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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 in the Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koorapaty et al (US Patent 11,917,632 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US Publication 2022/0150884 A1) in view of Koorapaty et al (US Patent 11,917,632 B2).
Regarding to claims 1 and 8, Zhou discloses a wireless transmit receive unit WTRU 700 (fig. 7), the WTRU comprising: a processor 740 operatively coupled to a transceiver 715 (page 13 paragraph 0116), the processor and transceiver configured to receive configuration information indicating a plurality of physical uplink control channel PUCCH carriers (fig. 3 page 3 paragraph 0031); the processor and transceiver configured to receive downlink control information DCI capable of indicating a first PUCCH carrier and a second PUCCH carrier of the plurality of PUCCH carriers (page 9 paragraph 0077; noted there is subset of carriers) for sending a Uplink Control Information UCI transmission (fig. 8 page 14 paragraph 0125); and the processor and transceiver configured to transmit the UCI transmission on a second PUCCH carrier of the plurality of PUCCH carriers (page 14 paragraph 0126), wherein the second PUCCH carrier is selected based on an indication in the DCI (fig. 2 page 8 paragraph 0074-page 9 paragraph 0075; noted the carrier selection is based on DCIs received from base stations 210-220).
Zhou fails to teach for the second PUCCH carrier is selected based on a control resource set (CORESET) or a search space in which the DCI is received, the CORESET or the search space being associated, by the configuration information, with the second PUCCH carrier.
However, Koorapaty discloses system (fig. 1) and method (fig. 11) for determining an uplink control channel resource to use for transmitting uplink control information comprising select a second PUCCH carrier (carrier from secondary cell), based on a control resource set CORESET (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 7) or a search space in which the DCI is received (col. 5 lines 1-7), the CORESET or the search space being associated, by a configuration information (dynamic signaling), with the second PUCCH carrier (col. 32 lines 32-45; PUCCH resource sets).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for selecting a second PUCCH carrier as taught by Koorapaty into Zhou’s system to improve and provide flexible PUCCH resources allocation schemes for UE to transmit UCI.
Regarding to claims 2 and 9, Zhou discloses the second PUCCH carrier is designated for a switching UCI transmission carrier (page 9 paragraph 0078).
Regarding to claims 3 and 10, Zhou discloses the second PUCCH carrier is designated as a secondary carrier and the first PUCCH carrier is designated as a primary carrier (page 8 paragraph 0071; noted the primary and secondary carrier can be determined based priority level of PUCCH).
Regarding to claims 7 and 14, Zhou discloses the second PUCCH carrier is further selected based on at least one of: an index of carriers (page 9 paragraph 0079), a priority of feedback (page 9 paragraph 0076), an indicated transmission time of the UCI on the first PUCCH carrier being associated with a downlink slot (page 9 paragraph 0080), or a payload feedback size (page 10 paragraph 0081).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Koorapaty and Elshafie et al (US Publication 2022/0109534 A1).
Regarding to claims 15 and 16, Zhou and Koorapaty combined discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 8, except for the UCI transmission is sent using a power determined by power information included in the DCI. However, Elshafie discloses a mobile station configured a UCI transmission using a power determined by power information included in a DCI (fig. 7 page 9 paragraph 0091). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for the UCI transmission power as taught by Elshafie into the combination of Zhou and Koorapaty's system to increased priority level of certain UCIs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duc T Duong whose telephone number is (571)272-3122. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9am-6pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/DUC T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights