
receive a resolved set of uplink control channels from the three uplink control channels based at least in part on the conflict resolution procedure (See Figs. 2 and 9: receiving at the UE a portion of the first uplink information or the second uplink information according to the collision resolution configuration via at least a portion of the first and second sets of time resources. See Hosseini’s claim 1 and ¶ [0188]).
Even though, Hosseini teaches scheduling uplink control channels using TTI and resolving a collision between two or more UL control channels, Hosseini doesn’t explicitly provide the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals.
However, Han discloses the method wherein the three or more uplink control channels being scheduled with repetition across multiple transmission time intervals (Han’s Embodiment Ten: See Figs. 13 and 14: , In the case where a user terminal is configured for a subslot PUCCH repetition, the repetition cannot cross the subframe boundary. For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. ¶ [0188]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide repetition across multiple transmission time intervals as taught by Han to have incorporated in the system of Hosseini, so that it would not only provide to avoid collision between PUCCH repetitions but helps not to be affected the efficiency of resource usage. Han: ¶ [0188].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one of the three or more…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 12-13, 21-25, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment as filed on 12/11/2025, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments:
Applicant argued that the cited prior arts fail to teach the amended limitations “wherein the order in which overlaps between the three or more uplink control channels are resolved…”
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, Applicant fails to provide the type of resolving in the claims. No further discussion of the resolving the UL control channels are made throughout the claimed disclosure. However, Hosseini teaches resolving the order between the UL control channels. The UE 115-a may apply prioritization rules of a collision resolution configuration (e.g., based on service type) to various situations where uplink transmissions overlap. Additionally, or alternatively, the collision resolution configuration rules described herein may be applied to PUCCH collisions as well as PUCCH and PUSCH collision. See ¶ [0123]. In other words, the UE resolves the order of UL control channels by using prioritization rules of a collision resolution where multiple UL transmission overlap. Thus, Hosseini teaches wherein the order in which overlaps between the three or more uplink control channels are resolved.
Arguments:
Applicant argued that the cited prior arts fail to teach the method wherein “overlaps between the three or more uplink control channels are resolved…”
Examiner’s response:
Examiner further disagrees. Hosseini teaches the method of handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information). The two or more channels could be reasonably analyzed that at least three UL control channels are resolved or handled by the UE for resolving the collision among the channels.
Han further states the method wherein a UE terminal is configured for a subslot PUCCH repetition, the repetition cannot cross the subframe boundary. For example, if the number of repetitions of subslot PUCCH is set to 4, the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #0, then the subsequent subslot PUCCH is repeatedly sent on subslot #1, #2, and #3, respectively. If the initial subslot PUCCH starts at subslot #4, then subslot PUCCH can only be repeated once in subslot #5 (i.e., multiple PUCCH or control channels are allocated in different TTI slots to avoid crossing or overlapping. See ¶ [0188]. In other words, multiple PUCCH channels (i.e., more than three) are allocated in different time slot to avoid crossing or overlapping. Thus, Hosseini in view of Han teaches the method wherein “overlaps between the three or more uplink control channels are resolved. In view of the above reasoning, the combined teaching of Hosseini and Han successfully teaches each limitation of the claimed elements. Therefore, the combined teaching also renders the rest of the dependent claims. Thus, Examiner believes that all the rejections shall be sustained.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAI AUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416