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 .
Examiner Note
Since applicant filed independent claims with alternative language i.e., when the first operation comprises multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission OR not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission and examiner is rejecting independent claim with an alternative of multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission therefore, Claim 6-8 and 15-17 cannot be given any weight because they are further limiting based on second alternative i.e., not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 11 and 20 recites limitation, “in a case that a first channel overlaps a second channel in time, the second channel overlaps a third channel in time, and a priority corresponding to the third channel is higher than a priority corresponding to the first channel and a priority corresponding to the second channel, performing a first operation by a terminal; wherein the first operation comprises: multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission; or not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission; wherein the first uplink control information is uplink control information carried on the first channel”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites that a first channel overlaps a second channel in time, the second channel overlaps a third channel in time, and a priority corresponding to the third channel is higher than a priority corresponding to the first channel and a priority corresponding to the second channel, performing a first operation by a terminal; wherein the first operation comprises: multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission; or not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission. The condition setup for the channels and then multiplexing control information recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of taking multiple signals and multiplexing them for transmission, etc. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception where claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6-8, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As per claim 1, applicant is claiming “…multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission; or not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission” using an alternative language. Since examiner is considering the situation when “multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission” and not giving weight to “not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission”, claim 6-8 which depends from claim 1 should not be given proper weight. For example, if applicant had limitation A or B in independent claim and examiner elects’ limitation A then any limitation that depends on limitation B should be improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recites the limitation “second channel in time” and “third channel in time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear if it is same time or different time.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recites the limitation “a first channel overlaps a second channel in time, the second channel overlaps a third channel in time” but then does not discuss what happen to the second channel and how it was used in the claimed invention so there is no interlink between first channel, second channel and third channel.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recites the “multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission; or not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission” but does not define based on what condition they apparatus multiplex the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission and why the second channel for transmission was not considered.
As per claim 4 and 14 applicant is claiming first operation further comprising: not expecting to meet or not meeting the first condition but it is not clear what applicant is further trying to claim by this limitation because according to claim 1 because according to first operation the system is multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission so it is not clear further how first condition is not expected to meet or not meeting the first condition. The claim is vague and indefinite for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
Claims 2-10, 12-19 does not overcome the deficiency of the independent claims and recites limitation with multiple alternative languages with multiple condition having same issues as independent claims 1, 11 and 20 making it difficult for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand and execute the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 3GPP TSG RAN WGI # 102-e e-Meeting Aug. 17, 2020 Title Enhanced on intra-UE multiplexing/prioritization Document No. R1-2006061.
Regarding Claim 1, 3GPP teaches an uplink transmission method (fig. 1 A sub-slot-based PUCCH with high-priority HARQ-ACK overlaps with a slot-based PUCCH with CSI and a slot-based PUCCH with low-priority HARQ-ACK i.e., uplink channel transmission), comprising:
in a case that a first channel (Fig. 1, PUCCH with LP HARQ-ACK i.e., first channel) overlaps a second channel (Fig. 1, PUCCH with CSI) in time (Fig. 1 shows that second channel overlaps with the first channel in time), the second channel (PUCCH with CSI) overlaps a third channel (Fig. 1, PUCCH with HP HARQ-ACK) in time (Fig. 1 shows that PUCCH with CSI i.e., second channel overlaps with PUCCH with HP HARQ-ACK i.e., third channel), and a priority corresponding to the third channel is higher (PUCCH with HP HARQ-ACK i.e., with high priority) than a priority corresponding to the first channel (PUCCH with LP HARQ-ACK i.e., with low priority) and a priority corresponding to the second channel (PUCCH with CSI i.e., second channel), performing a first operation by a terminal;
wherein the first operation comprises (Fig. 1, total UCI for multiplexing): multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission (Fig. 1, PUCCH with HP HARQ-ACK + compressed LP HARQ-ACK i.e., multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission); or not multiplexing the first uplink control information on the third channel for transmission;
wherein the first uplink control information is uplink control information carried on the first channel (Sec 2.1 Collision between UL channel including PUCCH Step 3, the maximum coding rate configured for high-priority UCI, all CSI reports have to be dropped, and only low-priority HARQ-ACK after compression can be multiplexed with high-priority HARQ-ACK i.e., the first uplink control information is uplink control information carried on the first channel).
Regarding Claim 2, 3GPP teaches wherein the performing a first operation by a terminal comprises: in a case that a first condition is met, performing the first operation by the terminal; wherein the first condition comprises one or more of: an interval between a first moment and a second moment is greater than or equal to a first time; the interval between the first moment and the second moment is smaller than a second time; an interval between the first moment and a third moment is greater than or equal to a third time; the interval between the first moment and the third moment is smaller than a fourth time; an interval between the first moment and a fourth moment is greater than or equal to a fifth time; or an interval between a fifth moment and the second moment is greater than or equal to a sixth time; wherein the first moment is a receiving moment of a downlink control channel corresponding to the third channel, or a generation moment of a media access control protocol data unit corresponding to the third channel; the second moment is a start moment of the first channel or a start moment of the second channel; the third moment is a start moment of the second channel; the fourth moment is a receiving moment of a downlink data channel corresponding to the first channel; and the fifth moment is the start moment of the first channel (Fig. 1 where multiplexing first uplink control information on the third channel is performed when the interval between first moment and second moment is greater than or equal to the first time).
Regarding Claim 3, 3GPP teaches wherein the first time or the second time comprises: a first processing time and/or a second processing time; the third time or the fourth time comprises: a third processing time; the fifth time comprises: a fourth processing time; and the sixth time comprises: a fifth processing time; wherein the first processing time, the second processing time, the third processing time, the fourth processing time, and/or the fifth processing time comprise any one of: a processing time of a physical downlink shared channel; a preparation time of a physical uplink shared channel; a cancellation time of uplink transmission; a first multiplexing time; a second multiplexing time; or a preparation time of a physical uplink control channel (Fig. 1 and Sec 2.1 Sub Sec 2).
Regarding Claim 4, 3GPP teaches wherein the first operation further comprises: not expecting to meet or not meeting the first condition (Sec 2.1).
Regarding Claim 5, 3GPP teaches wherein the first channel overlaps or does not overlap the third channel in time (Fig. 1 PUCCH with LP HARQ-ACK overlap with PUCCH with HP HARQ-ACK).
Regarding Claim 9, 3GPP teaches wherein the first operation further comprises one or more of: canceling all or part of transmission on the second channel, or transmitting the second channel; or canceling all or part of transmission on the first channel, or transmitting the first channel (Fig. 1 and Sec 2.1 Step 3).
Regarding Claim 10, 3GPP teaches wherein the canceling all or part of transmission on the second channel comprises: starting from a moment at which the second channel overlaps the third channel, canceling all or part of the transmission of the second channel (Fig. 1 and Sec 2.1 Step 3).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further 3GPP teaches a terminal (Sec 1 UE), comprising a memory, a processor, and a program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program, when executed by the processor (UE inherently has processor and memory that stores program and is executed by the processor).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further 3GPP teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a program or an instruction, and the program or the instruction, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform (Sec 1 Introduction, UE inherently has processor and memory which can be read as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a program or an instruction, and the program or the instruction, when executed by a processor)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shilov et al. Pub. No. US 20240340901 A1 - RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND PROCESSING BEHAVIORS FOR NR V2X SIDELINK COMMUNICATIONS
Wong Pub. No. US 20230046263 A1 - METHODS AND COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR TRANSMISSION OF UPLINK SIGNALS ACCORDING TO PRIORITIES
Hosseini et al. Pub. No. US 20220086866 A1 - TIMELINE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTRA-UE MULTIPLEXING
Panteleev et al. Pub. No. US 20200374860 A1 - PHYSICAL SIDELINK CONTROL CHANNEL (PSCCH) SIGNALING FOR MULTIPLE TRANSMISSION TIME INTERVAL (TTI) TRANSMISSIONS
Hosseini et al. Pub. No. US 20200053761 A1 - Method for uplink collision handling for wireless communication system, such as ultra-reliable low-latency communications, and enhanced mobile broadband communications, involves identifying that UE is scheduled to transmit on first channel
WO 2021206448 A1 - Method for transmitting uplink data and control information performed by user equipment (UE) in wireless communication system, involves determining uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration based on uplink time unit and uplink physical channel
WO 2020073283 A1 - METHOD, DEVICE AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR UPLINK CONTROL INFORMATION TRANSMISSION
WO 2020041269 A1 - COLLISION HANDLING FOR UPLINK CONTROL INFORMATION TRANSMISSIONS
WO 2020025045 A1 - Method for transmitting information, involves multiplexing information borne by multiple uplink physical channels, and transmitting information when determined that end positions of uplink physical channels meet limiting condition
WO 2019194660 A1 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING/RECEIVING WIRELESS SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
An overview of physical layer design for Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications in 3GPP Release 15 and Release 16 – Feb 2020
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #102-e R1-2006340 e-Meeting, August 17th – 28th, 2020
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647