DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE with Amendment filed 4/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, and 26 have been amended.
Claims 31-34 have been cancelled. Previous 112(b) rejections are moot.
Claims 4, 14, 24, and 29 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 35-38 have been newly added.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-23, 25-28, 30, and 35-38 remain pending.
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.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Firstly, the dependency of claim 36 is to subsequent claim 37. For examination purposes, claim 36 will be treated as depending from claim 35. Further, claims 36 and 37 recite steps of “receiving a second DCI” without any receiving of a first DCI, as amended claim 1 expressly states that DCI has not been received. Therefore, the scope of claims 36 and 37 is unclear and the claims are held to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US20220039100A1; “Yoshi”) in view of El Hamss et al. (US20210328728A1; “Hamss”).
Regarding claims 1 and 21,
Yoshi discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 7, user terminal 20; Fig. 9-10) for wireless communication comprising a memory (Fig. 10, memory 1002) and one or more processors (Fig. 10, processor 1001) coupled to the memory configured to perform a method comprising cancelling an uplink data communication that is to be multiplexed with uplink control information (UCI) (Fig. 1A-D, 2A-C; paragraphs 39, 42-53, 61-77; stop/cancel/drop uplink transmission/PUSCH/PUCCH including UCI).
Yoshi further shows determining whether to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI or in accordance with downlink control information (DCI) that instructs the UE to transmit cancelled UCI and transmitting the UCI based at least in part on the determination (Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraph 54-56, 78-87, 90-96, 100-104, 119-123, 163; cancelled/postponed UCI is re-reported in subsequent resources based on DCI or higher layer signaling).
Yoshi discloses determining different cancel operations based on a given condition such as whether the remaining uplink transmission has a configured DMRS or not (paragraph 57; cancel operations controlled based on given condition including if no configured DMRS) and determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI based at least in part on determining the cancel operation based on the given condition (paragraph 57-58; apply first cancel operation when remaining uplink transmission specified by UE-specific DCI has no DMRS) but fails to expressly disclose automatic transmission of UCI based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time.
Hamss discloses analogous art (Title: HARQ Enhancement) including automatic transmission of UCI (HARQ feedback) based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time (Fig. 4; paragraph 98-, 124-129; automatic UCI resource selection and transmission of HARQ-ACK feedback based on missing DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi by providing automatic transmission of UCI based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time, as shown by Hamss, to support retransmission of UCI/HARQ information even when DCI for scheduling UCI is not received.
Regarding claims 11 and 26,
Yoshi discloses a network entity (Fig. 7, base station 11/12; Fig. 8, 10) for wireless communication, comprising a memory (Fig. 10, memory 1002) and one or more processors (Fig. 10, processor 1001) coupled to the memory configured to perform a method comprising transmitting a cancellation indication instructing a user equipment (UE) to cancel an uplink data communication, wherein the uplink data communication is to be multiplexed with uplink control information (UCI) (Fig. 1A-D, 2A-C; paragraphs 39, 42-53, 61-77; instruction from base station to user terminal to stop/cancel/drop uplink transmission of PUSCH/PUCCH including UCI).
Yoshi further shows determining whether the UE is to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI or in accordance with downlink control information (DCI) that instructs the UE to transmit cancelled UCI and monitoring for the UCI based at least in part on the determination (Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraph 54-56, 78-87, 90-96, 100-104, 119-123, 163; monitoring for cancelled/postponed UCI to be re-reported in subsequent resources based on DCI or higher layer signaling).
Yoshi discloses determining different cancel operations based on a given condition such as whether the remaining uplink transmission has a configured DMRS or not (paragraph 57; cancel operations controlled based on given condition including if no configured DMRS) and determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI based at least in part on determining the cancel operation based on the given condition (paragraph 57-58; apply first cancel operation when remaining uplink transmission specified by UE-specific DCI has no DMRS) but fails to expressly disclose automatic transmission of UCI based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time.
Hamss discloses analogous art (Title: HARQ Enhancement) including automatic transmission of UCI (HARQ feedback) based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time (Fig. 4; paragraph 98-, 124-129; automatic UCI resourceik selection and transmission of HARQ-ACK feedback based on missing DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi by providing automatic transmission of UCI based on the determination that the DCI has not been received within a threshold amount of time, as shown by Hamss, to support retransmission of UCI/HARQ information even when DCI for scheduling UCI is not received.
Regarding claims 3, 13, 23, and 28,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining whether to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI or in response to the DCI comprises determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI, and transmitting/monitoring for the UCI comprises transmitting the UCI as instructed in the DCI based at least in part on determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI (Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraphs 86-87, 96, 100, 104-107, 111, 134-135; UE-specific or common DCI instructs cancellation including re-mapping postponed UCI included in the cancelled uplink transmission to time/frequency domain resources that has not been cancelled/PUSCH when only part of the remaining uplink transmission is canceled based on the DCI).
Regarding claims 5, 15, 25, and 30,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE (see above) and further shows determining that a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication has sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI and determining to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI based at least in part on determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE and that the next uplink data communication or the next uplink control communication has sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI (Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraphs 59, 60, 63; if time interval X < threshold Y, remaining cancelled transmission is allowed).
Regarding claims 6 and 16,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE (see above) and further discloses determining that a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication does not have sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI and determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI based at least in part on determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE and that the next uplink data communication or the next uplink control communication does not have sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI (Fig. 3A-B, 4A; paragraphs 59, 60, 63; if time interval X > threshold Y, remaining cancelled transmission is not performed).
Regarding claims 8 and 18,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE (see above) and determining that a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication does not have sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI (Fig. 3A-B, 4A; paragraphs 59, 60, 63; if time interval X > threshold Y, remaining cancelled transmission is not performed).
Yoshi further shows determining to transmit a portion of the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI based at least in part on determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE and that the next uplink data communication or the next uplink control communication does not have sufficient resources for transmission of the UCI (paragraph 86; UE may transmit at least part of the UCI/HARQ-ACK when PUSCH is cancelled), wherein a remaining portion of the UCI that is not transmitted in the next uplink data communication or the next uplink control communication is dropped or transmitted in a subsequent uplink communication (paragraph 86; UE may drop or transmit other UCI/SCI using PUCCH).
Regarding claims 9 and 19,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining that automatic transmission of cancelled UCI is configured for the UE (see above) and further comprising receiving the DCI prior to transmission of the UCI (Fig. 3A-B, 4A-B, 5, 6A-C; Abstract; paragraph 10, 282; second DCI received before first DCI or higher layer parameter) that indicates a set of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bits to be transmitted in the UCI, wherein any HARQ bits not indicated in the DCI are excluded from the UCI (paragraph 80, 83, 84, 86, 121, 123, 164; UCI retransmitted/re-reported includes HARQ-ACK indications).
5. Claims 2, 12, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi and Hamss and further in view of Wang et al. (US20200358587A1; “Wang”).
Regarding claims 2, 12, 22, and 27,
Yoshi discloses determining to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI (paragraph 86, 123, 163; higher layer signaling rather than DCI/explicit or implicit notification for normal retransmission or rescheduling) but fails to expressly disclose transmitting/monitoring for the UCI in a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication after cancelling the uplink data communication, based at least in part on determining to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI.
Wang discloses analogous art (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 13 illustrate similar arrangements in which uplink transmission including UCI are dropped) including transmitting/monitoring for the UCI in a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication after cancelling the uplink data communication, based at least in part on determining to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI (paragraphs 98, 156, 174; transmitting dropped UCI in earliest available slot by implicit indication/CCE index of PDCCH rather than explicit indication in DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi and Hamss by transmitting/monitoring for the UCI in a next uplink data communication or a next uplink control communication after cancelling the uplink data communication, based at least in part on determining to transmit the UCI using automatic transmission of cancelled UCI, as shown by Wang, thereby enabling efficient transmission of dropped UCI during BWP switching.
6. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi and Hamss and further in view of Wu (US20220110157A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses determining that a timer has expired based at least in part on determining to transmit the UCI in response to the DCI and determining that the DCI has not been received prior to expiration of the timer (Yoshi: paragraph 164-165; use of a timer as a basis for determining whether the DCI is provided for scheduling of normal retransmission or rescheduling of cancelled/postponed UCI) but fails to expressly disclose requesting the DCI based at least in part on determining that the DCI has not been received prior to timer expiration.
Wu discloses analogous art (Title: reducing delays of timer-based transmissions on a shared carrier) including requesting the DCI based at least in part on determining that the DCI has not been received prior to expiration of the timer (Fig. 2-7; Table 1-2; paragraphs 63-65; request following timer expiration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi and Hamss by requesting the DCI based at least in part on determining that the DCI has not been received prior to expiration of the timer, as shown by Wu, thereby reducing delays of timer-based transmissions on a shared carrier such as PUSCH.
7. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi and Hamss and further in view of Yin (USP12341612B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 20,
The combination of Yoshi and Hams does not expressly show the UCI includes a set of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bits that all have a same priority.
Yin discloses analogous art (Title: Priority Differentiation of SR transmission with HARQ-ACK codebooks of different service types) including cancelling an uplink transmission of HARQ that all have a same priority (Fig. 2-5; Col. 25, lines 4-20; claim 1; SRs with same/low priority as HARQ-ACK information on PUCCH is cancelled in favor of higher priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi and Hamss by providing UCI having HARQ that all have the same priority, as shown by Yin, thereby ensuring high priority data is transmitted over low priority data when resources/bandwidth is constrained in networks supporting different service types.
8. Claims 35, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi and Hamss as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US20220104241A1; “Zou”)
Regarding claims 35 and 38,
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss does not expressly disclose transmitting UCI via automatic transmission based on a quantity of HARQ bits is less than the threshold.
Zou discloses analogous art (Title: Uplink Control Information Pre-emption) including transmitting UCI via automatic transmission based on a quantity of HARQ bits is less than the threshold (paragraph 122; when number of HARQ-ACK bits is below a defined threshold, the HARQ-ACK bits are multiplexed with the pre-empted PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yoshi and Hamss by transmitting UCI via automatic transmission based on a quantity of HARQ bits is less than the threshold, as shown by Zou, thereby ensuring critical, high priority UCIs are successfully transmitted.
Regarding claim 36 (as best understood),
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses receiving a second DCI (Yoshi: Fig. 3A-B, 4A-B, 5, 6B) and transmitting cancelled/dropped UCI (Yoshi: Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraph 54-56, 78-87, 90-96, 100-104, 119-123, 163; cancelled/postponed UCI is re-reported in subsequent resources based on DCI or higher layer signaling) but does not expressly show transmitting UCI based on the quantity of HARQ bits greater than threshold.
Zou discloses analogous art (Title: Uplink Control Information Pre-emption) including the quantity of HARQ bits greater than threshold (HARQ-ACK bits are dropped if greater than a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to receive a second DCI and transmit cancelled UCI as in the combination of Yoshi and Hamss when determining the quantity of HARQ bits greater than threshold, as shown by Zou, thereby ensuring critical, high priority UCIs are successfully transmitted.
9. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi and Hamss as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US20230198682A1; Khoshnevisan)
Regarding claim 37 (as best understood),
The combination of Yoshi and Hamss discloses receiving a second DCI (Yoshi: Fig. 3A-B, 4A-B, 5, 6B) and transmitting cancelled/dropped UCI (Yoshi: Fig. 3A-B, 4B; paragraph 54-56, 78-87, 90-96, 100-104, 119-123, 163; cancelled/postponed UCI is re-reported in subsequent resources based on DCI or higher layer signaling) but fails to expressly disclose determining multiple UCI transmissions have been cancelled prior to transmission.
Khoshnevisan discloses analogous art (Title: Uplink Control Communication Repetition in Multiple Slots using Different Sets of Time Domain Resources) including determining multiple UCI transmissions have been cancelled prior to transmission (paragraphs 70-79; dropping one or more of multiple repetitions of UCI based on determining overlap of PUCCHs; transmitting UCI in multiple slots after determining to drop the one or more repetitions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to receive a second DCI and transmitting cancelled/dropped UCI as in the combination of Yoshi and Hamss when determining multiple UCI transmissions have been cancelled prior to transmission, as shown by Khoshnevisan, thereby ensuring eventual transmission of multiple cancelled UCIs.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, as amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited Hamss reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights