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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023, 08/12/2024 & 02/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/371,189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 are “anticipated by” claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/371,189.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/532,469 (Instant)
Co-pending Application No. 18/371,189
1. An apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: send user equipment (UE) assistance information to a network entity, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of a requested duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a requested maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the requested maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the requested duration; and receive an autonomous denial configuration from the network entity, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of:a duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the duration.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the UE assistance information further comprises information indicative of a requested cycle length for a periodically recurring communication cycle, the periodically recurring communication cycle comprising a first time period corresponding to the requested duration and a second time period.
1. An apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: send user equipment (UE) assistance information to a network entity, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of: a requested length of a requested time window; a requested periodicity at which the requested time window repeats; and a first requested communication configuration for communicating during the requested time window; receive a communication configuration from the network entity; and communicate according to the communication configuration, wherein: the information indicative of the first requested communication configuration comprises information indicative of a requested length of a requested gap period during which the apparatus is not to be scheduled for uplink transmission, and a requested periodicity at which the requested gap period repeats within the requested time window or the information indicative of the first requested communication configuration comprises information indicative of a requested duty cycle the apparatus is not to be scheduled for uplink transmission during the requested time window, and a requested maximum consecutive duration the apparatus can be scheduled for uplink transmission during the requested time window.
Claim 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31 of copending Application No. 18/371,189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 11-12 are “anticipated by” claims 31 of copending Application No. 18/371,189.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/532,469 (Instant)
Co-pending Application No. 18/371,189
11. A method for wireless communications by an apparatus comprising: sending user equipment (UE) assistance information to a network entity, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of: a requested duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a requested maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the requested maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the requested duration; and receiving an autonomous denial configuration from the network entity, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of: a duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of up link transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the duration.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the UE assistance information further comprises information indicative of a requested cycle length for a periodically recurring communication cycle, the periodically recurring communication cycle comprising a first time period corresponding to the requested duration and a second time period.
31. A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: sending UE assistance information to a network entity, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of: a requested length of a requested time window; a requested periodicity at which the requested time window repeats; and a first requested communication configuration for communicating during the requested time window; receiving a communication configuration from the network entity; and communicating according to the communication configuration, wherein: the information indicative of the first requested communication configuration comprises information indicative of: a first requested cycle length of a first requested communication cycle, the first requested communication cycle comprising a first requested active time period and a first requested inactive time period; and a first requested duration for the first requested active time period of the first requested communication cycle; the information indicative of the requested periodicity at which the requested time window repeats comprises information indicative of a second requested cycle length of a second requested communication cycle, the second requested communication cycle comprising a first requested time period for communicating according to the first requested communication cycle and a second requested time period; and the information indicative of the requested length of the requested time window comprises information indicative of a second requested duration for the first requested time period of the second requested communication cycle.
Similarly, all other dependent claims of the instant application (Application No. 18/532,469) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over combinations of dependent claims (similar to combinations of independent/dependent claims as shown above) of Co-pending Application No. 18/371,189. Although those claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because combination of those dependent claims are “anticipated by” the combination of dependent claims of Co-pending Application No. 18/371,189.
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.
In 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 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 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, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2019/0349836) Lee836 hereinafter, in view of Lee et al. (2015/0296556), Lee556 hereinafter.
Re. Claims 1 and 11, Lee836 teaches a method (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151/¶0159: ¶0163) for wireless communications (Fig.6) by an apparatus (Fig.6, UE/Fig.5) comprising, and an apparatus (Fig.6, UE/Fig.5) configured for wireless communications (Fig.6), comprising: one or more memories (Fig. 5, 130) comprising processor-executable instructions (Fig. 5 & ¶0054-¶0056); and one or more processors (Fig.5, 110) configured to execute the processor-executable instructions (Fig. 5 & ¶0054-¶0056) and cause the apparatus to: send user equipment (UE) assistance information to a network entity, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of a requested duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a requested maximum number of uplink transmissions (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151 - UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network (S1113). Preferably, desired autonomous information includes a desired maximum number of the uplink subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny any uplink transmissions and a validity period over which the uplink autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0160 - The UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network if the number of subframes for which the UE is required to deny or the UE has denied any uplink transmission during the validity period is above a threshold value (S1209). Preferably, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes respectively which are configured via autonomous denial configuration. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0163 - When the one or more following conditions is met, the UE sends the assistance information to the network. In the following, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes which are configured via autonomous denial configuration); and the requested maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the requested duration (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151 - UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network (S1113). Preferably, desired autonomous information includes a desired maximum number of the uplink subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny any uplink transmissions and a validity period over which the uplink autonomous denial subframes shall be counted.);
PNG
media_image2.png
352
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet, Lee836 does not expressly teach receive an autonomous denial configuration from the network entity, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of: a duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the duration.
However, in the analogous art, Lee556 explicitly discloses receive an autonomous denial configuration from the network entity, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of: a duration during which the apparatus is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the apparatus is allowed to deny during the duration. (Fig. 5-6 & ¶0167 - At step S100, the UE receives a configuration for autonomous denial over a first connection with a first system. At step S110, the UE applies the autonomous denial for a first UL transmission over the first connection based on the received configuration if DL transmission over a second connection with a second system (e.g., GNSS, see ¶0168) collides with the first UL transmission. At step S120, the UE prohibits the autonomous denial for a second UL transmission over the first connection if the second UL transmission corresponds to a specific signal. Fig. 5-6 & ¶0168 - The first system may be an E-UTRAN, and the second system may be a system on ISM band such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The specific signal may be specific RRC messages such as a handover complete message, RRC connection re-establishment complete message, RRC connection request message. Or, the specific signal may be a periodic or aperiodic sounding reference signal. Or, the specific signal may be a random access preamble or a scheduling request which is triggered to carry a specific RRC message. Or, the specific signal may be a MAC control element or RLC/PDCP control information. Also, see Tables 3-4 & ¶0164, where parameters for autonomous denial are configured in OtherConfig information element (IE), for example, autonomousDenialSubframes Indicates the maximum number of the assigned UL subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny the scheduled UL transmission. Value n2 corresponds to 2 subframes, n5 to 5 subframes and so on. autonomousDenialValidity Indicates the validity period over which the UL autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on. A moving window is used to count the validity of the UL autonomous denial, i.e. the UE can deny a particular UL subframe if over a duration of validity period from this subframe in the past, the autonomousDenialSubframes will not be exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee836’s invention of a system and a method for triggering resource reselection for sidelink transmission prioritized over uplink transmission in a wireless communication system to include Lee556’s invention of a system and a method for prohibiting autonomous denial in a wireless communication system, because it provides an efficient mechanism for avoiding or minimizing IDC (in-device coexistence) interference between collocated radio transceivers, for example, when a UE (User Equipment) is equipped with a LTE radio transceiver module and a GNSS (global navigation satellite system) radio transceiver module operating in the wireless communication system. (¶0005-¶0007, Lee556)
Re. Claims 6 and 16, Lee836 teaches a method (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151/¶0159: ¶0163) for wireless communications (Fig. 6) by an apparatus (Fig. 6, eNB / Fig.5) comprising, and an apparatus (Fig. 6, eNB / Fig.5) configured for wireless communications (Fig. 6), comprising: one or more memories (Fig. 130) comprising processor-executable instructions (Fig. 5 & ¶0054-¶0056); and one or more processors (Fig.5, 110) configured to execute the processor-executable instructions (Fig. 5 & ¶0054-¶0056) and cause the apparatus to: receive user equipment (UE) assistance information from a UE, the UE assistance information comprising information indicative of: a requested duration during which the UE is allowed to deny up to a requested maximum number of uplink transmissions (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151 - UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network (S1113). Preferably, desired autonomous information includes a desired maximum number of the uplink subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny any uplink transmissions and a validity period over which the uplink autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0160 - The UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network if the number of subframes for which the UE is required to deny or the UE has denied any uplink transmission during the validity period is above a threshold value (S1209). Preferably, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes respectively which are configured via autonomous denial configuration. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0163 - When the one or more following conditions is met, the UE sends the assistance information to the network. In the following, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes which are configured via autonomous denial configuration); and the requested maximum number of uplink transmissions the UE is allowed to deny during the requested duration (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0150: ¶0151 - UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network (S1113). Preferably, desired autonomous information includes a desired maximum number of the uplink subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny any uplink transmissions and a validity period over which the uplink autonomous denial subframes shall be counted);
PNG
media_image2.png
352
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet, Lee836 does not expressly teach send an autonomous denial configuration to the UE, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of: a duration during which the UE is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the UE is allowed to deny during the duration.
However, in the analogous art, Lee556 explicitly discloses send an autonomous denial configuration to the UE, the autonomous denial configuration comprising information indicative of: a duration during which the UE is allowed to deny up to a maximum number of uplink transmissions; and the maximum number of uplink transmissions the UE is allowed to deny during the duration. (Fig. 5-6 & ¶0167 - At step S100, the UE receives a configuration for autonomous denial over a first connection with a first system. At step S110, the UE applies the autonomous denial for a first UL transmission over the first connection based on the received configuration if DL transmission over a second connection with a second system (e.g., GNSS, see ¶0168) collides with the first UL transmission. At step S120, the UE prohibits the autonomous denial for a second UL transmission over the first connection if the second UL transmission corresponds to a specific signal. Fig. 5-6 & ¶0168 - The first system may be an E-UTRAN, and the second system may be a system on ISM band such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The specific signal may be specific RRC messages such as a handover complete message, RRC connection re-establishment complete message, RRC connection request message. Or, the specific signal may be a periodic or aperiodic sounding reference signal. Or, the specific signal may be a random access preamble or a scheduling request which is triggered to carry a specific RRC message. Or, the specific signal may be a MAC control element or RLC/PDCP control information. Also, see Tables 3-4 & ¶0164, where parameters for autonomous denial are configured in OtherConfig information element (IE), for example, autonomousDenialSubframes Indicates the maximum number of the assigned UL subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny the scheduled UL transmission. Value n2 corresponds to 2 subframes, n5 to 5 subframes and so on. autonomousDenialValidity Indicates the validity period over which the UL autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on. A moving window is used to count the validity of the UL autonomous denial, i.e. the UE can deny a particular UL subframe if over a duration of validity period from this subframe in the past, the autonomousDenialSubframes will not be exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee836’s invention of a system and a method for triggering resource reselection for sidelink transmission prioritized over uplink transmission in a wireless communication system to include Lee556’s invention of a system and a method for prohibiting autonomous denial in a wireless communication system, because it provides an efficient mechanism for avoiding or minimizing IDC (in-device coexistence) interference between collocated radio transceivers, for example, when a UE (User Equipment) is equipped with a LTE radio transceiver module and a GNSS (global navigation satellite system) radio transceiver module operating in the wireless communication system. (¶0005-¶0007, Lee556)
Re. Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17, Lee836 and Lee556 teach claims 1, 6, 11 and 16.
Lee836 further teaches wherein the UE assistance information further comprises information indicative of a requested cycle length for a periodically recurring communication cycle, the periodically recurring communication cycle comprising a first time period corresponding to the requested duration and a second time period. (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0122 - The autonomous denial procedure for link1 transmission includes: counting the number of the denial subframes of the link1 transmission during the validity period including previous subframes and the subframe, and determining that the link 1 transmission is denial until the number of the denial subframes reaches a maximum number. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0127 - The “autonomousDenialValidity” indicates the validity period over which the link1 autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0128 - When the UE performs autonomous denial procedure for link1 transmission, the UE counts the number of denials of subframes for link1 transmission over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe indicated by autonomousDenialValidity, and denying scheduled link1 transmission at the current subframe if the number of denials of subframes for link1 transmission is less than a threshold indicated by autonomousDenialSubframes. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0160 - The UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network if the number of subframes for which the UE is required to deny or the UE has denied any uplink transmission during the validity period is above a threshold value (S1209). Preferably, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes respectively which are configured via autonomous denial configuration. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0163 - When the one or more following conditions is met, the UE sends the assistance information to the network. In the following, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes which are configured via autonomous denial configuration. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0162 - The “autonomousDenialValidity” indicates the validity period over which the link1 autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on.).
Re. Claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, Lee836 and Lee556 teach claims 1, 6, 11 and 16.
Lee836 further teaches wherein the autonomous denial configuration further comprises information indicative of a cycle length for a periodically recurring communication cycle, the periodically recurring communication cycle comprising a first time period corresponding to the duration and a second time period. (Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0122 - The autonomous denial procedure for link1 transmission includes: counting the number of the denial subframes of the link1 transmission during the validity period including previous subframes and the subframe, and determining that the link 1 transmission is denial until the number of the denial subframes reaches a maximum number. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0127 - The “autonomousDenialValidity” indicates the validity period over which the link1 autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0128 - When the UE performs autonomous denial procedure for link1 transmission, the UE counts the number of denials of subframes for link1 transmission over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe indicated by autonomousDenialValidity, and denying scheduled link1 transmission at the current subframe if the number of denials of subframes for link1 transmission is less than a threshold indicated by autonomousDenialSubframes. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0159: ¶0160 - The UE transmits a request for desired autonomous denial information to a network if the number of subframes for which the UE is required to deny or the UE has denied any uplink transmission during the validity period is above a threshold value (S1209). Preferably, validity period and threshold value indicates autonomousDenialValidity and autonomousDenialSubframes respectively which are configured via autonomous denial configuration. Fig. 6/Fig. 11-12 & ¶0162 - The “autonomousDenialValidity” indicates the validity period over which the link1 autonomous denial subframes shall be counted. Value sf200 corresponds to 200 subframes, sf500 corresponds to 500 subframes and so on).
Claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee836, in view of Lee556, further in view of Wang et al. (2014/0301315), Wang hereinafter.
Re. Claims 5 and 15, Lee836and Lee556 teach claims 1 and 11.
Yet, Lee836and Lee556 do not expressly teach sending a report to the network entity, the report indicating a number of uplink transmissions the apparatus denied for the duration.
However, in the analogous art, Wang explicitly discloses sending a report to the network entity, the report indicating a number of uplink transmissions the apparatus denied for the duration. (Fig. 1-12 & ¶0073 - the autonomous denial request message may include: a starting point of the predefined time. And the autonomous denial report may include: which uplink subframes are autonomously denied by the user equipment from the starting point of the predefined time to the current moment, or the number of the uplink subframes autonomously denied by the user equipment from the starting point of the predefined time to the current moment. Fig. 1-12 & ¶0074 - For example, if the predefined time is 12:00 and the current moment is 14:30, the user equipment will generate an autonomous denial report according to autonomous denial information recorded within this period of time 12:00-14:30. Which uplink subframes are autonomous denied may be denoted by using a bit string; wherein, each bit corresponds to an uplink subframe, "1" denoting transmission of the uplink subframe is autonomous denied by the user equipment. Fig. 1-12 & ¶0075 - Or, the number of autonomous denied uplink subframes may be denoted by using a numeral. For example, if "12" is contained in the autonomous denial report, it denotes that the number of autonomous denied uplink subframes within this period of time 12:00-14:30 is "12".)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee836’s invention of a system and a method for triggering resource reselection for sidelink transmission prioritized over uplink transmission in a wireless communication system and Lee556’s invention of a system and a method for prohibiting autonomous denial in a wireless communication system to include Wang’s invention of a system and a method for autonomous denial in a wireless communication system, because it provides an efficient mechanism for autonomous denial, an eNB and user equipment, with an object being to autonomously deny uplink data of the user equipment more accurately, in turn, improves the improves system performance of a network operating in the wireless communication system. (¶0006-¶0010, Wang)
Re. Claims 10 and 20, Lee836and Lee556 teach claims 6 and 16.
Yet, Lee836and Lee556 do not expressly teach receiving a report from the UE, the report indicating a number of uplink transmissions the UE denied for the duration.
However, in the analogous art, Wang explicitly discloses receiving a report from the UE, the report indicating a number of uplink transmissions the UE denied for the duration. (Fig. 1-12 & ¶0073 - the autonomous denial request message may include: a starting point of the predefined time. And the autonomous denial report may include: which uplink subframes are autonomously denied by the user equipment from the starting point of the predefined time to the current moment, or the number of the uplink subframes autonomously denied by the user equipment from the starting point of the predefined time to the current moment. Fig. 1-12 & ¶0074 - For example, if the predefined time is 12:00 and the current moment is 14:30, the user equipment will generate an autonomous denial report according to autonomous denial information recorded within this period of time 12:00-14:30. Which uplink subframes are autonomous denied may be denoted by using a bit string; wherein, each bit corresponds to an uplink subframe, "1" denoting transmission of the uplink subframe is autonomous denied by the user equipment. Fig. 1-12 & ¶0075 - Or, the number of autonomous denied uplink subframes may be denoted by using a numeral. For example, if "12" is contained in the autonomous denial report, it denotes that the number of autonomous denied uplink subframes within this period of time 12:00-14:30 is "12".)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Lee836’s invention of a system and a method for triggering resource reselection for sidelink transmission prioritized over uplink transmission in a wireless communication system and Lee556’s invention of a system and a method for prohibiting autonomous denial in a wireless communication system to include Wang’s invention of a system and a method for autonomous denial in a wireless communication system, because it provides an efficient mechanism for autonomous denial, an eNB and user equipment, with an object being to autonomously deny uplink data of the user equipment more accurately, in turn, improves the improves system performance of a network operating in the wireless communication system. (¶0006-¶0010, Wang)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has conducted a search of Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which solely or in combination with another reference teaches the limitation of:
Claim 3 – wherein the UE assistance information further comprises offset information indicative of, for at least one occurrence of the periodically recurring communication cycle, a start time of the first time period.
Claim 8 – wherein the UE assistance information further comprises offset information indicative of, for at least one occurrence of the periodically recurring communication cycle, a start time of the first time period.
Claim 13 – wherein the UE assistance information further comprises offset information indicative of, for at least one occurrence of the periodically recurring communication cycle, a start time of the first time period.
Claim 18 – wherein the UE assistance information further comprises offset information indicative of, for at least one occurrence of the periodically recurring communication cycle, a start time of the first time period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HONG et al; (2021/0022146); See Abstract, ¶0011-¶0042, ¶0064, ¶0161-¶0170, ¶0192 along with Fig. 1-6.
3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #78; R2-122360; Source: New Postcom; Title: Discussion on the autonomous denial of LTE transmission/reception; Prague, Czech, 21st – 25th May 2012. See §2-§3.
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2#78; R2-122708; Source: Motorola Mobility; Title: Restrictions on Autonomous Denials; 21--25 May, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic. See §2-§3.
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #76; R2-116108; Source: InterDigital Communications, Nokia Siemens Networks and Nokia Corporation; Title: Analysis and discussion on Autonomous Denials; 14th – 18th November 2011, San Francisco, USA. See §2-§3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUL CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0485. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9 AM- 6 PM EST (Friday Var.).
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467