DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 07, 2025 has been entered, wherein claims 31 is cancelled, claims 1-30, and 32 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 25-30 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “means for determining, means for selecting; means for receiving, means for transmitting” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for’ coupled with functional language “selecting; transmitting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 25 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figure 5, paragraph 0073, 0074, 0075.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 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 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a), 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); 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 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a), 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); 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); 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 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a), 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); 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]).
Claims 4, 12, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (Xiong hereafter) (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]).
Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claims 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 (Shaheen; [0283]).
Claims 6, 14, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claims 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]).
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claims 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]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier-Yoshioka as applied to claims 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
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