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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims priority from provisional application 63394223 (filed 08/01/2022).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-15, 18-19, 22-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr et al. (US 20210345408 A1, hereinafter Loehr), in view of WONG et al. (US 20220070896 A1, hereinafter WONG).
Regarding claim 1, Loehr teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (Loehr, see at least fig. 8, e.g. various functional components)
to cause the UE to (in general, see fig. 2 and its paragraphs 75-81 in view of fig. 1 and its paragraphs 70-74; see also fig. 3 and its paragraphs for additional relevant information):
receive downlink control information comprising an uplink grant scheduling transmission of a plurality of transport blocks on a plurality of uplink shared channel resources (Loehr, see at least para. 75 in view of para. 71, “...a RAN node 210 which transmits DCI 201...”, note that “...the DCI may schedule multiple UL resources/UL grants/UL allocations by means of a single DCI (referred to as a “multi-PUSCH” and/or “multi-TTI” allocation), where one UL resource may comprise multiple transport blocks/PUSCH(s),...”);
assign, based at least in part on an order of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources, data from one or more logical channels to one or more uplink shared channel resources of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources (Loehr, see at least para. 76-77, for one non-limiting example, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a one-bit flag within a multi-TTI grant 203 of the DCI 201 indicates whether the UE 205 (e.g., a remote unit 105) should map high priority data to the first predefined number ‘x’ of UL allocation(s) (Case A), or whether such high priority data shall not be mapped to the first predefined number ‘x’ of UL allocation(s) (Case B)...”);
wherein the order indicates to fill the one or more uplink shared channel resources of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources (Loehr, see at least para. 77 along with para. 72, for one non-limiting example, “...setting the one-bit flag set to ‘0’ indicates Case A, where the UE 205 is to follow the legacy LCP procedure for all the UL allocations scheduled by the multi-TTI grant 203...”, note that “...When following legacy LCP rules, the remote unit 105 multiplexes the high priority data first...”);
and
transmit the data from the one or more logical channels on the one or more uplink shared channel resources (Loehr, see at least para. 76-77 along with para. 72 of fig. 1, “...The remote unit 105 generates TBs 127 according to LCP rules for multi-PUSCH/multi-TTI grant and is allowed to shift a generated TB, ... The LCP rules for multi-PUSCH/multi-TTI grant may be legacy LCP rules and/or may be modified LCP rules (e.g., signaled by DCI) according to the disclosed solutions...”).
Loehr does not explicitly teach to fill a first uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources with at least a portion of the data prior to filling a second uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources.
WONG teaches to fill a first uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources with at least a portion of the data prior to filling a second uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources (WONG, see at least para. 109 along with fig. 7 and/or fig. 9, “...the explicit priority indicator provided by a DCI may be the highest priority logical channel identifier (LCID). As described previously, each LCID has a Priority parameter for which the lower the Priority value the higher is the priority of the LCID. In this embodiment, the highest priority indicator is the highest priority LCID that the UE can multiplex into a granted PUSCH TB. For example if the highest priority=3, that means the UE can multiplex LCID with priority=3 and above...”, note that, as an example in fig. 7 multiplexing LCID#1, #2, #3, etc. with priority=3, 4, 5, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WONG into the apparatus of Loehr for providing an improved intra-UE logical channel prioritisation. (WONG, para. 86).
Regarding claim 2, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign the data from the one or more logical channels to the one or more uplink shared channel resources in a chronological order in which the one or more uplink shared channel resources are scheduled. (Loehr, see at least para. 71-72, for one non-limiting example, “...The LCP rules for multi-PUSCH/multi-TTI grant may be legacy LCP rules and/or may be modified LCP rules (e.g., signaled by DCI) according to the disclosed solutions. When following legacy LCP rules, the remote unit 105 multiplexes the high priority data first. Thus, the first TB will generally contain high priority data...”)
