DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s After Final Response filed on July 20, 2026. Claims 6 and 9-11 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: TERMINAL AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR MULTIPLEXING OVERLAPPING UPLINK CONTROL CHANNEL SLOTS DURING DYNAMIC CARRIER SWITCHING.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CATT (“UE feedback enhancements for HARQ-ACK”) R1-2104512 in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0353873 A1).
Consider claims 6 and 11, CATT discloses a radio communication method and a terminal (UE – see the title), comprising:
a processor (inherent in all UEs and the UE in CATT implements HARQ-ACK feedback processing and PUCCH carrier switching in the context of 3GPP NR Release 17 URLLC (see Section 1, Agreements; Section 2.2, Proposal 6) thus the UE must include a processor to do such implementation) that expects that a slot on which a first uplink control channel is transmitted on a first cell does not overlap with a slot on which a second uplink control channel is transmitted on a second cell (CATT teaches that, for PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI (Alt. 1), the gNB dynamically determines the PUCCH carrier, and “overlapping… can be avoided by gNB” (see CATT, Section 2.2, discussion of Alt. 1 on page 3 5th paragraph: “For Alt.1/1A, the switched PUCCH resource is indicated by DCI, hence this can be avoided by gNB”). CATT further teaches that the gNB’s dynamic indication of the PUCCH carrier inherently provides scheduling control to avoid overlapping PUCCH transmissions on different cells, and that this constitutes the “simplest scheme with least specification efforts” (see CATT, Section 2.2, paragraph preceding Proposal 6). CATT’s teaching that the gNB “can avoid” the overlapping implies that the UE may rely on (i.e., expect) non-overlap when the dynamic indication scheme is applied, because the gNB has the information and scheduling authority to prevent such overlap. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would understand that when a system is designed such that the gNB avoids scheduling overlapping PUCCH resources on different cells, the corresponding UE behavior is to expect (i.e., not assume) such overlap. This interpretation is consistent with 3GPP convention where “the UE does not expect” or “the UE does not assume” language is used to define terminal behavior when the network is responsible for avoiding a condition) in a case where dynamic switching is applied, wherein the dynamic switching switches a cell on which an uplink control channel is transmitted between the first cell and the second cell based on dynamic indication in downlink control information (CATT explicitly teaches dynamic PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI. See CATT, Section 2.2, Alt. 1: “PUCCH carrier switching is based [on] dynamic indication in DCI.” See also CATT, Proposal 6: “PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI is supported. The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” CATT further teaches that the DCI dynamically determines the PUCCH carrier, switching between cells (e.g., CC1/PCell and CC2/SCell) for PUCCH transmission (see CATT, Section 2.2, FIGS. 2–3)); and
a transmitter (inherent in all UEs such as the one described in CATT) that transmits the first uplink control channel on the first cell (CATT teaches that, following dynamic indication in DCI, the UE transmits PUCCH (uplink control channel carrying HARQ-ACK) on a cell indicated by the DCI. See CATT, Proposal 6: “The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” CATT’s FIG. 3 shows the UE transmitting PUCCH (including SPS HARQ-ACK and dynamic HARQ-ACK) on CC2, which is a switched cell),
wherein the first cell is a secondary cell (SCell) and the second cell is a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell) (CATT teaches PUCCH carrier switching in which PUCCH is switched from a PCell (or PSCell or PUCCH-SCell) to an SCell, and vice versa. See CATT, Section 2.2 on the last paragraph of page 3: “the SPS HARQ-ACK in CC1 can be multiplexed with dynamic HARQ-ACK in CC2” (FIG. 3). CATT’s discussion contemplates switching between PCell and SCell (see Section 2.2, page 3 5th paragraph: “CC1 is PCell and CC2 is Scell”). A PHOSITA would understand that the dynamic indication can direct PUCCH to
either cell, meaning that in certain scheduling scenarios the first uplink control channel is
transmitted on the SCell while the second is on the PCell/PSCell and PSCell is a standard NR term for the primary cell of a secondary cell group in dual connectivity, and extending the teachings to include PSCell is a predictable variation (also note that the claim language makes PSCell optional or as an alternative)), and
wherein the first uplink control channel comprises a response signal to a downlink signal (CATT explicitly teaches that the uplink control channel (PUCCH) carries HARQ-ACK, which is a response signal to a received downlink signal (PDSCH). See CATT, Section 2.2, Proposal 6: “The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” See also CATT, Section 2.1, page 2 1st paragraph - discussing retransmission of HARQ-ACK feedback for SPS PDSCH and dynamic PDSCH. The HARQ-ACK is a response/acknowledgment signal responsive to received downlink data).
Nonetheless, CATT does not explicitly disclose expects that a slot…does not overlap from the UE’s perspective as CATT presents the non-overlap avoidance from the gNB/network side as explained above.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. disclose that a UE, when configured for PUCCH carrier switching, treats PUCCH on different CCs as non-overlapping PUCCHs even if they physically overlap in time (see ¶ [0091]: “when multiplexing overlapping PUCCHs, the PUCCH on different CCs should be treated as non-overlapping PUCCHs, even if they physically overlap in time”). This demonstrates that in the art, a UE is configured to adopt a behavioral assumption regarding the overlap status of uplink control channels on different component carriers). Huang et al. further teach that configuration information from the base station defines the multiplexing behavior and carrier configuration that the UE follows (see ¶¶ [0006], [0082],
[0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the UE in CATT’s dynamic PUCCH carrier switching scheme to expect non-overlap of PUCCH slots on different cells as disclosed by Huang et al.’s teaching of UE behavioral assumptions regarding overlap status across component carrier in the terminal disclosed by CATT in order to simplify UE implementation by eliminating the need for complex multiplexing/overlap-resolution logic when the gNB has already ensured non-overlap via dynamic scheduling. This approach reduces terminal processing complexity and is consistent with the design philosophy expressed in CATT (simplest scheme with least specification efforts) and Huang et al.’s per-CC treatment of PUCCH overlap.
Consider claim 9, CATT disclose a base station (gNB – see Section 2.2, page 3 1st paragraph) comprising:
a processor (inherent in all gNBs) that performs control so that a slot on which a first uplink control channel is transmitted on a first cell does not overlap with a slot on which a second uplink control channel is transmitted on a second cell (CATT teaches that, for the dynamic indication alternative (Alt. 1), the gNB controls the PUCCH carrier assignment via DCI, and that “this [overlapping] can be avoided by gNB” (see CATT, Section 2.2, Alt. 1 discussion: “For Alt.1/1A, the switched PUCCH resource is indicated by DCI, hence this can be avoided by gNB”). CATT further teaches that dynamic indication “is the most flexible option to allow gNB to dynamically determine the PUCCH carrier” and is “the simplest scheme with least specification efforts” (see CATT, Section 2.2, page 3 last paragraph comparing alternatives).
A PHOSITA would understand that the gNB’s ability to “avoid” the overlap through dynamic DCI indication constitutes performing control so that the PUCCH slots do not overlap. The gNB,
having full scheduling authority over DCI-indicated PUCCH resources, inherently performs this
control by selecting non-overlapping PUCCH timing/carrier combinations) in a case where dynamic switching is applied, wherein the dynamic switching switches a cell on which an uplink control channel is transmitted between the first cell and the second cell based on dynamic indication in downlink control information (See CATT, Section 2.2, Alt. 1 and Proposal 6: “PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI is supported. The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.”); and
a receiver (inherent in all gNBs) that receives the first uplink control channel (CATT inherently teaches that the gNB receives the HARQ-ACK/PUCCH transmitted by the UE on the dynamically indicated cell, as the purpose of the entire PUCCH carrier switching scheme is to enable the gNB to receive uplink control feedback),
wherein the first cell is a secondary cell (SCell) and the second cell is a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell) (CATT teaches PUCCH carrier switching in which PUCCH is switched from a PCell (or PSCell or PUCCH-SCell) to an SCell, and vice versa. See CATT, Section 2.2 on the last paragraph of page 3: “the SPS HARQ-ACK in CC1 can be multiplexed with dynamic HARQ-ACK in CC2” (FIG. 3). CATT’s discussion contemplates switching between PCell and SCell (see Section 2.2, page 3 5th paragraph: “CC1 is PCell and CC2 is Scell”). A PHOSITA would understand that the dynamic indication can direct PUCCH to either cell, meaning that in certain scheduling scenarios the first uplink control channel is
transmitted on the SCell while the second is on the PCell/PSCell and PSCell is a standard NR term for the primary cell of a secondary cell group in dual connectivity, and extending the teachings to include PSCell is a predictable variation (also note that the claim language makes
PSCell optional or as an alternative)), and
wherein the first uplink control channel comprises a response signal to a downlink signal (CATT explicitly teaches that the uplink control channel (PUCCH) carries HARQ-ACK, which is a response signal to a received downlink signal (PDSCH). See CATT, Section 2.2, Proposal 6: “The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” See also CATT, Section 2.1, page 2 1st paragraph - discussing retransmission of HARQ-ACK feedback for SPS PDSCH and dynamic PDSCH. The HARQ-ACK is a response/acknowledgment signal responsive to received downlink data).
Nonetheless, CATT does not explicitly disclose “performs control so that… does not overlap” as CATT states that overlap “can be avoided” by the gNB, which suggests capability rather than a mandatory behavior.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. disclose that a base station transmits configuration information to the UE that defines the multiplexing behavior across component carriers, including which CCs are configured for control channel communications (see ¶¶ [0018], [0019], [0082], and [0144]). Huang et al. also teach that the base station configures and controls the uplink transmission framework for the UE, including the per-CC or across-CC multiplexing rules (see ¶¶ [0150]–[0152]). This demonstrates that base-station-side control of uplink control channel resource allocation is a well-known technique.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the gNB’s scheduling in CATT’s dynamic PUCCH carrier switching system such that the gNB performs control ensuring non-overlap of PUCCH slots on different cells, as suggested by Huang et al.’s base-station-side configuration and scheduling control, because: (1) CATT explicitly teaches that the gNB can avoid overlap in Alt. 1; (2) Huang et al. teach that base stations exercise scheduling and configuration authority over uplink control channel resources; and (3) implementing such control simplifies UE processing by eliminating the need for complex overlap-resolution logic, consistent with CATT’s stated preference for the “simplest scheme with least specification efforts.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (G).
Consider claim 10, CATT discloses a radio communication system (system that includes the UE and gNB disclosed by CATT) comprising:
a terminal (UE – see the title), comprising:
a processor (inherent in all UEs and the UE in CATT implements HARQ-ACK feedback processing and PUCCH carrier switching in the context of 3GPP NR Release 17 URLLC (see Section 1, Agreements; Section 2.2, Proposal 6) thus the UE must include a processor to do such implementation) that expects that a slot on which a first uplink control channel is transmitted on a first cell does not overlap with a slot on which a second uplink control channel is transmitted on a second cell (CATT teaches that, for PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI (Alt. 1), the gNB dynamically determines the PUCCH carrier, and “overlapping… can be avoided by gNB” (see CATT, Section 2.2, discussion of Alt. 1 on page 3 5th paragraph: “For Alt.1/1A, the switched PUCCH resource is indicated by DCI, hence this can be avoided by gNB”). CATT further teaches that the gNB’s dynamic indication of the PUCCH carrier inherently provides scheduling control to avoid overlapping PUCCH transmissions on different cells, and that this constitutes the “simplest scheme with least specification efforts” (see CATT, Section 2.2, paragraph preceding Proposal 6). CATT’s teaching that the gNB “can avoid” the overlapping implies that the UE may rely on (i.e., expect) non-overlap when the dynamic indication scheme is applied, because the gNB has the information and scheduling authority to prevent such overlap. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would understand that when a system is designed such that the gNB avoids scheduling overlapping PUCCH resources on different cells, the corresponding UE behavior is to expect (i.e., not assume) such overlap. This interpretation is consistent with 3GPP convention where “the UE does not expect” or “the UE does not assume” language is used to define terminal behavior when the network is responsible for avoiding a condition) in a case where dynamic switching is applied, wherein the dynamic switching switches a cell on which an uplink control channel is transmitted between the first cell and the second cell based on dynamic indication in downlink control information (CATT explicitly teaches dynamic PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI. See CATT, Section 2.2, Alt. 1: “PUCCH carrier switching is based [on] dynamic indication in DCI.” See also CATT, Proposal 6: “PUCCH carrier switching based on dynamic indication in DCI is supported. The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” CATT further teaches that the DCI dynamically determines the PUCCH carrier, switching between cells (e.g., CC1/PCell and CC2/SCell) for PUCCH transmission (see CATT, Section 2.2, FIGS. 2–3)); and
a transmitter (inherent in all UEs such as the one described in CATT) that transmits the first uplink control channel on the first cell (CATT teaches that, following dynamic indication in DCI, the UE transmits PUCCH (uplink control channel carrying HARQ-ACK) on a cell indicated by the DCI. See CATT, Proposal 6: “The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” CATT’s FIG. 3 shows the UE transmitting PUCCH (including SPS HARQ-ACK and dynamic HARQ-ACK) on CC2, which is a switched cell),
wherein the first cell is a secondary cell (SCell) and the second cell is a primary cell
(PCell) or a primary secondary cell (PSCell) (CATT teaches PUCCH carrier switching in which PUCCH is switched from a PCell (or PSCell or PUCCH-SCell) to an SCell, and vice versa. See CATT, Section 2.2 on the last paragraph of page 3: “the SPS HARQ-ACK in CC1 can be multiplexed with dynamic HARQ-ACK in CC2” (FIG. 3). CATT’s discussion contemplates switching between PCell and SCell (see Section 2.2, page 3 5th paragraph: “CC1 is PCell and CC2 is Scell”). A PHOSITA would understand that the dynamic indication can direct PUCCH to either cell, meaning that in certain scheduling scenarios the first uplink control channel is
transmitted on the SCell while the second is on the PCell/PSCell and PSCell is a standard NR term for the primary cell of a secondary cell group in dual connectivity, and extending the teachings to include PSCell is a predictable variation (also note that the claim language makes PSCell optional or as an alternative)), and
wherein the first uplink control channel comprises a response signal to a downlink signal (CATT explicitly teaches that the uplink control channel (PUCCH) carries HARQ-ACK, which is a response signal to a received downlink signal (PDSCH). See CATT, Section 2.2, Proposal 6: “The transmission carrier of dynamic HARQ-ACK is indicated by DCI corresponding to the dynamic HARQ-ACK.” See also CATT, Section 2.1, page 2 1st paragraph - discussing retransmission of HARQ-ACK feedback for SPS PDSCH and dynamic PDSCH. The HARQ-ACK is a response/acknowledgment signal responsive to received downlink data); and
a base station (gNB – see Section 2.2, page 3 1st paragraph) comprising a receiver (inherent in all gNBs) that receives the first uplink control channel (CATT inherently teaches that the gNB receives the HARQ-ACK/PUCCH transmitted by the UE on the dynamically indicated cell, as the purpose of the entire PUCCH carrier switching scheme is to enable the gNB to receive uplink control feedback).
Nonetheless, CATT does not explicitly disclose that expects that a slot…does not overlap
from the UE’s perspective as CATT presents the non-overlap avoidance from the gNB/network side as explained above.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. disclose that a UE, when configured for PUCCH carrier switching, treats PUCCH on different CCs as non-overlapping PUCCHs even if they physically overlap in time (see ¶ [0091]: “when multiplexing overlapping PUCCHs, the PUCCH on different CCs should be treated as non-overlapping PUCCHs, even if they physically overlap in time”). This demonstrates that in the art, a UE is configured to adopt a behavioral assumption regarding the overlap status of uplink control channels on different component carriers). Huang et al. further teach that configuration information from the base station defines the multiplexing behavior and carrier configuration that the UE follows (see ¶¶ [0006], [0082], [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the UE in CATT’s dynamic PUCCH carrier switching scheme to expect non-overlap of PUCCH slots on different cells as disclosed by Huang et al.’s teaching of UE behavioral assumptions regarding overlap status across component carrier in the system disclosed by CATT in order to simplify UE implementation by eliminating the need for complex multiplexing/overlap-resolution logic when the gNB has already ensured non-overlap via dynamic scheduling. This approach reduces terminal processing complexity and is consistent with the design philosophy expressed in CATT (simplest scheme with least specification efforts) and Huang et al.’s per-CC treatment of PUCCH overlap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 6 and 9-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made above in view
of the CATT (“UE feedback enhancements for HARQ-ACK”) R1-2104512 and Huang et al. (US 2022/0353873 A1) references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights