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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aris Papasakellariou (Patent No: US 2022/0029753 A1), hereinafter, Papasakellariou in view of Chien-Min Lee (Patent No: US 2022/0086849 A1), hereinafter, Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Papasakellariou teaches,
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving configuration information for simultaneous physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)-physical uplink control channel (PUSCH) transmission, -Paragraph [0071, 0084-00850] ([0084-0085] recites, “….when a PDSCH reception by or PUSCH/PUCCH transmission from a UE is scheduled by a DCI format, a priority indicator field in a DCI format can be used to indicate a corresponding priority value. When a PDSCH reception by or a PUSCH/PUCCH transmission from a UE is configured by higher layers, the configuration can include a corresponding priority value.
When a UE supports transmissions/receptions with different priorities, the UE may have to simultaneously transmit a first PUSCH or a first PUCCH having a first priority type and a second PUSCH or a second PUCCH having a second priority type…” [0071] recites, “…When a UE simultaneously transmits data information and UCI, the UE can multiplex both in a PUSCH …”)
multiplexing first uplink control information (UCI) with a first priority index and second UCI with a second priority index which is higher than the first priority index, in at least one of a PUCCH or a PUSCH, -Paragraph [0085] ([0085] recites, “..the UE may have to simultaneously transmit a first PUSCH or a first PUCCH having a first priority type and a second PUSCH or a second PUCCH having a second priority type. A priority type of a PUCCH or PUSCH transmission is equivalent with a priority value for TBs or UCI types that are multiplexed in the PUCCH or PUSCH transmission.”)
and transmitting the PUCCH and the PUSCH -Paragraph [0071] ([0071] recites, “When a UE simultaneously transmits data information and UCI, the UE can multiplex both in a PUSCH or, depending on a UE capability, transmit both a PUSCH with data information and a PUCCH with UCI at least when the transmissions are on different cells.”)
Although implicit, PARK does not explicitly teach,
wherein, based on that the first UCI includes a first hybrid automatic repeat request- acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK), and the second UCI includes a second HARQ-ACK and second channel state information (CSI):the first HARQ-ACK with the first priority index and the second HARQ- ACK with the second priority index are multiplexed in the PUCCH, and the second CSI with the second priority index is transmitted in the PUSCH.
However, in an analogous invention Lee teaches.
wherein, based on that the first UCI includes a first hybrid automatic repeat request- acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK), and the second UCI includes a second HARQ-ACK and second channel state information (CSI):the first HARQ-ACK with the first priority index and the second HARQ- ACK with the second priority index are multiplexed in the PUCCH, and the second CSI with the second priority index is transmitted in the PUSCH. -Paragraph [0111] ([0111] recites, “The UCI may include at least one of HARQ-ACK, CSI or SR. The priority index of a UL transmission could be determined according to a gNB indication. For example, a PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=1 if the corresponding UL grant in DCI has provided the priority information such as in a priority index. For example, a PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=0 if the corresponding UL grant in DCI does not provide any priority information. For example, a configured grant (CG) PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=1 if the corresponding higher layer configuration has provided the priority information such as in a priority index. If a UE has decided to multiplex HP UCI in LP PUSCH, it would mean that the requirements or limitations such as latency or reliability of the HP UCI could be satisfied. Otherwise, the HP UCI may not be multiplexed on the LP PUSCH and the LP PUSCH could be dropped for at least the portion that overlaps with the resource (e.g. HP PUCCH) that carries the HP UCI. A LP UCI that is dropped in its entirety or partially could be entirely or partially re-transmitted at a later time for the embodiments of the disclosure. For example, a HP UCI may include at least one of HP HARQ-ACK, HP CSI and HP SR. For example, a LP UCI may include at least one of LP HARQ-ACK, LP CSI and LP SR. A gNB configuration could be a RRC configuration.” [0004] recites, “ a mechanism for a UE performing multiplexing and prioritization of data traffic is a higher priority as well as endeavors to specify the multiplexing behaviors among different UL traffic including Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK), Scheduling Request (SR), and Channel State Information (CSI) transmitted through Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) as a part of UL traffic with different priorities, and the UL traffic may further include UCI on Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and UCI on PUSCH…” As explained above both first and second (HP and LP) UCI may contain at least one of HARQ-ACK, CSI and SR. Also, as explained CSI cans be transmitted in PUSCH.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept of Lee to include to include “the first UCI includes a first hybrid automatic repeat request- acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK), and the second UCI includes a second HARQ-ACK and second channel state information (CSI):the first HARQ-ACK with the first priority index and the second HARQ- ACK with the second priority index are multiplexed in the PUCCH, and the second CSI with the second priority index is transmitted in the PUSCH.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an efficient mechanism of prioritization and multiplex different UL traffic when collision inevitably occurs [0005].