Regarding claim 5, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign the data from the one or more logical channels to a first subset of the one or more uplink shared channel resources configured with uplink control information before assigning the data to a second subset of the one or more uplink shared channel resources configured without uplink control information. (WONG, see at least fig. 8 in view of para. 212 and para. 109, e.g. step 856+858 and step 862, note that “...buffer status report, via the transmission of Uplink Control Information (UCI) on the PUCCH when there is no existing PUSCH allocation for the UE...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WONG into the apparatus of Loehr for providing an improved intra-UE logical channel prioritisation. (WONG, para. 86).
Regarding claim 6, Loehr in view of WONG teaches the plurality of uplink shared channel resources are scheduled for new uplink transmissions from the UE, and the new uplink transmissions comprise initial uplink transmissions of transport blocks. (Loehr, see at least para. 109-111, “...In some embodiments, the first and the second UL grant are allocating resources for a new transmission...”)
Regarding claim 7, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign the data from the one or more logical channels based at least in part on a priority of each of the one or more logical channels. (Loehr, see at least para. 76 in view of para. 79, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a one-bit flag within a multi-TTI grant 203 of the DCI 201 indicates whether the UE 205 (e.g., a remote unit 105) should map high priority data to the first predefined number ‘x’ of UL allocation(s) (Case A), or whether such high priority data shall not be mapped to the first predefined number ‘x’ of UL allocation(s) (Case B)...”, note that “...LCH(s) having a logical channel priority...”)
Regarding claim 8, Loehr in view of WONG teaches transmit dummy data on at least one uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources to which no data is assigned from the one or more logical channels. (Loehr, see at least para. 78 along with para. 47, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a UE 205 upon having received a multi-TTI grant 203 indicating that the mapping of high priority data is prohibited for the first ‘x’ UL allocations (i.e., Case B, above), does not multiplex any MAC CE(s) to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s). Alternatively, the UE 205 may be allowed to multiplex low-priority MAC CE(s), e.g., for padding, to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s) for cases when high priority data mapping is prohibited...”)
Regarding claim 9, Loehr in view of WONG teaches skip transmission on at least one uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources to which no data is assigned from the one or more logical channels. (Loehr, see at least para. 78 along with para. 47, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a UE 205 upon having received a multi-TTI grant 203 indicating that the mapping of high priority data is prohibited for the first ‘x’ UL allocations (i.e., Case B, above), does not multiplex any MAC CE(s) to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s)...”)
Regarding claim 10, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign, based at least in part on the order of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources, control information from one or more medium access control control elements to the one or more uplink shared channel resources of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources. (Loehr, see at least para. 78 along with para. 47, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a UE 205 upon having received a multi-TTI grant 203 indicating that the mapping of high priority data is prohibited for the first ‘x’ UL allocations (i.e., Case B, above), does not multiplex any MAC CE(s) to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s). Alternatively, the UE 205 may be allowed to multiplex low-priority MAC CE(s), e.g., for padding, to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s) for cases when high priority data mapping is prohibited. Examples of low-priority MAC CEs include, but are not limited to, MAC CE for Recommended bit rate query and MAC CE for BSR...”, note that “...According to the LCP procedure specified for NR, the UE multiplexes high priority data (including MAC CEs) first in a TB respectively PUSCH allocation...”)
Regarding claim 11, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign the control information from the one or more medium access control control elements based at least in part on a priority of each of the one or more medium access control control elements. (Loehr, see at least para. 78 along with para. 47, “...According to one implementation of the first solution, a UE 205 upon having received a multi-TTI grant 203 indicating that the mapping of high priority data is prohibited for the first ‘x’ UL allocations (i.e., Case B, above), does not multiplex any MAC CE(s) to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s). Alternatively, the UE 205 may be allowed to multiplex low-priority MAC CE(s), e.g., for padding, to the first ‘x’ UL allocation(s) for cases when high priority data mapping is prohibited. Examples of low-priority MAC CEs include, but are not limited to, MAC CE for Recommended bit rate query and MAC CE for BSR...”, note that “...According to the LCP procedure specified for NR, the UE multiplexes high priority data (including MAC CEs) first in a TB respectively PUSCH allocation...”)
Regarding claim 12, Loehr in view of WONG teaches receive a control message indicating a policy for assigning the data to the plurality of uplink shared channel resources, wherein the data from the one or more logical channels is assigned to the plurality of uplink shared channel resources based at least in part on the policy. (Loehr, see at least fig. 3 in view of fig. 2, in particular, see at least para. 83-84, “...According to one specific implementation of the second solution, an RRC configuration for each logical channel indicates whether data of the corresponding logical channel can be multiplexed to the first ‘y’ UL allocation(s) of a multi-TTI grant. Here, the LCH MUX indicator 303 may be a one bit flag in the LogicalChannelConfig IE, e.g., RRC configuration, according to one specific implementation...” as well as “...the UE 205 may be configured by RRC with one or more logical channel(s) for which data of the corresponding logical channel may be multiplexed to the first ‘y’ UL allocation(s) of a multi-TTI grant, and additionally a triggering indication may be contained in the UL resource grant (e.g., DCI). The triggering indication indicates whether the UE 205 follows the modified LCP rules (e.g., Case B) or follows default (legacy) LCP rules in the granted UL resource (e.g., Case A)...”)
Regarding claim 13, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign a first priority to a first uplink shared channel resource of the plurality of uplink shared channel resources and a second priority to a second uplink channel resource (WONG, in general, see fig. 11-12 and corresponding paragraphs, in particular, see at least para. 137 and 139, “...The Pre-emption Indicator=1 in DCI#2 indicates to the UE that PUSCH#2 (scheduled by DCI#2) has higher priority than any previous PUSCH since it can pre-empt previous PUSCH...”),
wherein the first uplink shared channel resource overlaps with the second uplink channel resource (WONG, see at least para. 137, “...in FIG. 11, there is an overlap in the granted UL resources provided by the first DCI DCI#1 for transmitting the first TB 918 and the granted UL resource provided by the second DCI DCI#2 provided for transmitting the second TB 922...”),
and
wherein the first uplink shared channel resource is included or excluded in the one or more uplink shared channel resources to which the data from the one or more logical channels is assigned based at least in part on the first priority and the second priority (WONG, see at least para. 137, for one non-limiting example, “...In this example the UE would stop PUSCH#1 transmissions either completely or partially (e.g. only the pre-empted parts) so that it can transmit PUSCH#2...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WONG into the apparatus of Loehr for providing an improved intra-UE logical channel prioritisation. (WONG, para. 86).
Regarding claim 14, Loehr in view of WONG teaches the first priority is greater than the second priority, and the one or more uplink shared channel resources includes the first uplink shared channel resource based at least in part on the first priority being greater than the second priority. (WONG, see at least para. 141, for one non-limiting example, “...For example in FIG. 12, if PUSCH#1 has lower priority than PUSCH#2, then the UE drops either partially (i.e. the colliding portions) or fully, PUSCH#1 thereby allowing PUSCH#2 to be transmitted...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WONG into the apparatus of Loehr for providing an improved intra-UE logical channel prioritisation. (WONG, para. 86).
Regarding claim 15, Loehr in view of WONG teaches the first priority is less than the second priority, and the one or more uplink shared channel resources to which the data from the one or more logical channels is assigned excludes the first uplink shared channel resource based at least in part on the first priority being less than the second priority. (WONG, see at least para. 141, for one non-limiting example, “...For example in FIG. 12, if PUSCH#1 has lower priority than PUSCH#2, then the UE drops either partially (i.e. the colliding portions) or fully, PUSCH#1 thereby allowing PUSCH#2 to be transmitted...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WONG into the apparatus of Loehr for providing an improved intra-UE logical channel prioritisation. (WONG, para. 86).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as a combination of claims 1 and 12. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 18 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of the combination of claims 1 and 12. For example, it would be a network entity of claim 18 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the UE of claim 1 and 12. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in the combination of claims 1 and 12.
Regarding claims 19, 22, and 23, in view of claim 18 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively.
Regarding claims 24, 25, 28, and 29, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 18 except this claim is in method claim format.
Claims 3-4, 20-21, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr in view of WONG, as applied to claims 1, 18, and 24 above, and further in view of KO et al. (US 20160021651 A1, hereinafter KO).
Regarding claim 3, Loehr in view of WONG teaches assign the data from the one or more logical channels to the one or more uplink shared channel resources in transport block size of one or more transport blocks of the plurality of transport blocks to be carried in the one or more uplink shared channel resources. (Loehr, see at least para. 71-72, “...the DCI may schedule multiple UL resources/UL grants/UL allocations by means of a single DCI (referred to as a “multi-PUSCH” and/or “multi-TTI” allocation), where one UL resource may comprise multiple transport blocks/PUSCH(s),...”; WONG, see at least para. 47, “...the gNB allocates the UE uplink resources for the transmission of a Transport Block (TB) having a Transport Block Size (TBS) which is dependent upon the allocated PUSCH resources (i.e. number of PRBs, OFDM symbols) and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) with which the TB is to be encoded and transmitted...”)
Loehr in view of WONG does not explicitly teach transport block size order.
KO teaches transport block size order (KO, see at least para. 107-109 and TABLE 9, “...As illustrated in [Table 9], an MCS field may be configured for a PUSCH to represent 29 states indicated by combining modulation orders, TBS indexes...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate KO into the apparatus of Loehr in view of WONG for providing uplink scheduling control information by reducing signaling overhead (KO, para. 176).
Regarding claim 4, Loehr in view of WONG and KO teaches assign the data from the one or more logical channels to the one or more uplink shared channel resources in modulation size order of one or more modulation orders associated with the one or more uplink shared channel resources. (Loehr, see at least para. 71-72, “...the DCI may schedule multiple UL resources/UL grants/UL allocations by means of a single DCI (referred to as a “multi-PUSCH” and/or “multi-TTI” allocation), where one UL resource may comprise multiple transport blocks/PUSCH(s),...”; KO, see at least para. 107-109 and TABLE 9, “...As illustrated in [Table 9], an MCS field may be configured for a PUSCH to represent 29 states indicated by combining modulation orders, TBS indexes...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate KO into the apparatus of Loehr for providing uplink scheduling control information by reducing signaling overhead (KO, para. 176).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, in view of claim 18 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4, respectively.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loehr in view of WONG, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chien-Min Lee (US 20220086849 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Loehr in view of WONG teaches all of the subject matters in claim 13, except
a minimum processing time for prioritizing the first uplink shared channel resource is in reference to the downlink control information scheduling the first uplink shared channel resource,
and wherein, to assign the first priority, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: assign the first priority to the first uplink shared channel resource based at least in part on the first uplink shared channel resource being scheduled after the minimum processing time after the downlink control information.
Lee, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches
a minimum processing time for prioritizing the first uplink shared channel resource is in reference to the downlink control information scheduling the first uplink shared channel resource (Lee, see at least fig. 3 and para. 113, “...To multiplex and prioritize a plurality of UL transmissions, a concept of a minimum processing time is first explained and is shown in FIG. 3...”),
and wherein, to assign the first priority, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: assign the first priority to the first uplink shared channel resource based at least in part on the first uplink shared channel resource being scheduled after the minimum processing time after the downlink control information (Lee, see at least fig. 3, “T” is after DCIs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lee into the apparatus of Loehr in view of WONG for effectively avoiding transmission collisions. (Lee, para. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Loehr in view of WONG and Lee teaches
a minimum processing time for prioritizing the first uplink shared channel resource is in reference to the first uplink shared channel resource (Lee, see at least fig. 3 and para. 113, “...To multiplex and prioritize a plurality of UL transmissions, a concept of a minimum processing time is first explained and is shown in FIG. 3...”),
and wherein, to assign the first priority, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: assign the first priority to the first uplink shared channel resource based at least in part on the downlink control information scheduling the first uplink shared channel resource being received before the minimum processing time before the first uplink shared channel resource (Lee, see at least fig. 3, “T” is after DCIs with UL Grants).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lee into the apparatus of Loehr in view of WONG for effectively avoiding transmission collisions. (Lee, para. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 18, 24, and 30, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465