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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/15/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 8, 16, 17 and 20 are amended, claims 3-7 and 12 are canceled, claims 21-26 are new, and claims 1, 2, 8-11 and 13-26 are currently pending.
Applicant's amendment with respect to specification/abstract has been fully considered, thus specification/abstract objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 8-10, 13-21 and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 16, 20 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a fourth processing method, wherein the fourth processing method indicates” in the last limitation. Examiner understand that there was first, second and third processing methods prior to the claim amendment, however, it is recommended that the above identified phrase to change to “wherein the predetermined processing method indicates”, or similar wording. Claims 16 and 20 recite similar phrase, and therefore are recommended the same.
Claim 11 recites “according to a specified processing time”. Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “according to the specified processing time”, or similar wording. Claim 22 recites similar limitation and therefore is objected for the same reason.
Claim 11 further recites “the first time” and “the second time”. Examiner suggest changing the limitations to “a first time” and “a second time”, or similar wording. Claim 22 recites similar limitations and therefore is objected for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 13-21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summary of email discussion [103-e-NR-7.1CRs-08]-phase 2, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #103e, e-Meeting, October 26 – November 13, 2020, R1-2009774, hereinafter D1, in view of Wu et al. (US 20200187235 A1 and Wu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a communication transmission method, comprising: processing, by a communication device, a Physical Uplink Control CHannel (PUCCH) and at least one uplink data channel according to a predetermined processing method when the PUCCH overlaps with the at least one uplink data channel (Section 2 Email discussion outcomes (1st round and 2nd round) and Page 1, Section 2 Discussions on CG PUSCH overlapping with UCI and Page 2; when a CG PUSCH overlapping with a PUCCH carrying UCI), wherein the PUCCH carries Uplink Control Information (UCI) (Section 2 Discussions on CG PUSCH overlapping with UCI and Page 2, Section 2.2 Round #2 Discussion and Pages 10-11; when a CG PUSCH overlapping with a PUCCH carrying UCI), and the predetermined processing method comprises:
a fourth processing method, wherein the fourth processing method indicates that determining whether to use an UpLink (UL) Skipping rule or a logical channel-based Prioritization (lch-based Prioritization) rule (Section 2.2 and Pages 10-11; when DG PUSCH skipping is configured and Rel-16 LCH based prioritization is not configured).
D1 does not explicitly teach determining, according to a configuration or scheduling manner of a network side device, whether to use an UpLink (UL) Skipping rule or a logical channel-based Prioritization (lch-based Prioritization) rule. In an analogous art, Wu teaches determining, according to a configuration or scheduling manner of a network side device, whether to use an UpLink (UL) Skipping rule or a logical channel-based Prioritization (lch-based Prioritization) rule (Paragraphs 0165 and 0166; the uplink grant skipping can be configured for dynamic, semi persistent for LTE in which case it may be configured by a gNB via RRC signaling. Paragraph 0170; whether the user equipment is allowed to skip a dynamic grant is up to network configuration. Paragraphs 0174-0176; entity is configured with skipUplinkTxDynamic or skipUplinkTxSPS). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Wu because it would help the gNB to determine the reason why uplink grant skipping has been enforced and take appropriate actions (Wu, Paragraph 0227).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the at least one uplink data channel overlaps with each other at least partially (Section 2.2 Round #2 discussion and Page 10; DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH [Examiner asserts both DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH are interpreted as uplink data channels] overlap with each other and with PUCCH data channel).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the processing a PUCCH and at least one uplink data channel according to a predetermined processing method comprises: a first Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) that is not generated does not participate in a UCI multiplexing process (Page 1; MAC does not generate a TB for the CG PUSCH(s) overlapping with the DG PUSCH on the same serving cell. The GG PUSCH(s) is discarded and does not participate in subsequent physical layer procedure), wherein the first MAC PDU is a MAC PDU corresponding to the at least one uplink data channel, and the UCI multiplexing process is a multiplexing process between the UCI carried on the PUCCH and the at least one uplink data channel (Pages 10-11; MAC generates MAC PDU for the DG PUSCH and delivers the MAC PDU to PHY and the UCI is multiplexed on the DG PUSCH).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further, D1 teaches when there is no resource conflict between the PUCCH and the first MAC PDU that is not generated, the UCI is transmitted through the PUCCH (Page 2; if there is no conflict and there is no data for DG, MAC does not generate PDU for DG or CG PUSCH, UCI is transmitted on PUCCH); and when there is a resource conflict between the PUCCH and the first MAC PDU that is not generated, the UCI carried on the PUCCH is discarded or transmitted (If there is overlapping, and MAC does not generate PDU for DG or CG PUSCH, UCI is dropped together with CG PUSCH).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein whether the first MAC PDU that is not generated participates in or does not participate in the UCI multiplexing process is determined according to a specified processing time (Page 1; MAC does not generate a TB for the CG PUSCH(s) overlapping with the DG PUSCH on the same serving cell. The GG PUSCH(s) is discarded and does not participate in subsequent physical layer procedure), wherein the specified processing time comprises a first processing time or a second processing time, the first processing time is used to indicate a time when UCI is multiplexed on a Physical Uplink Shared CHannel (PUSCH), and the second processing time is used to indicate a time when the MAC layer determines whether to generate a Dynamic Grant (DG) MAC PDU or a Configured Grant (CG) MAC PDU (Page 4; a PUCCH carrying UCI overlaps with a CG PUSCH where PUCCH starts earlier, at the time point when UE needs to determine whether to prepare PUCCH, UE may not know whether there is data to be transmitted on CG PUSCH or not. It is possible that UE determines to multiplex UCI in CG PUSCH so that UE does not prepare the PUCCH but there is no data to be transmitted on CG PUSCH leading to UCI dropping. The multiplexing timeline is satisfied. At the time point when UE needs to determine whether to prepare PUCCH, UE may not know whether there is data to be transmitted on CG PUSCH. UE cannot wait until the deadline when MAC may deliver a MAC PDU for the CG PUSCH. If UE decides to prepare PUCCH and transmit A/N on the PUCCH, a MAC PDU for CG PUSCH may be delivered from MAC later).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the PUCCH has a same priority as that of the at least one uplink data channel, or the PUCCH has a priority different from that of the at least one uplink data channel (Pages 10-11, for different cases 1-1 through 1-6; PUCCH either has the same priority as PUSCH [data channel], or has different priority as PUSCH).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as described above. Further, Wu teaches wherein the priority comprises a physical layer priority or a logical channel-based priority (Paragraph 0179; a logical channel prioritization function is a function enforced in the MAC layer which prioritizes the transmission of a logical channel (e.g. URLLC) over the transmission of another logical channel (e.g. eMBB)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Wu because it would help the gNB to determine the reason why uplink grant skipping has been enforced and take appropriate actions (Wu, Paragraph 0227).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, D1 teaches wherein the uplink data channel comprises a Physical Uplink Shared CHannel (PUSCH) of the Dynamic Grant (DG) or a PUSCH of the Configured Grant (CG) (Pages 10-11; DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches A communication device (Page 14 Section 6.1 UE procedure for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel), comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions (Page 14 Section 6.1; UE, UE comprises a memory for storing instructions in order to perform procedure for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel); and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Page 14 Section 6.1; UE, UE comprises a processor coupled to the memory storing instructions in order to perform procedure for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Claim 17 recites similar features as claim 8, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, as described above. Claim 18 recites similar features as claim 9, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, as described above. Claim 19 recites similar features as claim 10, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a communication device, cause the processor to perform operations (Page 14 Section 6.1; UE, UE comprises a memory for storing instructions in order to perform procedure for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel. UE comprises a processor coupled to the memory storing instructions in order to perform procedure for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Claim 21 recites similar features as claim 2, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Claim 23 recites similar features as claim 13, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 23, as described above. Claim 24 recites similar features as claim 14, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Claim 25 recites similar features as claim 15, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of D1 and Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 20, as described above. Claim 26 recites similar features as claim 2, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 2.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alabbasi et al. (US 20220338211 A1) discloses when transmission resource overlaps, the wireless device determines a highest priority between a new grant and a previous grant based on instruction from base station for one or more logical channels.
D2, Summary of email discussion [103-e-NR-L1enh-URLLC-07], 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #103-e, R1-2009684, e-Meeting, October 26 – November 13, 2020, discloses Intra UE prioritization when PUSCH overlapping PUCCH UCI.
D3, Intra-UE prioritization of UL Data, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #106, R2-1907607, Reno, Nevada, USA, 13-17 May 2019, discloses enhancement to address resource conflicts between dynamic grant (DG) and configured grant (CG) PUSCH and conflicts involving multiple CGs, and specify PUSCH grant prioritization based on LCH priorities and LCP restrictions for cases where MAC prioritizes the grant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant's invention is drawn to processing a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and at least one uplink data channel when these two channels overlap based on determination whether to use an Uplink Skipping rule or a logical channel based prioritization rule.
The prior arts of record, D1, Wu, Alabbasi, D2, D3, and a thorough search discloses various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention but fail to explicitly or implicitly teach or disclose wherein the determining, according to the specified processing time, whether the MAC PDU that is not generated participates in or does not participate in the UCI multiplexing process comprises: when a third processing time is earlier than a fourth processing time, the first MAC PDU that is not generated does not participate in the UCI multiplexing process; and when the third processing time is not earlier than the fourth processing time, the first MAC PDU that is not generated participates in the UCI multiplexing process, wherein the third processing time is determined according to a first time and the second processing time, and the first time is a time corresponding to a start symbol of the CG, and wherein the fourth processing time is determined according to the first processing time and a second time, the second time is a time corresponding to the first symbol of a target channel, and the target channel is a channel earlier transmitted in the PUCCH and the at least one uplink data channel, as disclosed in dependent claims 11 and 22. These functions, in combination of remaining functions are neither taught nor disclosed by the prior art.
Accordingly, Applicant’s dependent claims 11 and 22 would be allowed for these reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights