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 amendment, filed 12 February 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 27 and 31-49 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 20-22, 25, 26 and 28-30 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 20-22, 25, 26 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 regarding the independent claims (1, 9, 17 and 25) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that “different from Hosseini, the preset selection rule in amended claim 1 of present application, does not specify that a PUSCH must be selected based on priority.” The Office respectfully disagrees. As newly cited below to disclose the newly added option in the preset selection rule related to the PUSCH with A-CSI, Hosseini clearly discloses, at paragraph 0118, that a UCI multiplexing rule may indicate that a UE may select one of multiple overlapping PUSCHs for UCI multiplexing based on an order, where a PUSCH with aperiodic channel state information (A-CSI) may be selected first. Further, Applicant states that “Hosseini does not teach or disclose “selecting a PUSCH with a same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs.” The Office notes that the claim language recites (emphasis added by the Office) “selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to a preset selection rule, or selecting a PUSCH with a same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs.” As such, as noted in the previous Office action, the two selection steps are claimed in the alternative to each other. Accordingly, the latter selection not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 20-22, 25, 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hosseini et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220232591), hereinafter Hosseini.
Regarding Claim 17, Hosseini discloses a terminal (Figure 3, UE 350), comprising:
a memory, configured for storing computer programs (Figure 3, memory 360 and paragraph 0063);
a transceiver, configured for receiving and sending data under control of a processor (Figure 3, UE 350 comprises transceivers 354 under control of respective TX (368) and RX (356) processor, as well as controller/processor 359; see also paragraphs 0062-0063); and
the processor, configured for reading the computer programs in the memory (paragraph 0063 – the processor is associated with memory 360 that stores program codes and data) to execute:
determining that a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carrying uplink control information, UCI, overlaps with a plurality of physical uplink shared channels, PUSCHs, in time domain resources (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0101-0102 – a configured PUCCH overlaps with at least one or, in another example, two PUSCHs),
wherein a physical layer priority of the PUCCH is different from physical layer priorities of the plurality of PUSCHs (paragraph 0100 – the priority associated with each channel is an L1 (i.e., physical layer) priority; Figure 6 and paragraph 0102 – PUCCH may be low or high priority and overlap with PUSCH that has a different priority (e.g., a low priority overlapping with a high priority PUSCH), or physical layer priorities of the plurality of PUSCHs are different (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to a preset selection rule (Figure 6 and paragraph 0106 – the UE follows a fixed rule to determine which PUSCH to select; the rule can either be preconfigured on the UE or provided by the base station; paragraph 0118 – the UE can following a UCI multiplexing rule specifying an order for uplink channels that the UE can select for multiplexing the UCI), or selecting a PUSCH with a same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
communicating the UCI over the selected PUSCH (Figure 6 at 630; paragraph 0106 – the UE can determine to multiplex the PUCCH (UCI) with the selected PUSCH);
wherein the preset selection rule comprises:
in a case where there is a PUSCH with aperiodic channel state information, A-CSI, in the plurality of PUSCHs, selecting the PUSCH with A-CSI (paragraph 0118 - For example, a UCI multiplexing rule may indicate that a UE may select one of multiple overlapping PUSCHs for UCI multiplexing based on an order, where a PUSCH with aperiodic channel state information (A-CSI) may be selected first);
in a case where there is no PUSCH with A-CSI in the plurality of PUSCHs, and there is a PUSCH of a first type, selecting the PUSCH of the first type, wherein the PUSCH of the first type is a PUSCH with a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, scheduling (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
in a case where there is no PUSCH with A-CSI in the plurality of PUSCHs, and there is only a PUSCH of a second type, selecting the PUSCH of the second type, wherein the PUSCH of the second type is a PUSCH without a PDCCH scheduling (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
in a case where there are a plurality of PUSCHs of the first type communicated over a plurality of carriers while selecting the PUSCH of the first type, or in a case where there are a plurality of PUSCHs of the second type communicated over a plurality of carriers while selecting the PUSCH of the second type, selecting a PUSCH on a carrier based on a carrier index, and while selecting the PUSCH on the carrier according to the carrier index, in a case that there are multiple PUSCHs that do not overlap with each other in time domain on the selected carrier, selecting a PUSCH with an earliest start symbol from the multiple PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same method steps as performed by the terminal of Claim 17. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 25, Hosseini discloses a network side device (Figure 3, base station 310), comprising:
a memory, configured for storing computer programs (Figure 3, memory 376 and paragraph 0066);
a transceiver, configured for receiving and transmitting data under control of a processor (Figure 3, transceivers 318 under control of TX (316) and RX (318) processors, as well as controller/processor 375; see also paragraphs 0063 and 0065-0066); and
the processor, configured for reading the computer programs in the memory (paragraph 0066 – the controller/processor is associated with a memory storing program codes and data) to execute :