Claim 10 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 1 which has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Papasakellariou further teaches,
A non-transitory processor-readable medium having recorded thereon instructions for executing the method of claim 1. -Paragraph [0051] ([0051] recites, “As shown in FIG. 3, the UE 116 includes an antenna 305, a RF transceiver 310, TX processing circuitry 315, a microphone 320, and receive (RX) processing circuitry 325. The UE 116 also includes a speaker 330, a processor 340, an input/output (I/O) interface (IF) 345, an input device 350, a display 355, and a memory 360. The memory 360 includes an operating system (OS) 361 and one or more applications 362.”)
Claim 11 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 1 which has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Papasakellariou further teaches,
A device comprising: a memory configured to record instructions; and a processor configured to perform operations by executing the instructions, wherein the operations of the processor include: -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0054] ([0054] recites, “ The processor 340 can include one or more processors or other processing devices and execute the OS 361 stored in the memory 360 in order to control the overall operation of the UE 116. For example, the processor 340 could control the reception of forward channel signals and the transmission of reverse channel signals by the RF transceiver 310, the RX processing circuitry 325, and the TX processing circuitry 315 in accordance with well-known principles. In some embodiments, the processor 340 includes at least one microprocessor or microcontroller. ”)
Regarding Claim 12, Papasakellariou and Lee teach the limitations of Claim 11.
Papasakellariou further teaches,
The device of claim 11, further comprising: a transceiver wherein the device is a user equipment (UE). -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0051] ([0051] recites, “As shown in FIG. 3, the UE 116 includes an antenna 305, a RF transceiver 310, TX processing circuitry 315, a microphone 320, and receive (RX) processing circuitry 325. The UE 116 also includes a speaker 330, a processor 340, an input/output (I/O) interface (IF) 345, an input device 350, a display 355, and a memory 360. The memory 360 includes an operating system (OS) 361 and one or more applications 362.”)
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 1 except it is viewed from network (base station) side (i.e., transmitting configuration etc.) as opposed to UE side (i.e., receiving configuration etc.) as in Claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 14 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 13 which has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 13. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, Papasakellariou and Lee teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first UCI further includes first CSI, and the first CSI with the first priority index is multiplexed in the PUSCH.
However, in an analogous invention Lee teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first UCI further includes first CSI, and the first CSI with the first priority index is multiplexed in the PUSCH.-Paragraph [0111] ([0111] recites, “The UCI may include at least one of HARQ-ACK, CSI or SR. The priority index of a UL transmission could be determined according to a gNB indication. For example, a PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=1 if the corresponding UL grant in DCI has provided the priority information such as in a priority index. For example, a PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=0 if the corresponding UL grant in DCI does not provide any priority information. For example, a configured grant (CG) PUSCH transmission could be treated as having a priority index=1 if the corresponding higher layer configuration has provided the priority information such as in a priority index. If a UE has decided to multiplex HP UCI in LP PUSCH, it would mean that the requirements or limitations such as latency or reliability of the HP UCI could be satisfied…..”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULTANEOUS TRANSMISSION OF UPLINK INFORMATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM” proposed by PARK with the concept of Lee to include to include “first UCI further includes first CSI, and the first CSI with the first priority index is multiplexed in the PUSCH.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have an efficient mechanism of prioritization and multiplex different UL traffic when collision inevitably occurs [0005].
Claims 4, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou in view of Lee and further in view of El Hamss et al. (Patent No: US 2022/0078768 A1), hereinafter, El Hamss.
Regarding Claim 4, Papasakellariou and Lee teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not implicitly mention,
The method of claim 1, wherein the PUSCH having has the first priority index.
However, in an analogous invention El Hamss teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the PUSCH having has the first priority index. -Paragraph [0272] ([0272] recites, “The WTRU 102 may use an additional set of parameters (e.g., α and β.sup.PUSCH.sub.offset) configured for the case of low-priority HARQ-ACK multiplexed into high-priority PUSCH, for example to avoid too many resources being used for the HARQ-ACK of the eMBB for the required reliability, and to ensure that sufficient resources are kept for the PUSCH of the URLLC.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept of El Hamss to include to include “the PUSCH having has the first priority index.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve spectrum efficiency [0208]
Regarding Claim 17, Papasakellariou and Lee teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the PUCCH and the PUSCH have different priority indexes, respectively.
However, in an analogous invention El Hamss teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the PUCCH and the PUSCH have different priority indexes, respectively. -Paragraph [0280] ([0280] recites, “For example, in certain embodiments, the service-related priority of a transmission may have precedence over a priority derived from the type of information (e.g., whether transmission carries HARQ-ACK, SR, CSI and/or data only) carried by the transmission, at least for some types of transmissions, such as the PUCCH and/or the PUSCH. The prioritization may be set and/or defined by a composite priority index Poverall determined from both types of priority, for example as set forth in Equation 1 as follows:
where Pserv may be a service-related priority index (e.g., starting with 0 and with higher value representing lower priority), Pttype may be a priority index derived from the type of information, and Nttype may be a number of priority levels for the type of information. For example, the value of Nttype may have 3 priority levels (e.g., with a value of 2 for Pttype associated to a PUSCH transmission without UCI, a value of 1 for Pttype associated to a PUCCH transmission and/or PUSCH transmission with CSI, and a value of for Pttype 0 associated to a PUCCH transmission or a PUSCH transmission with SR and/or HARQ_ACK). In some embodiments, a PUCCH transmission with CSI may be associated with (e.g., always be associated with) a highest Pserv value.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept of El Hamss to include to include “wherein the PUCCH and the PUSCH have different priority indexes, respectively.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve spectrum efficiency [0208]
Regarding Claim 18, Papasakellariou, Lee and El Hamss teach the limitations of Claim 17.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 17, wherein the PUCCH has the second priority index and the PUSCH has the first priority index.
However, in an analogous invention El Hamss teaches,
The method of claim 17, wherein the PUCCH has the second priority index and the PUSCH has the first priority index. -Paragraph [0272] ([0272] recites,” The WTRU 102 may use an additional set of parameters (e.g., α and β.sup.PUSCH.sub.offset) configured for the case of low-priority HARQ-ACK multiplexed into high-priority PUSCH, for example to avoid too many resources being used for the HARQ-ACK of the eMBB for the required reliability, and to ensure that sufficient resources are kept for the PUSCH of the URLLC.” As described above PUSCH is high priority (first priority index) and low priority PUCCH (second priority index))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept of El Hamss to include to include “PUCCH has the second priority index and the PUSCH has the first priority index. ” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve spectrum efficiency [0208]
Regarding Claim 19, Papasakellariou, Lee and El Hamss teach the limitations of Claim 17.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not explicitly mention,
The method of claim 17, wherein the PUCCH has the first priority index and the PUSCH has the second priority index.
However, in an analogous invention El Hamss teaches,
The method of claim 17, wherein the PUCCH has the first priority index and the PUSCH has the second priority index. -Paragraph [0275] ([0275] recites, “The WTRU 102 may use additional set of parameters (e.g., α and β.sup.PUSCH.sub.offset) configured for the case of high-priority HARQ-ACK multiplexed into low-priority PUSCH.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept of El Hamss to include to include “PUCCH has the first priority index and the PUSCH has the second priority index.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve spectrum efficiency [0208]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou in view of Lee and further in view of Aris Papasakellariou (Patent No: US 2021/0037555 A1), hereinafter, Papasakellariou2.
Regarding Claim 16, PARK and Lee teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Papasakellariou does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the second CSI includes Part-1 CSI and Part-2 CSI, and both the Part-1 CSI and the Part-2 CSI are multiplexed in the PUSCH.
However, in an analogous invention Papasakellariou2 teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the second CSI includes Part-1 CSI and Part-2 CSI, and both the Part-1 CSI and the Part-2 CSI are multiplexed in the PUSCH. -Fig. 9; Paragraph [0104] ([0104] recites,” As illustrated in FIG. 9, a UE is configured by higher layers to provide a first CQI report 902 and a second CQI report 904 in a same CSI report, such as a Part 1 CSI 906 of a CSI report in step 910. For example, the first and second CQI reports can correspond to first and second BLERs, or to first and second UE receiver antennas or gNB transmitter antennas configurations, or to first cqi-Table and second cqi-Table. The UE determines the first CQI report and the second CQI report in step 920. The UE includes the first CQI report and the second CQI report in a CSI report in step 930. The CSI report may also include a RI/CRI indication for a Part 1 CSI and additional information for a Part 2 CSI. The UE multiplexes the CSI report in a PUCCH or in a PUSCH transmission in step 940.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “MULTIPLEXING INFORMATION WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITY VALUES” proposed by Papasakellariou with the concept Papasakellariou2 to include to include “the second CSI includes Part-1 CSI and Part-2 CSI, and both the Part-1 CSI and the Part-2 CSI are multiplexed in the PUSCH” One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support CSI feedback for support of multiple services from a UE to a serving base station [0004].
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights