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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 04/14/2026.
The claims 20-21 have been newly added by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding a priority of the first uplink shared channel is the same as the priority of the first control information. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Si teach “one or more pieces of CSI may be multiplexed on the PUSCH for transmission, and then the terminal may select the CSI with the last transmission time to multiplex and transmit on the PUSCH; or, only the CSI with the highest priority in all the CSI is multiplex ed and transmitted on the PUSCH”, see para. 168, the examiner notes that Si disclose several comparisons of the selection of the data to be multiplexed and in the case that all can be multiplexed or select just the highest priority to transmit all data being selected could have the same weight or priority; for further clarification Si teach, para. 35, “optionally, a priority of the CSI is related to a type of the CSI, or a priority of the CSI is related to a transmission time of a PUCCH carrying the CSI”; this relationship establishes the option of both priorities being the same or equal. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Si to teach a priority of the first uplink shared channel, thus Si still meet the scope of the limitations.
B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding multiplex all the pieces of control information to the first uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Yoshioka teach, “the present inventors have focused on the point that the difference in the error rate of each CB can be reduced by reducing the difference in the number of multiplexed UCIs between a plurality of PUSCH regions with different frequencies and/or times, and in a plurality of PUSCH regions on the other hand, it was conceived to perform control so that each piece of uplink control information is multiplexed”, see para. 26; for further clarification Yoshioka teach, “in a certain PUSCH region (for example, the first region), the UCI is multiplexed from behind in the time direction with priority in the time direction. On the other hand, in other PUSCH regions (for example, the second region), UCIs are multiplexed with priority in the time direction from the front in the time direction (assignment configuration #2). UCIs may be multiplexed continuously in the time direction”, see para. 40. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Yoshioka to teach this concept by multiplexing continuously the UCIs with priorities on the PUSCH, thus Si in view of Yoshioka still meet the scope of the limitations.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al. (EPO. Pub. CN110149726) in view of Yoshioka et al. (WIPO Pub. JP7116070).
Regarding claim 10 Si disclose, a collision processing apparatus, comprising:
a memory read as: “a memory 401” see para. 200, a processor read as: “a processor 402” see para. 200, and a computer program read as: “a program in the memory 401” see para. 201 stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the computer program when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
process, in a case that a time domain resource of an uplink control channel overlaps a time domain resource of at least one uplink shared channel para. 155, “when the terminal sends the UCI to the base station through the PUCCH, the transmission time of the UCI overlapping with the transmission time of the information to be transmitted in the PUSCH may occur”, the uplink control channel and the at least one uplink shared channel in the following manner:
multiplex first control information to an uplink shared channel in the at least one uplink shared channel for transmission according to information of the first control information carried on the uplink control channel para. 158, “the terminal can multiplex the HARQ-ACK information in all the PUCCHs on the PUSCH for transmission, so that the terminal can complete the transmission of the HARQ-ACK information and the information to be transmitted in the PUSCH at the same time”,
wherein the information of the first control information comprises a priority of the first control information para. 30, “If the terminal can multiplex at least one CSI in the CSI on the PUSCH for transmission, the terminal determines to multiplex the HARQ-ACK information in all the PUCCHs and the CSI with the highest priority in the at least one CSI on the PUSCH for transmission” the at least one uplink shared channel comprises a plurality of uplink shared channels para. 98, “multiplex the UCI on the last PUSCH for transmission in the plurality of PUSCHs”; and
the computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to:
in a case that all pieces of control information in the first control information have a same priority, and the plurality of uplink shared channels comprise a first uplink shared channel, para. 166, “since the CSI is reported once every other period of time, in order to reduce the processing time of the terminal during multiplexing… only the CSI with the highest priority in all the CSI is multiplexed and transmitted on the PUSCH”,
a priority of the first uplink shared channel is the same as the priority of the first control information para. 168, “one or more pieces of CSI may be multiplexed on the PUSCH for transmission, and then the terminal may select the CSI with the last transmission time to multiplex and transmit on the PUSCH; or, only the CSI with the highest priority in all the CSI is multiplex ed and transmitted on the PUSCH”, The examiner notes that Si disclose several the comparisons of the selection of the data to be multiplexed and in the case that all can be multiplexed or select just the highest priority to transmit all data being selected could have the same weight or priority; or
in a case that pieces of control information in the first control information have a same priority, and the plurality of uplink shared channels do not comprise a first uplink shared channel, multiplex all the pieces of control information to a second uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Si does not specifically disclose, multiplex all the pieces of control information to the first uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission. However, Yoshioka teach, “the present inventors have focused on the point that the difference in the error rate of each CB can be reduced by reducing the difference in the number of multiplexed UCIs between a plurality of PUSCH regions with different frequencies and / or times, and in a plurality of PUSCH regions on the other hand, it was conceived to perform control so that each piece of uplink control information is multiplexed”, see para. 26.
Si and Yoshioka are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshioka in the system of Si so the system can establish levels of priority to select what it is being transmitted first. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services of the system.
Regarding claim 13 Si disclose, wherein the plurality of uplink shared channels are uplink shared channels that meet a multiplexing time para. 19, “the terminal determines to multiplex the CSI with the last transmission time in the at least one CSI on the PUSCH for transmission”.
Claim 1 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 4 the limitations of claim 4, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 13.
Claim 19 recites a computer–program product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al. (EPO. Pub. CN110149726) in view of Yoshioka et al. (WIPO Pub. JP7116070); further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200367261).
Regarding claim 12 Si and Yoshioka does not specifically disclose, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: in a case that the first control information comprises pieces of control information having different priorities. However, Huang teach, para. 140, “the plurality of MAC priorities on an uplink control information (UCI) multiplexing configuration for UCI multiplexing”.
Huang further disclose, the plurality of uplink shared channels comprise a third uplink shared channel, multiplex the first control information to the third uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission para. 66, Fig. 4, “process 400 may include selectively applying a MAC prioritization rule for processing the plurality of PUSCHs based at least in part on the corresponding plurality of MAC priorities and based at least in part on an effect of the plurality of MAC priorities on a UCI multiplexing configuration for UCI multiplexing (block 420)”; or
in a case that the first control information comprises pieces of control information having different same priorities, and the plurality of uplink shared channels do not comprise a third uplink shared channel, multiplex the first control information to a fourth uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission,
wherein a priority of the third uplink shared channel is higher than a priority of the fourth uplink shared channel. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Si, Yoshioka and Huang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Huang in the system of Si and Yoshioka so the system can establish levels of priority to select what it is being transmitted first. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services of the system.
Regarding claim 3 the limitations of claim 3 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 12.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al. (EPO. Pub. CN110149726) in view of Yoshioka et al. (WIPO Pub. JP7116070); in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220116952).
Regarding claim 14 Si disclose, wherein the uplink control channel comprises a first uplink control channel and a second uplink control channel para. 185, “the HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the PDSCH of the (N+1)th slot is on the second PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot, that is, on the first PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot”, and
wherein computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to:
multiplex the control information carried on the first uplink control channel to an uplink shared channel in the at least one uplink shared channel for transmission para. 74, “multiplex the CSI with the highest priority in the UCI on the PUSCH for transmission”; and transmit the second uplink control channel para. 101, “a sending unit, configured to perform transmission of information to be transmitted in the PUCCH and/or the PUSCH according to the determined transmission scheme”.
Si and Yoshioka does not specifically disclose, a priority of control information carried on the first uplink control channel is lower than a priority of control information carried on the second uplink control channel. However, Lee teach, “The UE may drop some UCIs/PUCCHs corresponding to traffic having lower priorities (e.g., eMBB HARQ-ACK (i.e., HARQ-ACK for eMBB traffic) has a lower priority than URLLC HARQ-ACK (i.e., HARQ-ACK for URLLC traffic)), among a plurality of UCIs (or a plurality of PUCCHs)”; see para. 280.
Si, Yoshioka and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Si and Yoshioka to perform the selection based on the multiple levels of priority being configured by the system. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services according to the preestablished configuration.
Regarding claim 15 Si disclose, wherein the information of the first control information comprises the priority of the first control information para. 24, “determining to multiplex CSI with the highest priority in the UCI on the PUSCH for transmission”;
the uplink control channel comprises a first uplink control channel and a second uplink control channel para. 185, “the HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the PDSCH of the (N+1)th slot is on the second PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot, that is, on the first PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot”, and
wherein computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: multiplex, in a case that the at least one uplink shared channel comprises an uplink shared channel of a fifth priority, the control information carried on the first uplink control channel to the uplink shared channel of the fifth priority in the at least one uplink shared channel for transmission para. 74, “multiplex the CSI with the highest priority in the UCI on the PUSCH for transmission”; and transmit the second uplink control channel para. 101, “a sending unit, configured to perform transmission of information to be transmitted in the PUCCH and/or the PUSCH according to the determined transmission scheme”,
transmit the first uplink control channel, wherein the fifth priority is lower than the sixth priority para. 101, “a sending unit, configured to perform transmission of information to be transmitted in the PUCCH and/or the PUSCH according to the determined transmission scheme”;
or multiplex, in a case that the at least one uplink shared channel comprises an uplink shared channel of a sixth priority, the control information carried on the second uplink control channel to the uplink shared channel of the sixth priority in the at least one uplink shared channel for transmission. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Si and Yoshioka does not specifically disclose, a priority of control information carried on the first uplink control channel is lower than a priority of control information carried on the second uplink control channel. However, Lee teach, “The UE may drop some UCIs/PUCCHs corresponding to traffic having lower priorities (e.g., eMBB HARQ-ACK (i.e., HARQ-ACK for eMBB traffic) has a lower priority than URLLC HARQ-ACK (i.e., HARQ-ACK for URLLC traffic)), among a plurality of UCIs (or a plurality of PUCCHs)”, see para. 280.
Si, Yoshioka and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Si and Yoshioka to perform the selection based on the multiple levels of priority being configured by the system. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services according to the preestablished configuration.
Regarding claim 16 Si disclose, the uplink control channel comprises a first uplink control channel and a second uplink control channel para. 185, “the HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the PDSCH of the (N+1)th slot is on the second PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot, that is, on the first PUCCH in the (N+3)th slot”.
Si and Yoshioka does not specifically disclose, wherein the information of the first control information comprises at least one of the quantity of bits of the first control information or the type of the first control information. However, Lee teach, “A PUCCH resource may be determined according to a UCI type (e.g., A/N, SR, or CSI). A PUCCH resource used for UCI transmission may be determined based on a UCI (payload) size”, see para. 119.
Lee further disclose, wherein computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: multiplex, according to information of control information carried on the first uplink control channel and information of control information carried on the second uplink control channel para. 10, “multiplexing the first uplink channel and the second uplink channel based on satisfaction of the predetermined condition”,
the control information carried on one uplink control channel of the first uplink control channel and the second uplink control channel to an uplink shared channel in the at least one uplink shared channel for transmission para. 177, “based on UCI A of the PUCCH resource A and UCI B of the PUCCH resource(s) B, MUX UCI including all or part of the UCI A and the UCI B may be obtained according to the UCI multiplexing rule”; and
transmit the other uplink control channel of the first uplink control channel and the second uplink control channel para. 181, “the UE may apply the UCI multiplexing rule to PUCCH resource(s) overlapping with the PUSCH resource (on the time axis). The UE may transmit the UCI on the PUSCH”.
Si, Yoshioka and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Si and Yoshioka to perform the selection based on the multiple levels of priority being configured by the system. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services according to the preestablished configuration.
Regarding claim 17 Si disclose, wherein computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: in response to determining that the plurality of uplink shared channels comprise at least two uplink shared channels having a same priority as the priority of the first control information according to the priority of the first control information para. 166, “since the CSI is reported once every other period of time, in order to reduce the processing time of the terminal during multiplexing… only the CSI with the highest priority in all the CSI is multiplexed and transmitted on the PUSCH”.
Si and Yoshioka does not specifically disclose, multiplex, according to a first multiplexing rule, the first control information to an uplink shared channel of the at least two uplink shared channels for transmission. However, Lee teach, “based on UCI A of the PUCCH resource A and UCI B of the PUCCH resource(s) B, MUX UCI including all or part of the UCI A and the UCI B may be obtained according to the UCI multiplexing rule”, see para. 177; or
in response to determining that the plurality of uplink shared channels do not comprise uplink shared channels having a same priority as the priority of the first control information according to the priority of the first control information, multiplex, according to a first multiplexing rule, the first control information to an uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission, wherein the first multiplexing rule is determined according to at least one of the following: whether carrying aperiodic channel state information, a starting slot, a scheduling type, an index of a serving cell corresponding to an uplink transmission, or a location of a transmission symbol. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Si, Yoshioka and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Si and Yoshioka to perform the selection based on the multiple levels of priority being configured by the system. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the quality of services according to the preestablished configuration.
Regarding claim 18 Si and Yoshioka do not specifically disclose, wherein computer program, when executed by the processor, further causes the processor to: multiplex, according to a second multiplexing rule, the first control information carried on the uplink control channel to an uplink shared channel in the plurality of uplink shared channels for transmission. However, Lee teach “multiplexing the first uplink channel and the second uplink channel based on satisfaction of the predetermined condition”, see para. 10.
Lee further disclose, wherein the second multiplexing rule is determined according to at least one of the following para. 206, “As an example, a rule may be defined such that the UE first maps a URLLC PUSCH”:
whether carrying aperiodic channel state information, a starting slot para. 248, “when the above rule (i.e., the rule for preferentially mapping the UCI in the vicinity of the first DMRS among resources of the PUSCH)”, a scheduling type, an index of a serving cell corresponding to an uplink transmission, a location of a transmission symbol, or whether being the same as a priority of control information carried on a control channel. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen only one of the alternatives.
Si, Yoshioka and Lee are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters for transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee in the system of Si and Yoshioka to execute the multiplexing of the channels according to the criteria that was configured. The motivation for doing so would have been to guarantee the transmission of the channels with the highest levels of priority.
Regarding claims 5-9 the limitations of claims 5-9, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 14-18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chi Pham can be reached on (571) 272–3179. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/R.R/
EXAMINER, ART UNIT 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER, ART UNIT 2471
Prosecution Insights