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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/071758 (international filing date: 01/14/2021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 30 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following claims fail to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the function recited in a claim invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
Claim 30 recites limitations using “means for, step for, or generic placeholder” to perform tasks as follow:
“means for determining that a PUCCH resource" (line 2)
“means for determining… a number of bits of a low-priority UCI” (line 5-6)
“means for multiplexing…” (line 8)
These limitations pass the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181, hence they are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
However, the specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for the limitations. Applicant has provided no means for ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. Hence, examiner has concluded that the specification is silent as to any corresponding structure, material, or acts for these means-plus-functions.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14-21, 23, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico et al. (US 20210007129 A1, hereinafter Talarico), in view of Aris Papasakellariou (US 20200007296 A1, hereinafter Papasakellariou).
Regarding claim 1,
Talarico teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising (Talarico, in general, see sections including, but not limited to, paragraphs 36-87 which disclose six options, i.e. Option 1 to Option 6; note that one or more of these Options can be applied in the following rejections):
determining that a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource at least partially overlaps with a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH) resource, wherein the PUCCH resource and the CG-PUSCH resource are associated with different priorities (Talarico, see at least para. 36 and 47, e.g. see Option 1 and Option 2, when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH);
determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI (Talarico, see at least para. 79-80 in view of at least para. 48-54, for one non-limiting example as in para. 80, “...In another option, CG-UCI is mapped soon after the DMRS symbol(s), followed by HARQ-ACK and CSI part 1, which are encoded together, and CSI part 2, which is mapped at the end...”, note that para. 48-54 disclose how UCIs are prioritized),
wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits (Talarico, see at least para. 79-80 along with para. 40-41, for one non-limiting example “...Option 6: Joint Encoding --- In one embodiment, CG-UCI or other legacy UCIs are jointly encoded to make sure that a maximum of 3 UCIs may be multiplexed...”, note that para. 40 discloses how UCIs are in form of bits, and CSI or CSI part 2 is a part of the multiplexed UCIs);
multiplexing the number of bits of the low-priority UCI with the at least one of the high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, the low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or the high-priority UCI to generate a multiplexed uplink transmission (Talarico, see at least para. 79-80 along with para. 40 and 36, for one non-limiting example “...Option 6: Joint Encoding --- In one embodiment, CG-UCI or other legacy UCIs are jointly encoded to make sure that a maximum of 3 UCIs may be multiplexed...”, note that para. 40 discloses “...In one embodiment, the mapping order for all other existing UCIs may be done as follows: CG-UCI is followed by HARQ-ACK, CSI part 1 and CSI part 2 if any, and then finally data. In another embodiment, the mapping order can be defined as follows: HARQ-ACK is followed by CG-UCI, CSI part 1 and CSI part 2 if any, and then data...”).
Talarico differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission in the PUCCH resource or the CG-PUSCH resource.
Papasakellariou, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission in the PUCCH resource or the CG-PUSCH resource (Papasakellariou, in general, see either or both fig. 11 and fig. 20 along with their respective paragraphs at least 125-131 and 207-209; in particular, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papasakellariou into the method of Talarico for reducing a probability of collision between a PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission from a UE.
Regarding claim 2, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the number of bits comprises a fixed number of bits. (Talarico, see at least para. 40-43, for one example, but not limited to, bits use for CG-UCI and/or HARQ-ACK/CSI)
Regarding claim 3, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the determining comprises: determining that a number of bits of the low-priority UCI is less than the threshold number of bits, and the multiplexing the number of bits of the low-priority UCI comprises adding one or more padding bits to the number of bits of the low-priority UCI. (Talarico, see at least para. 41-43, for one example, but not limited to, “…For example, if K=2, and if actual transmitted HARQ-ACK feedback is 1 bit with ACK, then the HARQ-ACK feedback on CG-UCI would be composed by a ACK, followed by a NACK…”; Papasakellariou, see at least para. 189, “…for example when the HARQ-ACK information is one bit and the reserved. REs correspond to two HARQ-ACK information bits, the UE can map a NACK value (such as a binary 0), or an ACK value (such as a binary 1), in the remaining REs..”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papasakellariou into the method of Talarico for reducing a probability of collision between a PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission from a UE.
Regarding claim 4, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the number of bits is variable. (Talarico, see at least para. 41-43, for one example, but not limited to, various bits use for CG-UCI and/or HARQ-ACK/CSI)
Regarding claim 5, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches
the high-priority CG-PUSCH comprises configured grant-UCI (CG-UCI) and data, the low-priority UCI comprises at least one of a low-priority hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) or low-priority channel state information (CSI) (Talarico, see at least para. 62-72, for example, list of UCIs),
the multiplexing comprises: multiplexing, based on a multiplexing configuration being enabled, the high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission with the at least one of the low-priority HARQ-ACK or the low-priority CSI, and the transmitting comprises: transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission in a high-priority CG-PUSCH resource. (Talarico, see at least para. 65-66, for one non-limiting example, “…2. CG-UCI->HARQ-ACK-->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2…”; Papasakellariou, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papasakellariou into the method of Talarico for reducing a probability of collision between a PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission from a UE.
Regarding claim 7, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the low-priority UCI comprises at least the low-priority CSI, and the multiplexing further comprises: encoding the CG-UCI into a first block; encoding the low priority CSI into a second block; and multiplexing the first block and the second block with the data. (Talarico, see at least para. 69-72, for one non-limiting example, “…CG-UCI->HARQ-ACK->CSI part 1->CSI part 2->data…”)
Regarding claim 14, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the low-priority UCI comprises: a low-priority HARQ-ACK comprising a plurality of HARQ-ACK bits for a plurality of transport blocks, and the determining comprises: bundling the low-priority HARQ-ACK into a single bit. (Papasakellariou, see at least fig. 20 and its para. 209 along with para. 205, “…The UE generates a single HARQ-ACK information bit in response to the transport block decoding and transmits a PUCCH providing the HARQ-ACK information bit 2050…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papasakellariou into the method of Talarico for reducing a probability of collision between a PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission from a UE.
Regarding claim 15, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the low-priority UCI comprises: a low-priority HARQ-ACK comprising a plurality of HARQ-ACK bits for a plurality of transport blocks, and the determining comprises: bundling the low-priority HARQ-ACK into one bit for a first transport block of the plurality of transport blocks and into another bit for a second transport block of the plurality of transport blocks. (Papasakellariou, see at least fig. 20 and its para. 209 along with para. 205, “…the UE generates a single HARQ-ACK information bit with a value of ACK when the UE correctly decodes the transport block in at least one PDSCH reception or with a value of NACK when the UE does not correctly decode the transport block in any of the PDSCH receptions…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Papasakellariou into the method of Talarico for reducing a probability of collision between a PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission from a UE.
Regarding claim 16, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the low-priority UCI comprises: a low-priority HARQ-ACK comprising a first number of bits; and a channel state information (CSI), and the determining comprises: subtracting the first number of bits from the threshold number of bits to determine a truncated number of bits; and selecting the truncated number of bits from the CSI. (Talarico, see at least para. 40-45, in particular, see at least para. 41 and 44, for one non-limiting example when K=2 and HARQ-ACK<=2 bits, note that UCI is one or more of the HARQ-ACK/NACK, CSI, SR, etc. disclosed in the prior art)
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (Talarico, see at least fig. 9), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in computer-readable medium claim format.
To be more specific, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and computer-readable medium (Talarico, see at least fig. 9), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising means for performing various functions (Talarico, see at least fig. 9), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 31, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches receiving a multiplexing configuration indicating the threshold number of bits allocated for the low-priority UCI. (Talarico, see at least para. 84 along with para. 41, “...exact payload size can be included in the CG-UCI. The size of the bit field can be fixed, configured by RRC, or derived from other configuration...”)
Regarding claim 32, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 31 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Claims 6, 8-13, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talarico in view of Papasakellariou, as applied to claims 1, 5, 17, and 21 above, and further in view of BANG et al. (US 20210100024 A1, hereinafter BANG).
Regarding claim 6, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou teaches the low-priority UCI comprises at least the low-priority HARQ -ACK, the high-priority UCI comprises another high-priority UCI, and the multiplexing comprises: generating a first block by appending the another high-priority UCI to the CG-UCI and appending the low-priority HARQ-ACK to the another high-priority UCI; encoding the first block; and multiplexing the encoded first block with the data. (Talarico, see at least para. 79-82 in view of at least para. 49, 51, and 53, for one non-limiting example, see Option 6: Joint Encoding -- In one embodiment, CG-UCI or other legacy UCIs are jointly encoded to make sure that a maximum of 3 UCIs may be multiplexed)
Talarico in view of Papasakellariou differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose the high-priority UCI comprises a high-priority HARQ-ACK.
BANG, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the high-priority UCI comprises a high-priority HARQ-ACK (in general, see sections including at least paragraphs 184-199 of Embodiment 1; in particular, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claim 8, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches the low-priority UCI comprises at least one of a low-priority hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) or low-priority channel state information (CSI), the high-priority UCI comprises a high-priority HARQ-ACK (Talarico, see at least para. 62-72, for example, list of UCIs; BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities),
the method further comprises: refraining, based on a multiplexing configuration being disabled, from transmitting the high-priority CG-PUSCH, the multiplexing comprises: generating a first block by appending the low-priority UCI to the high-priority HARQ-ACK; and encoding the first block, and the transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission comprises: transmitting, based on the multiplexing configuration being disabled, the multiplexed uplink transmission in the PUCCH resource. (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example, “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”; Papasakellariou, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claim 9, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches the low-priority UCI comprises the low-priority HARQ-ACK and the low-priority CSI, and the generating the first block further comprises: appending the low-priority HARQ-ACK to the high-priority HARQ-ACK; and appending the low-priority CSI to the low-priority HARQ-ACK. (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example, “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”, BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claim 10, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches the low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission comprises CG-UCI and data, the low-priority UCI comprises a low-priority HARQ-ACK, the high-priority UCI comprises a high-priority HARQ-ACK (Talarico, see at least para. 62-72, for example, list of UCIs; BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities),
the multiplexing comprises: encoding, based on a multiplexing configuration being enabled, the high-priority HARQ-ACK with the low-priority HARQ-ACK and the CG-UCI into an encoded block, the encoding comprises: generating a first block by appending the low-priority HARQ-ACK to the CG-UCI and appending the high-priority HARQ-ACK to the low-priority HARQ-ACK; and encoding the first block; and multiplexing the encoded block with the data, and the transmitting comprises: transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission in a low-priority CG-PUSCH resource. (Talarico, see at least para. 69-70, for one non-limiting example, “…the UE may multiplex only some of the uplink information on CG-PUSCH based on one of the following priority lists: HARQ-ACK->CG-UCI->CSI part 1->CSI part 2->data…”, Papasakellariou, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claim 11, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches the low-priority UCI comprises: a low-priority HARQ-ACK comprising a first number of bits, and the determining comprises: subtracting the first number of bits from the threshold number of bits to determine a second number of bits; and selecting the second number of bits from the CG-UCI. (Talarico, see at least para. 40-45, in particular, see at least para. 41 and 44, for one non-limiting example when K=2 and HARQ-ACK<=2 bits)
Regarding claim 12, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches
the low-priority UCI comprises at least one of a low-priority hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) or low-priority channel state information (CSI), the high-priority UCI comprises a high-priority HARQ-ACK (Talarico, see at least para. 62-68, for example, list of UCIs; BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities),
the method further comprises:
refraining, based on a multiplexing configuration being disabled, from transmitting the low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”),
the multiplexing comprises:
generating a first block by appending the low-priority UCI to the high-priority HARQ-ACK; and encoding the first block (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”; BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities);
and
the transmitting the multiplexed uplink transmission comprises:
transmitting, based on the multiplexing configuration for multiplexing CG-PUSCH and HARQ-ACK being disabled, the multiplexed uplink transmission in the PUCCH resource (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”; Papasakellariou, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claim 13, Talarico in view of Papasakellariou and BANG teaches the low-priority UCI comprises the low-priority HARQ-ACK and the low-priority CSI, and the generating the first block further comprises: appending the low-priority HARQ-ACK to the high-priority HARQ-ACK; and appending the low-priority CSI to the low-priority HARQ-ACK. (Talarico, see at least para. 67-68, for one non-limiting example “…3. HARQ-ACK->CSI Part 1->CSI Part 2->CG-UCI … High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped…”; Papasakellariou, see at least para. 126, e.g. one or more of steps 1150 and 1160; BANG, see at least para. 198, “… HARQ-ACK information having multiple priorities (e.g., HARQ-ACK for URLLC data or HARQ-ACK for eMBB data)…”, note that HARQ-ACK can have multiple type of services with multiple priorities)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate BANG into the method of Talarico in view of Papasakellariou for improving reception efficiency of uplink control information.
Regarding claims 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 17, and 29-30, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding claim 30, applicant in the Remarks states that:
“With regard to " means for determining that a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource at least partially overlaps with a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (CG- PUSCH) resource " exemplary corresponding structure can be found in the description of processor 902 and UCI multiplexing module 908, as described in paragraphs [0119]-[0122] and illustrated in FIG. 9 of the as-filed specification. Specifically, paragraph [0122] discloses that "[t]he UCI multiplexing module 908 may be configured to determine that a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource at least partially overlaps with a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH) resource." (As-Filed Specification, para. [0122].)
Claim 30 also recites "means for determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI, wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits." Exemplary corresponding disclosure for this limitation may be found in the description of processor 902 and UCI multiplexing module 908, as described in paragraphs [0123]-[0124] and illustrated in FIG. 9 of the as-filed specification. Specifically, paragraph [0123] discloses that "[t]he UCI multiplexing module 908 may be further configured to determine, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI." (As-Filed Specification, para. [0123].)
Claim 30 also recites "means for multiplexing the number of bits of the low-priority UCI with the at least one of the high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, the low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or the high-priority UCI to generate a multiplexed uplink transmission." Exemplary corresponding structure may be found to the processor 902 and UCI multiplexing module 908, as described in paragraphs [0124]-[0125] and illustrated in FIG. 9 of the as-filed specification. Specifically, paragraph [0124] discloses that "the UCI multiplexing module 908 is configured to multiplex the number of bits of the low-priority UCI with the at least one of the high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, the low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or the high-priority UCI to generate a multiplexed uplink transmission." (As-Filed Specification, para. [0124].)” (Remarks, page 14-15, examiner emphasis added)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in the emphasized portions above, not only all of the rejected means-plus-functions are performed by a single component (i.e. UCI multiplexing module 908), also this component is or can be implemented via software (e.g. as disclosed in para. 121). Other portions of fig. 9-11 are also reviewed. However, the examiner still cannot find any evidence that the UCI multiplexing module 908 has any corresponding structure, material, or acts disclosed. Hence, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that:
“The Examiner has alleged that Talarico teaches "determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG- PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI, wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits," as recited in independent claim 1. In support, the Examiner cites Talarico paragraphs [0079]-[0080] in view of paragraphs [0048]-[0054], and paragraphs [0079]-[0080] along with paragraph [0040]. (Office Action, pgs. 6-7). Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Talarico do not teach this limitation, for at least the following reasons.
First, Talarico's Option 6 (para. [0079]) discloses an option where "CG-UCI or other legacy UCIs are jointly encoded to make sure that a maximum of 3 UCIs may be multiplexed." (Talarico, para. [0079].) This "maximum of 3 UCIs" is a count of UCI types that can be multiplexed, not a threshold number of bits that constrains how many bits of low-priority UCI are selected for multiplexing. This is confirmed by paragraph [0080] of Talarico, which describes the joint encoding as combining two of the four UCI parts (CG-UCI, HARQ-ACK, CSI part 1, CSI part 2) into a single encoded block - for example, "CG-UCI is jointly encoded with the CSI part1" or "HARQ-ACK and CSI part 1, which are encoded together" - thereby reducing the count of separately encoded UCI parts from four to three. (Talarico, para. [0080].)
Claim 1 recites determining "a number of bits" of low-priority UCI "based on a threshold number of bits" - this is a bit-level threshold that controls the resource overhead for low- priority UCI, not a limit on the number of UCI types. However, as noted, Talarico's response to exceeding the maximum of 3 UCIs is to jointly encode two UCI types into a single block (reducing the count from 4 to 3), which is fundamentally different from the claimed operation of determining a number of bits of low-priority UCI based on a bit-level threshold.” (Remarks, page 16-17)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For one of many non-limiting examples, Talarico in para. 41 discloses that if the number of HARQ-ACK bits is less than or equal to K bits, e.g. K=2, K bits are added to CG-UCI, and joint coding is performed. Further in one option, the number of reserved K bits for HARQ-ACK feedback is always appended before or after CG-UCI regardless of actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits. In case when the actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits is less than K bits, e.g., K=2, NACK is applied on the reserved HARQ-ACK feedback bits. Talarico further in para. 82-84 discloses that the exact payload size of HARQ-ACK can be configured. Hence, Talarico, combined or alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG- PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI, wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits," as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that:
“Second, paragraph [0080] of Talarico describes mapping order and encoding combinations, such as "CG-UCI is mapped soon after the DMRS symbol(s), followed by HARQ- ACK and CSI part 1, which are encoded together, and CSI part 2, which is mapped at the end." (Talarico, para. [0080].) This describes how to order and encode UCIs, not how to determine a number of bits of low-priority UCI based on a threshold number of bits.” (Remarks, page 17)
Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Examiner believes the arguments are same or similar to the arguments above, which have been addressed. Examiner suggests applicant to review the response section above for detail. For example, Talarico in para. 41 discloses that if the number of HARQ-ACK bits is less than or equal to K bits, e.g. K=2, K bits are added to CG-UCI, and joint coding is performed. Further in one option, the number of reserved K bits for HARQ-ACK feedback is always appended before or after CG-UCI regardless of actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits. In case when the actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits is less than K bits, e.g., K=2, NACK is applied on the reserved HARQ-ACK feedback bits. Talarico further in para. 82-84 discloses that the exact payload size of HARQ-ACK can be configured. Hence, Talarico, combined or alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that:
“Third, paragraph [0040] of Talarico describes a mapping order for UCIs (e.g., "CG-UCI is followed by HARQ-ACK, CSI part 1 and CSI part 2 if any, and then finally data") and indicator bits for multiplexing status. (Talarico, para. [0040].) This also does not teach a threshold number of bits for constraining low-priority UCI bits. The indicator bits described in paragraph [0040] indicate whether multiplexing is performed, not a threshold that controls how many bits of low-priority UCI are to be multiplexed.” (Remarks, page 17-18)
Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Examiner believes the arguments are same or similar to the arguments above, which have been addressed. Examiner suggests applicant to review the response section above for detail. For example, Talarico in para. 41 discloses that if the number of HARQ-ACK bits is less than or equal to K bits, e.g. K=2, K bits are added to CG-UCI, and joint coding is performed. Further in one option, the number of reserved K bits for HARQ-ACK feedback is always appended before or after CG-UCI regardless of actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits. In case when the actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits is less than K bits, e.g., K=2, NACK is applied on the reserved HARQ-ACK feedback bits. Talarico further in para. 82-84 discloses that the exact payload size of HARQ-ACK can be configured. Hence, Talarico, combined or alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that:
“Fourth, although Talarico discloses a priority ordering among UCI types (e.g., HARQ- ACK > CG-UCI > CSI), this priority ordering of Talarico is used to determine which channel to drop when there is a collision - for example, "High priority is always provided to the PUCCH, and when CG-PUSCH overlaps with PUCCH this is always dropped." (Talarico, para. [0048]- [0054].) Talarico's priority ordering does not lead to determining a number of bits of a lower- priority UCI for multiplexing with a higher-priority communication. Thus, Talarico does not disclose a combination of resource-level traffic priorities with a bit-level threshold for controlling low-priority UCI multiplexing. As such Applicant respectfully submits that Talarico does not teach or suggest "determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high- priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI, wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits" as recited in claim 1.” (Remarks, page 18)
Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Examiner believes the arguments are same or similar to the arguments above, which have been addressed. Examiner suggests applicant to review the response section above for detail. For example, Talarico in para. 41 discloses that if the number of HARQ-ACK bits is less than or equal to K bits, e.g. K=2, K bits are added to CG-UCI, and joint coding is performed. Further in one option, the number of reserved K bits for HARQ-ACK feedback is always appended before or after CG-UCI regardless of actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits. In case when the actual number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits is less than K bits, e.g., K=2, NACK is applied on the reserved HARQ-ACK feedback bits. Talarico further in para. 82-84 discloses that the exact payload size of HARQ-ACK can be configured. In addition, para. 48-54 of Talarico disclose many possible options that a given UCI being a higher priority or lower priority. In other words, while HARQ-ACK is a lower priority UCI in one option, the same can be a higher priority UCI in another option. Hence, the priority ordering is not limited to the arguments shown above. Rather, there are many possible multiplexing opportunities. Therefore, Talarico, combined or alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...determining, based on a threshold number of bits, a number of bits of a low-priority uplink control information (UCI) for multiplexing with at least one of a high-priority CG-PUSCH transmission, a low-priority CG- PUSCH transmission, or a high-priority UCI, wherein the number of bits of the low-priority UCI is no more than the threshold number of bits," as recited in claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 17, 29, and 30, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 17, 29, and 30, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights