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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. And the double patenting is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apple Inc. (R1-2101381) in view of Ye et al. (Pub. No. 20130308558).
- With respect to claims 1, 8, 15, Apple Inc. discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor configured to: receives a configured hybrid automatic repeat request-ac-knowledgement (HARQ-ACK) payload size reduction for multiplexing two different HARQ-ACKs having two different priorities on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), which is one of a low-priority PUSCH or a high-priority PUSCH (e.g. section 2 discloses the LP and HP of HARQ and page 1 discloses “Multiplexing a low-priority HARQ-ACK in a high-priority PUSCH (conveying UL-SCH only).
Multiplexing a high-priority HARQ-ACK in a low-priority PUSCH (conveying UL-SCH only)
Multiplexing a low-priority HARQ-ACK, a high-priority PUSCH conveying UL-SCH, a high-priority HARQ-ACK and/or CSI.”)
and multiplex the two different HARQ-ACKs that have two different priorities on the PUSCH based on the configured HARQ-ACK payload reduction (e.g. section 1 discloses the multiplexing HP HARQ-ACK and LP HARQ-ACK into a PUCCH); and transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the multiplexed HARQ- ACK on the PUSCH (section 3 disclose PUCCH and PUSCH transmission). Apple Inc. explicitly fails to disclose the HARQ-ACK payload reduction, and Ye teaches the HARQ-ACK reducing (see par. 69 disclose “UE applies more HARQ-ACK bundling to reduce the payload side of HARQ-ACK is multiplexed with UL data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date to implement the step of reducing payload size of HARQ-ACK for multiplex in UL to save power and fast communication.
- With respect to claims 2, 9, Apple Inc. discloses wherein a low priority HARQ-ACK payload size reduction on the PUSCH is configured by higher layer signaling (it is inherently to know the high layers are configured for HARQ codebook).
- With respect to claim 3, 10, Apple Inc. discloses wherein multiplexing the HARQ-ACKs have two different priorities comprises applying the configured HARQ-ACK payload reduction when multiplexing the HARQ-ACKs having two different priorities on a single PUSCH (section 2 discloses number of ways to reduce LP HARQ size. Page 1 discloses LP and HP HARQ-ACKs on PUSCH).
- With respect to claims 4, 11, Apple Inc. discloses wherein multiplexing the HARQ-ACK having two different priorities comprises applying the configured HARQ-ACK payload size reduction when a low-priority HARQ-ACK is reported on a high-priority PUSCH (see section 1 LP HARQ and HP PUSCH).
- With respect to claims 5, 12, Apple Inc. discloses wherein the HARQ-ACK payload size reduction is configured independently for a PUSCH use case (section 2 disclose number of way to reduce the LP HARQ codebook size).
- With respect to claims 6, 13, Apple Inc. discloses wherein the PUSCH use case comprises one of a high-priority HARQ-ACK and low-priority HARQ-ACK on a high-priority PUSCH; or a high-priority HARQ-ACK and low-priority HARQ-ACK on a low priority PUSCH (see section 1 discloses Support multiplexing for following scenarios in R17:
Multiplexing a high-priority HARQ-ACK and a low-priority HARQ-ACK into a PUCCH in R17.
Multiplexing a low-priority HARQ-ACK and a high-priority SR into a PUCCH for some HARQ-ACK/SR PF combinations (FFS applicable combinations).
Multiplexing a low-priority HARQ-ACK, a high-priority HARQ-ACK and a high-priority SR into a PUCCH.
For the above multiplexing scenarios,
FFS conditions, if needed, for the multiplexing, e.g
Whether to support multiplexing between different resources not confined within a sub-slot.
Whether to support multiplexing in case a PUCCH overlaps with more than one PUCCH.
Timeline requirements.
FFS: details, if needed, of the multiplexing scheme, e.g.
How to minimize impact on the latency for high-priority HARQ-ACK.
How to determine the PUCCH resource used for multiplexing (e.g. HP or LP PUCCH resource, or a dedicated PUCCH resource for the multiplexing).
How to multiplex the HARQ-ACK bits (e.g. multiplexing, bundling).
How to encode the UCIs with different priorities (e.g. separate coding vs. joint coding)
How to guarantee the target code rate (e.g. payload control, multiplexing priority, LP HARQ-ACK compression/compaction).
Explicit indication for enabling multiplexing.
Multiplexing rule and order (e.g. HP/LP multiplexing is after resolving collision within the same priority).
- With respect to claims 7 and 14, Apple Inc. discloses wherein multiplexing the HARQ-ACK having two different priorities comprises applying the configured HARQ-ACK payload size reduction when a payload threshold is exceeded (see section 2 discloses when the combined payload may be too big then compaction of LP HARQ is necessary).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471