CTFR 18/166,232 CTFR 91699 DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim 31 have been canceled. Claims 1-30, and 32 are subject to examination. Acknowledgement is made to the Applicant’s amendment to claims 25-30 to obviate the previous Claim interpretation to claims 25-30. The previous Claim interpretation to claims 25-30are hereby withdrawn. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons: Applicant’s Argument: The applicant argues, on page 12 in substance that "In making the rejection, the Office Action asserts that MARINIER discloses "wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE (Marinier; [0134] WTRU may determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a- 12 logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission. However, at most, this portion of MARINIER may disclose that a transmission profile is determined based on physical layer properties, note that the determination or selection itself is performed at the physical layer of the UE, as expressly required by claim 1.)." Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Marinier teaches physical layer properties for transmission, transmission profile may be determined on a type of data or control information that is carried by a physical channel [0136]. Physical layer of the UE is not clearly defined in the claim. Physical layer of the UE is very broad. Examiner is construing a physical layer that Marinier teaches the determination and selection for transmission is done in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)which is construed as physical layer of the UE which is using processor as shown in fig. 1B. However, claim 1 merely recites ... wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE... Applicant’s Argument: The applicant argues, on page 12 in substance that "During the Examiner interview, the Examiner additionally referenced MARINIER's paragraph [0084] as allegedly supporting determining or selecting at the physical layer. However, this portion of MARINIER states that activation or deactivation "may be based on MAC layer signaling or physical layer signaling." Accordingly, this disclosure relates to signaling mechanisms used to convey or configure information, not to where the determination or selection is performed. The use of physical layer signaling to communicate or configure behavior does not indicate that the determination or selection itself is performed at the physical layer of the UE.” Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Marinier teaches WTRU determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties. Based on determinations transmissions may overlap, dropped or pre-empted. Based on such a determination, a WTRU may use overlapping resources for the PUSCH transmission and may drop the PUCCH transmission. In an example, a WTRU may transmit PUCCH over the overlapped resources. Examiner is construing as in the prior art WTRU determine a transmission profile to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission. Therefore, to advance prosecution how is physical layer differ from the prior art fig. 1B and fig 2 of the instant application that both includes processor, transceiver and other parts for determination and selection for transmission. Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the examiner directs the applicant to those responses above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 8-11, 16-19, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier et al. ( Marinier hereafter) (US 20200196343 A1) in view of Yoshioka et al. ( Yoshioka hereafter) (US 20220053483 A1) . Regarding claim 1 Marinier teaches, A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Marinier; [0033] the WTRU 102 c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114 a ) , comprising: one or more memories (Marinier; Fig. 1B) and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Marinier; Fig. 1B) , configured to: determine (determination before the start of any one of the transmissions) whether a first communication associated with an ultra-reliable low- latency communication (first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service) traffic type at least partially overlaps (partially overlap) in time with a second communication associated with an enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service) (Marinier; [0185] one of the transmission may correspond to a first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service and another may correspond to a second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service. WTRU determines that there is sufficient processing time (e.g., time between two events is less than x), and if the WTRU makes this determination before the start of any one of the transmissions that at least partially overlap, the WTRU may perform at least one of the following for different combinations of signals ; select, based at least in part on the determination and a rule ([0157]) , the first communication, or the second communication, as a selected communication for transmission (assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions) (Marinier; [0111], The WTRU may perform such grouping, for example, if the UCI is associated with a transmission profile. For example, such transmission profile may correspond to an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) type of transmission. The WTRU may assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions (e.g., data transmissions associated with a transmission profile that corresponds to non-URLLC type of transmission [0157] if a first transmission profile has a higher priority level than a second transmission profile, a PUSCH that may include data to be transmitted in accordance with the first transmission profile may be allocated power before a PUCCH that may include a HARQ-ACK that is to be transmitted in accordance with the second transmission profile. [0185] (1) the WTRU may prioritize SR (for URLLC), drop PUSCH (for eMBB))) , wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE (Marinier; [0134] WTRU may determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission), (Fig. 1B, [0134]); and transmit the selected communication (Marinier; [0134] a transmission profile associated with a UCI may be determined based on an attribute (e.g., a QoS metric) associated with the logical channel or the logical channel group from which data may be transmitted) . Marinier fails to explicitly teach, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka teaches, wherein the rule (determined in the order of) is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication (HARQ-ACK>SR>first) being higher than a second priority level of the second communication (CSI>second) ; and (Yoshioka; [0082] the priority of the UCI type may be determined in the order of HARQ-ACK>SR>first CSI>second CSI, in FIG. 3B, since the multi-slot PUCCH #1 includes the SR and the multi-slot PUCCH #2 includes the HARQ-ACK, the UE may transmit the multi-slot PUCCH #2 including the HARQ-ACK having a high priority in the slots #1 to #3.) ; and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]). Regarding claim 9 Marinier teaches, A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) ( Marinier; [0033] the WTRU 102 c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114 a ) , comprising: one or more memories (Marinier; Fig. 1B) and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Marinier; Fig. 1B) , configured to: determining (determination before the start of any one of the transmissions) whether a first communication associated with an ultra-reliable low- latency communication (first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service) traffic type at least partially overlaps (partially overlap) in time with a second communication associated with an enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service) (Marinier; [0185] one of the transmission may correspond to a first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service and another may correspond to a second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service. WTRU determines that there is sufficient processing time (e.g., time between two events is less than x), and if the WTRU makes this determination before the start of any one of the transmissions that at least partially overlap, the WTRU may perform at least one of the following for different combinations of signals ; selecting, based at least in part on the determination and a rule ([0157]) , the first communication, or the second communication, as a selected communication for transmission (assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions) (Marinier; [0111], The WTRU may perform such grouping, for example, if the UCI is associated with a transmission profile. For example, such transmission profile may correspond to an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) type of transmission. The WTRU may assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions (e.g., data transmissions associated with a transmission profile that corresponds to non-URLLC type of transmission [0157] if a first transmission profile has a higher priority level than a second transmission profile, a PUSCH that may include data to be transmitted in accordance with the first transmission profile may be allocated power before a PUCCH that may include a HARQ-ACK that is to be transmitted in accordance with the second transmission profile. [0185] (1) the WTRU may prioritize SR (for URLLC), drop PUSCH (for eMBB))) , wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE (Marinier; [0134] WTRU may determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission) (Fig. 1B [0134]); and transmit the selected communication (Marinier; [0134] a transmission profile associated with a UCI may be determined based on an attribute (e.g., a QoS metric) associated with the logical channel or the logical channel group from which data may be transmitted) . Marinier fails to explicitly teach, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka teaches, wherein the rule (determined in the order) is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication (HARQ-ACK>SR>first) being higher than a second priority level of the second communication (CSI>second CSI) ; and (Yoshioka; [0082] the priority of the UCI type may be determined in the order of HARQ-ACK>SR>first CSI>second CSI, in FIG. 3B, since the multi-slot PUCCH #1 includes the SR and the multi-slot PUCCH #2 includes the HARQ-ACK, the UE may transmit the multi-slot PUCCH #2 including the HARQ-ACK having a high priority in the slots #1 to #3.) ; and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]). Regarding claim 17 Marinier teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to (Marinier; [0189] computer program, software, and/or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer and/or processor…computer-readable storage media may comprise a read only memory (ROM), a random-access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory,..) : determine (determination before the start of any one of the transmissions) whether a first communication associated with an ultra-reliable low- latency communication (first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service) traffic type at least partially overlaps (partially overlap) in time with a second communication associated with an enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service) (Marinier; [0185] one of the transmission may correspond to a first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service and another may correspond to a second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service. WTRU determines that there is sufficient processing time (e.g., time between two events is less than x), and if the WTRU makes this determination before the start of any one of the transmissions that at least partially overlap, the WTRU may perform at least one of the following for different combinations of signals ; select, based at least in part on the determination and a rule ([0157]) , the first communication, or the second communication, as a selected communication for transmission (assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions) (Marinier; [0111], The WTRU may perform such grouping, for example, if the UCI is associated with a transmission profile. For example, such transmission profile may correspond to an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) type of transmission. The WTRU may assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions (e.g., data transmissions associated with a transmission profile that corresponds to non-URLLC type of transmission [0157] if a first transmission profile has a higher priority level than a second transmission profile, a PUSCH that may include data to be transmitted in accordance with the first transmission profile may be allocated power before a PUCCH that may include a HARQ-ACK that is to be transmitted in accordance with the second transmission profile. [0185] (1) the WTRU may prioritize SR (for URLLC), drop PUSCH (for eMBB))) , wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE (Marinier; [0134] WTRU may determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission) (Fig. 1B [0134]); and transmit the selected communication (Marinier; [0134] a transmission profile associated with a UCI may be determined based on an attribute (e.g., a QoS metric) associated with the logical channel or the logical channel group from which data may be transmitted) . Marinier fails to explicitly teach, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka teaches, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and (Yoshioka; [0082] the priority of the UCI type may be determined in the order of HARQ-ACK>SR>first CSI>second CSI, in FIG. 3B, since the multi-slot PUCCH #1 includes the SR and the multi-slot PUCCH #2 includes the HARQ-ACK, the UE may transmit the multi-slot PUCCH #2 including the HARQ-ACK having a high priority in the slots #1 to #3.) ; and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]). Regarding claim 25 Marinier teaches, an apparatus for wireless communication ( Marinier; [0033] the WTRU 102 c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114 a ) , comprising: means for determining (determination before the start of any one of the transmissions) whether a first communication associated with an ultra-reliable low- latency communication (first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service) traffic type at least partially overlaps (partially overlap) in time with a second communication associated with an enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service) (Marinier; [0185] one of the transmission may correspond to a first transmission profile or similar e.g., a URLLC service and another may correspond to a second transmission profile, e.g., an eMBB service. WTRU determines that there is sufficient processing time (e.g., time between two events is less than x), and if the WTRU makes this determination before the start of any one of the transmissions that at least partially overlap, the WTRU may perform at least one of the following for different combinations of signals ; means for selecting, based at least in part on the means for determination and a rule ([0157]) , the first communication, or the second communication, as a selected communication for transmission (assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions) (Marinier; [0111], The WTRU may perform such grouping, for example, if the UCI is associated with a transmission profile. For example, such transmission profile may correspond to an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) type of transmission. The WTRU may assign a higher priority to such group of transmissions than other data transmissions (e.g., data transmissions associated with a transmission profile that corresponds to non-URLLC type of transmission [0157] if a first transmission profile has a higher priority level than a second transmission profile, a PUSCH that may include data to be transmitted in accordance with the first transmission profile may be allocated power before a PUCCH that may include a HARQ-ACK that is to be transmitted in accordance with the second transmission profile. [0185] (1) the WTRU may prioritize SR (for URLLC), drop PUSCH (for eMBB))) , wherein at least one of the determination or the selection is performed at a physical layer of the UE (Marinier; [0134] WTRU may determine a transmission profile based on a configuration of a logical channel (LCH) to one or more physical layer properties for a given transmission) (Fig. 1B [0134]); and means for transmitting the selected communication (Marinier; [0134] a transmission profile associated with a UCI may be determined based on an attribute (e.g., a QoS metric) associated with the logical channel or the logical channel group from which data may be transmitted) . Marinier fails to explicitly teach, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka teaches, wherein the rule is based at least in part on a respective first priority levels level of the first communication being higher than a second priority level of the second communication; and (Yoshioka; [0082] the priority of the UCI type may be determined in the order of HARQ-ACK>SR>first CSI>second CSI, in FIG. 3B, since the multi-slot PUCCH #1 includes the SR and the multi-slot PUCCH #2 includes the HARQ-ACK, the UE may transmit the multi-slot PUCCH #2 including the HARQ-ACK having a high priority in the slots #1 to #3) ; and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]). Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, and 26, Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, the claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 Marinier fails to explicitly teach, wherein at least one of the first communication or the second communication comprises a positive scheduling request or a data channel with a configured grant. However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshioka teaches, wherein at least one of the first communication or the second communication comprises a positive scheduling request (Yoshioka; [0053] A traffic type of the SR may be determined based on a higher layer parameter used as an SR identifier (SR-ID). The higher layer parameter may indicate whether the traffic type of the SR is eMBB or URLLC.). {Scheduling request determined based on a higher layer parameter used as an SR identifier which examiner is construing as the instant application recites in [0048] scheduling request being configured to be transmitted on the physical random access channel resource when the UE is configured to determine priority} It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]). Regarding Claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claims of 1,9, 17, 25 Marinier further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive configuration information including information associated with the first priority level and the second priority level (Marinier; [0156- 0157] Prioritization between transmissions may be provided. In an example, a priority level may be defined or configured for a transmission profile (e.g., each transmission profile). A priority level may be used, for example, to determine whether one or more transmissions may be dropped … A priority order for scaling may be dependent on a transmission profile (e.g., in addition to other criteria such as UCI or data type). In an example, a transmission profile criterion may take precedence over, or supersede, other criteria. In an example, if a first transmission profile has a higher priority level than a second transmission profile) . Regarding claims 8, 16, and 24 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claims 1, 9, and 17, Marinier fails to explicitly teach, drop a non-selected communication, of the first communication and the second communication, different from the selected communication Yoshioka further teaches, drop a non-selected communication, of the first communication and the second communication, different from the selected communication (Yoshioka; [0074] the multi-slot PUCCH #1 of the low priority traffic type (for example, eMBB related) does not have to be transmitted. In this case, in the slots #1 to #3, the UE may drop the UCI included in the multi-slot PUCCH #1) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yoshioka in order to control at least one of the transmission and multiplexing of UCI when the overlapping occurs (Yoshioka; [0034]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 12, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claim s 3,11,19, and 27 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. ( Xiong here - after) (US 20200037314 A1). Regarding Claims 4, 12, 20, and 28 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 Marinier-Yoshioka fails to explicitly teach, wherein the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) information element (IE) However, in the same field of endeavor Xiong teaches, wherein the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) information element (IE) (Xiong; [0033] the priority rule may be predefined in any of the NR specifications, or may be configured by higher layers via the NR minimum system information (MSI), the NR remaining minimum system information (RMSI), the NR system information block (SIB) or the radio resource control (RRC) signaling.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier-Yoshioka to include the above recited limitations as taught by Xiong in order to configure priority rule ( Xiong; [0033]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 13, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claim s 3, 11, 19, and 27 above, and further in view of Freda et al. ( Freda hereafter) (US 20200296749 A1) . Regarding Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 Marinier -Yoshioka teaches, The claims 3, 11, 19, 27 Marinier-Yoshioka fails to explicitly teach, wherein the configuration information comprises an indicator indicating the first priority level of the first communication and the second priority level of the second communication However, in the same field of endeavor Freda teaches, wherein the configuration information comprises an indicator indicating the first priority level of the first communication and the second priority level of the second communication (Freda; [0282] A prioritized transmission may indicate and/or utilize a specific numerology. A prioritized transmission may include a PDU configured with a maximum allowed time for successfully completing the transmission (e.g., such as in the case of URLLC transmissions or differentiated QoS eMBB transmissions). A prioritized transmission may include a PDU associated with a specific logical channel (e.g., such as in the case of non-multiplexed URLLC transmission).) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier-Yoshioka to include the above recited limitations as taught by Freda in order to give priority to low latency packets (Freda; [0283]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6, 14, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claim s 1, 9, 17, and 25 above, and further in view of Shaheen ( Shaheen hereafter) (US 20180302918 A1) . Regarding Claims 6, 14, 22, and 30 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claims 1, 9, 17, 25 Marinier-Yoshioka fails to explicitly teach, wherein the rule indicates that the first communication is always selected based at least in part on the first communication being an ultra-reliable low-latency communication and the second communication being an enhanced mobile broadband communication However, in the same field of endeavor Shaheen teaches, wherein the rule indicates that the first communication is always selected based at least in part on the first communication being an ultra-reliable low-latency communication and the second communication being an enhanced mobile broadband communication (Shaheen; [0150] The UE 102 can also indicate specific priority (e.g., URLLC) by using a specific preamble access code belonging to specific group (e.g., URLLC based preambles). These preambles will be provided by system information broadcast (SIBs) and acquired by the UE 102 prior to accessing the system. Alternatively, the gNB 160 may assign the code to the UE 102 with an indication of its use (e.g., URLLC access)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier-Yoshioka to include the above recited limitations as taught by Shaheen in order to indicate the priority level (Shaheen; [0151]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claim s 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Shaheen ( Shaheen hereafter) (US 20180302918 A1) . Regarding claims 7, 15, and 23 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claims 1, 9, and 17 Marinier-Yoshioka fails to explicitly teach, wherein a priority level of at least one of the first communication or the second communication is indicated by respective uplink configured grant configurations of the ultra-reliable low-latency communication traffic type and the enhanced mobile broadband traffic type However, in the same field of endeavor Shaheen teaches, wherein a priority level of at least one of the first communication or the second communication is indicated by respective uplink configured grant configurations of the ultra-reliable low-latency communication traffic type and the enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (Shaheen; [0029] The UE may receive a grant for the URLLC. The UE may send URLLC data from an LCG according to its priority.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier-Yoshioka to include the above recited limitations as taught by Shaheen in order to indicate the priority level (Shaheen; [0151]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claim s 26 above, and further in view of Shaheen ( Shaheen hereafter) (US 20180302918 A1) . Regarding claim 32 Marinier-Yoshioka teaches, The claim 26 Marinier-Yoshioka fails to explicitly teach, wherein a priority level of at least one of the first communication or the second communication is indicated by respective uplink configured grant configurations of the ultra- reliable low-latency communication traffic type and the enhanced mobile broadband traffic type However, in the same field of endeavor Hwang067 teaches, wherein a priority level of at least one of the first communication or the second communication is indicated by respective uplink configured grant configurations of the ultra- reliable low-latency communication traffic type and the enhanced mobile broadband traffic type (Hwang067; [0088] URLLC performs grant based uplink transmission, the eMBB UE may detect information on a transmission time of URLLC uplink signal from the base station and, and may halt eMBB transmission at only a corresponding time or after the corresponding time.) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Marinier-Yoshioka to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hwang in order to provide a method for indicating pre-empted resource information in a wireless communication system (Hwang067; [0004]). Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 2 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 3 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 4 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 5 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 6 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 7 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 8 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 9 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 10 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 11 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 12 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 13 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 14 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 15 Art Unit: 2416 Application/Control Number: 18/166,232 Page 17 Art Unit: 2416
Prosecution Insights