determining that a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carrying uplink control information, UCI, overlaps with a plurality of physical uplink shared channels, PUSCHs, in time domain resources (Figure 6 and paragraphs 0101-0102 – a configured PUCCH overlaps with at least one or, in another example, two PUSCHs),
wherein a physical layer priority of the PUCCH is different from physical layer priorities of the plurality of PUSCHs (paragraph 0100 – the priority associated with each channel is an L1 (i.e., physical layer) priority; Figure 6 and paragraph 0102 – PUCCH may be low or high priority and overlap with PUSCH that has a different priority (e.g., a low priority overlapping with a high priority PUSCH), or physical layer priorities of the plurality of PUSCHs are different (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to a preset selection rule (Figure 6 and paragraph 0106 – the UE follows a fixed rule to determine which PUSCH to select; the rule can either be preconfigured on the UE or provided by the base station; paragraph 0118 – the UE can following a UCI multiplexing rule specifying an order for uplink channels that the UE can select for multiplexing the UCI), or selecting a PUSCH with a same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
receiving the UCI over the selected PUSCH (Figure 6 at 630; paragraph 0106 – the base station 604 can receive the multiplexed PUCCH (UCI) via the selected PUSCH);
wherein the preset selection rule comprises:
in a case where there is a PUSCH with aperiodic channel state information, A-CSI, in the plurality of PUSCHs, selecting the PUSCH with A-CSI (paragraph 0118 - For example, a UCI multiplexing rule may indicate that a UE may select one of multiple overlapping PUSCHs for UCI multiplexing based on an order, where a PUSCH with aperiodic channel state information (A-CSI) may be selected first);
in a case where there is no PUSCH with A-CSI in the plurality of PUSCHs, and there is a PUSCH of a first type, selecting the PUSCH of the first type, wherein the PUSCH of the first type is a PUSCH with a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, scheduling (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
in a case where there is no PUSCH with A-CSI in the plurality of PUSCHs, and there is only a PUSCH of a second type, selecting the PUSCH of the second type, wherein the PUSCH of the second type is a PUSCH without a PDCCH scheduling (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
in a case where there are a plurality of PUSCHs of the first type communicated over a plurality of carriers while selecting the PUSCH of the first type, or in a case where there are a plurality of PUSCHs of the second type communicated over a plurality of carriers while selecting the PUSCH of the second type, selecting a PUSCH on a carrier based on a carrier index, and while selecting the PUSCH on the carrier according to the carrier index, in a case that there are multiple PUSCHs that do not overlap with each other in time domain on the selected carrier, selecting a PUSCH with an earliest start symbol from the multiple PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim 9 is a method claim comprising the same method steps as performed by the network side device of Claim 25. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 25.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 18, and 26, Hosseini discloses selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to the preset selection rule, or selecting the PUSCH with the same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (Note: As indicated above in the rejection of the independent claims, this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), comprises:
in a case where the PUCCH has a high priority, selecting the PUSCH with the same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
in a case where the PUCCH has a low priority, selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to the preset selection rule (paragraph 0106 – a PUSCH with a higher uplink priority than a PUCCH (i.e., the PUCCH has low priority) is selected according to the rule; paragraph 0118 – the UE can following a UCI multiplexing rule specifying an order for uplink channels that the UE can select for multiplexing the UCI), or selecting the PUSCH with the same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, 20 and 28, Hosseini discloses before selecting one PUSCH from the plurality of PUSCHs according to the preset selection rule, or selecting the PUSCH with the same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs (Note: As indicated above in the rejection of the independent claims, this limitation is claimed in the alternative and is not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), the method further comprises:
determining that there is no case where one PUSCH is selected for UCI transmission for multiple PUCCHs, wherein physical layer priorities of the multiple PUCCHs are different (paragraph 0106 – a PUSCH with a higher uplink priority than a PUCCH (i.e., the PUCCH has low priority) is selected according to the rule). (Note: The remaining “determining” steps are claimed in the alternative and are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.)
Regarding Claims 5, 13, 21 and 29, these claims further limit a non-selected alternative in the independent claims (“selecting the PUSCH with the same physical layer priority as the PUCCH from the plurality of PUSCHs”) and are also not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Hosseini anticipates these claims as well.
Regarding Claims 6, 14, 22 and 30, these claims respectively depend on Claims 5, 13, 21 and 29 and further limit a step as part of the claimed “scheme 2”. As Claims 5, 13, 21 and 29 are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claims 6, 14, 22 and 30 are also not required. Therefore, Hosseini anticipates these claims as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takahashi et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0284224) is directed to resolving collisions for A-CSI transmission.
Li et al (United States Patent 12526808) selecting a PUSCH with A-CSI as a first priority (column 4, lines 6-17).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights