DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 30 June 2026.
Claims 11, 14-24 and 27-29 are presented for examination.
Claims 11, 14-17, 19, 23-24, 27-29 are amended.
Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 25-26 are canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 June 2026, with respect to the Objections to Claims 17 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections to Claims 17 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, the Applicant argues:
(1) The Examiner relies on a combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran. See the rejections of claims 11-13. Paragraphs [0114]-[0116] and [0213] of Yamamoto disclose that, in case where a PUCCH transmission including a response signal and a PUSCH including UL data overlap in the same slot, a terminal transmits the PUCCH. In this case, the terminal punctures the PUSCH in a duration overlapping with the PUCCH and transmits the PUSCH in other durations.
Specifically, Yamamoto discloses collision handling for when the overlapping between the PUCCH and the PUSCH occurs, such as which signal is prioritized (e.g., whether to multiplex Uplink Control Information (UCI) on the PUSCH or to puncture the PUSCH). In contrast, claim 11 of the present application does not define the processing at the time of the overlapping between the PUSCH and the PUSCH. In particular, claim 11 of the present application as amended specifies whether or not a time overlap between the PUCCH resource (for ACK/NACK) and the PUSCH resource is permitted (whether it is expected or not) depending on whether PUSCH repetition is applied. Yamamoto does not disclose the control of permitting a time overlap between the PUCCH resource for ACK/NACK and the PSUCH resource when PUSCH repetition is applied, while not expecting said time overlap when PUSCH repletion is not applied.
Paragraphs [0138]-[0139] of Yang disclose that a UE receives a downlink (DL) grant after receiving an uplink (UL) grant. Furthermore, paragraphs [0140]-[0141] of Yang disclose that a PUSCH transmitted by the UE includes feedback information (e.g., HARQ-ACK) for a PDSCH. However, Yang merely discloses a configuration in which HARQ-ACK for the PDSCH is transmitted on the PUSCH (collision handling similar to Yamamoto). Yang does not disclose overlap control based on the present or absence of repetition as in claim 11, where a time overlap between the PUCCH resource and the PUSCH resource is permitted when PUSCH repletion is applied, while the time overlap is not expected when the PUSCH repetition is not applied.
Paragraph [0027] of Akkarakaran discloses that repetitions can be configured for PUSCH and PUCCH, and that a UE applies rules for uplink control information (UCI) regarding whether to transmit on PUCCH, piggyback it on PUSCH, or drop part or all of the UCI. Furthermore, paragraph [0027] of Akkarakaran discloses that the rules for UCI transmission are specified for cases where no repetition is performed (repetition factor = 1). Additionally, paragraph [0103] of Akkarakaran discloses that a PUSCH associated with a first number of repetitions and a PUCCH associated with a second number of repetitions are scheduled, and the transmission or dropping of the UCI, PUCCH, and PUSCH is determined.
Thus, Akkarakaran discloses that collision handling (e.g., transmission or dropping) is performed whenever PUSCH and PUCCH overlap, regardless of whether repetition is applied. In other words, Akkarakaran performs collision handling on the premise that PUSCH and PUCCH can overlap in time even when no repetition is applied. Therefore, Akkarakaran does not disclose the control based on the presence or absence of repetition as in claim 11, where a time overlap between the PUCCH resource and a PUSCH resource is permitted when PUSCH repetition is applied, while the time overlap is not expected when PUSCH repetition is not applied [Remarks, pages 8-9].
(2) Furthermore, even if these cited references were to be combined, such a combination would merely suggest general collision handling control such as which signal is prioritized when the PUCCH and the PUSCH overlap, whether to multiplex UCI on the PUSCH, or whether to drop the PUSCH or the PUCCH. The combination neither discloses nor suggests the claimed features: “in case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the resource for the uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel” and “in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel [Remarks, page 9].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
As per the first argument,
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In other words, Yang and Akkarakaran are brought in to cure the deficiencies of Yamamoto.
As indicated in the previous rejection and below, Yamamoto discloses in a case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95 115-116 and 213; in a case of a repetition/(The transmission corresponding to eMBB is thus slot-based transmission (e.g., transmission using a whole slot or most of a slot) of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH or URLLC PUSCH), the resource for the uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95, 115-16 and 213; the resource for the uplink control channel/(PUCCH or URLLC PUCCH) overlaps/overlaps in/in time/time with the resource/symbols for the uplink shared channel/eMBB PUSCH).
In other words, Yamamoto discloses the transmission corresponding to eMBB is thus slot-based transmission (e.g., transmission using a whole slot or most of a slot) of the transmission PUSCH or URLLC PUSCH. The PUCCH or URLLC PUCCH overlaps in time with symbols for the eMBB PUSCH.
Therefore, Yamamoto disclose the limitation “in case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the resource for the uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel”.
Akkarakaran discloses a terminal, comprising:
in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition (see paragraphs 27 and 90; in a case of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH without the repetition/no repetition), the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 71, 92 and 103; the resource/slot for the uplink control channel/PUCCH is not expected to overlap/(no overlapping) in time with the resource/slot for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
In other words, Akkarakaran discloses the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) can be configured for repetitions. Transmission of uplink control information (UCI) in these channels may be based on rules. Based on the rules, the user equipment (UE) can transmit the UCI in the PUCCH, piggyback the UCI in the PUSCH, or drop the UCI or a portion of the UCI. In some cases, the rules are defined for determining the UCI transmission for the case of no repetition (e.g., repetition factor=1). Additionally, the slot for the PUCCH does not overlap in time with the slot for the PUSCH.
Therefore, Akkarakaran discloses “in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel”.
As per the second argument,
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the motivation to combine was taken directly from the reference.
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 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.
Claim(s) 11, 15-16, 24 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (EP 3 833 143 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto [provided in the IDS dated 9/12/2023], in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0275476 A1), hereinafter Yang, and further in view of Akkarakaran et al (US 2019/0230683 A1), hereinafter Akkarakaran.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto discloses a terminal (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 56 and 88; a terminal/terminal 200), comprising:
reception circuitry (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 56 and 89; reception circuitry/receiver 202), which, in operation, receives (see Figure 4, step ST103 and paragraph 93; receives/base station 100 transmits), receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST107-ST108 and paragraphs 93 and 115; receiving/(base station 100 transmits) first downlink control information/(DCI on uplink data) for allocating a resource/( DCI includes information on downlink data that allocates a resource) for an uplink shared channel/PUSCH), second downlink control information for allocating a resource for a downlink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST103 and paragraphs 91-92; second downlink control information/(DCI on downlink data) for allocating a resource/(DCI includes information on downlink data that allocates a resource) for a downlink shared channel/PDSCH); and
control circuitry (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 56 and 88; control circuitry/controller 211), which, in operation, performs control of a transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST109 and Figure 6 and paragraphs 114 and 116; performs control/(punctures or allow eMBB PUSCH) of a transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), based on whether a resource for an uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST110 and paragraphs 95 and 114; based on whether a resource/(transmission duration of PUCCH for URLLC in the slot) for an uplink control channel/PUCCH overlaps/overlap in time/(in the same slot) with the resource/(transmission duration of eMBB PUSCH in the same slot) for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), the uplink control channel being transmitted in response to reception of the downlink shared channel (see Figure 4, steps ST105-ST106 and paragraphs 91-92 and 114; the uplink control channel/(URLLC PUCCH) being transmitted/(BS 100 transmits in ST105) in response to reception/(Terminal 200 receives in ST106) of the downlink shared channel/PDSCH).
wherein,
in a case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95 115-116 and 213; in a case of a repetition/(The transmission corresponding to eMBB is thus slot-based transmission (e.g., transmission using a whole slot or most of a slot) of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH or URLLC PUSCH), the resource for the uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95, 115-16 and 213; the resource for the uplink control channel/(PUCCH or URLLC PUCCH) overlaps/overlaps in/in time/time with the resource/symbols for the uplink shared channel/eMBB PUSCH).
Although Yamamoto discloses receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as set forth above,
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel.
However, Yang discloses a terminal, comprising:
after receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel (see Figure 5, steps 520 and 535 and paragraphs 138-139; after/after receiving/receive first downlink control information/(downlink grant on downlink shared channel, PDSCH) for allocating a resource/resource for an uplink shared channel/uplink grant on uplink shared channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as taught by Yan in the system of Yamamoto to provide feedback transmissions using uplink shared channel (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Yang).
Although the combination of Yamamoto and Yang discloses a terminal as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto and Yang does not explicitly disclose “in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel”.
However, Akkarakaran discloses a terminal, comprising:
in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition (see paragraphs 27 and 90; in a case of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH without the repetition/no repetition), the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 71, 92 and 103; the resource/slot for the uplink control channel/PUCCH is not expected to overlap/(no overlapping) in time with the resource/slot for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel” as taught by Akkarakaran in the combined system of Yamamoto and Yang to provide techniques for applying UCI rules for the case of repetitions (see pages 2-3, paragraph 27 of Akkarakaran).
Regarding Claim 15, Although the combination of Yamamoto and Yang discloses the terminal as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto and Yan does not explicitly disclose “wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case, and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case”.
However, Akkarakaran discloses the terminal, wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; wherein, in the case of a repetition/repetitions of the transmission/transmit of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case/at 702, by receiving scheduling (e.g., a resource assignment) to transmit on a PUSCH in a first one or more slots associated with a first number of repetitions (e.g., a first repetition factor) and receiving scheduling to transmit on a PUCCH in a second one or more slots associated with a second number of repetitions (e.g., a second repetition factor). The repetition factor may specify the number of slots on which the associated PUSCH or PUCCH is repeated), and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; and is not performed/in a second case which is different from the first case/some slots may not have a sufficient number of UL symbols to make the transmission (e.g., the symbols might have been switched to DL by some other signaling) and those slots may be skipped for repetitions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case, and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case” as taught by Akkarakaran in the combined system of Yamamoto and Yang to provide techniques for uplink control information (UCI) transmission for overlapping uplink resource assignments, such as physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), with repetition in certain systems (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Akkarakaran).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto discloses the terminal, wherein the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel includes controlling whether a response signal is mapped in the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, steps ST102 and ST107-ST111 and paragraphs 90, 93, 95, 114, 213 and 223; wherein the control/(Terminal 200 controls) of the transmission of the uplink shared channel/(uplink signal using PUCCH or PUSCH) includes controlling/(Terminal 200 controls) whether a response signal/(Terminal 200 acquires the information on the resource amount for UCI to be multiplexed on PUSCH indicated from base station 100 (ST102)) is mapped in the uplink shared channel/if terminal 200 chooses PUCCH for the response signal then no response is mapped on PUSCH. If the terminal chooses PUSCH (UCI multiplex on PUSCH), then the response signal is mapped on PUSCH).
Regarding Claim 24, Yamamoto discloses a communication method, comprising:
receiving (see Figure 4, step ST103 and paragraph 93; receives/base station 100 transmits), by a terminal (see Figure 4, step ST103 and paragraphs 91-92; by a terminal/terminal 200), receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST107-ST108 and paragraphs 93 and 115; receiving/(base station 100 transmits) first downlink control information/(DCI on uplink data) for allocating a resource/(DCI includes information on downlink data that allocates a resource) for an uplink shared channel/PUSCH), second downlink control information for allocating a resource for a downlink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST103 and paragraphs 91-92; second downlink control information/(DCI on downlink data) for allocating a resource/(DCI includes information on downlink data that allocates a resource) for a downlink shared channel/PDSCH); and
controlling (see Figure 4, step ST109 and Figure 6 and paragraphs 94, 114 and 116; controlling/punctures or allow eMBB PUSCH), by the terminal (see Figure 4, step ST109 and paragraph 94; by the terminal/terminal 200), a transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST109 and Figure 6 and paragraphs 114 and 116; a transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), based on whether a resource for an uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST110 and paragraphs 95 and 114; based on whether a resource/(transmission duration of PUCCH for URLLC in the slot) for an uplink control channel/PUCCH overlaps/overlap in time/(in the same slot) with the resource/(transmission duration of eMBB PUSCH in the same slot) for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), the uplink control channel being transmitted in response to reception of the downlink shared channel (see Figure 4, steps ST105-ST106 and paragraphs 91-92 and 114; the uplink control channel/(URLLC PUCCH) being transmitted/(BS 100 transmits in ST105) in response to reception/(Terminal 200 receives in ST106) of the downlink shared channel/PDSCH),
wherein,
in a case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95 115-116 and 213; in a case of a repetition/(The transmission corresponding to eMBB is thus slot-based transmission (e.g., transmission using a whole slot or most of a slot) of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH or URLLC PUSCH), the resource for the uplink control channel overlaps in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see paragraphs 93, 95, 115-16 and 213; the resource for the uplink control channel/(PUCCH or URLLC PUCCH) overlaps/overlaps in/in time/time with the resource/symbols for the uplink shared channel/eMBB PUSCH).
Although Yamamoto discloses receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as set forth above,
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel.
However, Yang discloses a communication method, comprising:
after receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel (see Figure 5, steps 520 and 535 and paragraphs 138-139; after/after receiving/receive first downlink control information/(downlink grant on downlink shared channel, PDSCH) for allocating a resource/resource for an uplink shared channel/uplink grant on uplink shared channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as taught by Yang in the system of Yamamoto to provide feedback transmissions using uplink shared channel (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Yang).
Although Yamamoto discloses receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as set forth above,
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel.
However, Yang discloses a terminal, comprising:
after receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel (see Figure 5, steps 520 and 535 and paragraphs 138-139; after/after receiving/receive first downlink control information/(downlink grant on downlink shared channel, PDSCH) for allocating a resource/resource for an uplink shared channel/uplink grant on uplink shared channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “after” receiving first downlink control information for allocating a resource for an uplink shared channel as taught by Yan in the system of Yamamoto to provide feedback transmissions using uplink shared channel (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Yang).
Although the combination of Yamamoto and Yang discloses a communication method as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto and Yang does not explicitly disclose “in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel”.
However, Akkarakaran discloses a communication method, comprising:
in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition (see paragraphs 27 and 90; in a case of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH without the repetition/no repetition), the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 71, 92 and 103; the resource/slot for the uplink control channel/PUCCH is not expected to overlap/(no overlapping) in time with the resource/slot for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, in a case of the transmission of the uplink shared channel without the repetition, the resource for the uplink control channel is not expected to overlap in time with the resource for the uplink shared channel” as taught by Akkarakaran in the combined system of Yamamoto and Yang to provide techniques for applying UCI rules for the case of repetitions (see pages 2-3, paragraph 27 of Akkarakaran).
Regarding Claim 28, Although the combination of Yamamoto and Yang discloses the communication method as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto and Yang does not explicitly disclose “wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case, and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case”.
However, Akkarakaran discloses the communication method, wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; wherein, in the case of a repetition/repetitions of the transmission/transmit of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH), the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case/at 702, by receiving scheduling (e.g., a resource assignment) to transmit on a PUSCH in a first one or more slots associated with a first number of repetitions (e.g., a first repetition factor) and receiving scheduling to transmit on a PUCCH in a second one or more slots associated with a second number of repetitions (e.g., a second repetition factor). The repetition factor may specify the number of slots on which the associated PUSCH or PUCCH is repeated), and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case (see Figure 7, step 705 and paragraph 73; and is not performed/in a second case which is different from the first case/some slots may not have a sufficient number of UL symbols to make the transmission (e.g., the symbols might have been switched to DL by some other signaling) and those slots may be skipped for repetitions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, in the case of a repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is performed in a first case, and is not performed in a second case which is different from the first case” as taught by Akkarakaran in the combined system of Yamamoto and Yang to provide techniques for uplink control information (UCI) transmission for overlapping uplink resource assignments, such as physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), with repetition in certain systems (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Akkarakaran).
Regarding Claim 29, Yamamoto discloses he communication method, wherein the controlling of the transmission of the uplink shared channel includes controlling whether a response signal is mapped in the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, steps ST102 and ST107-ST111 and paragraphs 90, 93, 95, 114, 213 and 223; wherein the control/(Terminal 200 controls) of the transmission of the uplink shared channel/(uplink signal using PUCCH or PUSCH) includes controlling/(Terminal 200 controls) whether a response signal/(Terminal 200 acquires the information on the resource amount for UCI to be multiplexed on PUSCH indicated from base station 100 (ST102)) is mapped in the uplink shared channel/if terminal 200 chooses PUCCH for the response signal then no response is mapped on PUSCH. If the terminal chooses PUSCH (UCI multiplex on PUSCH), then the response signal is mapped on PUSCH).
Claim(s) 14 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Yang and further in view of Akkarakaran, and further in view of Fakoorian et al (US 2020/0221478 A1), hereinafter Fakoorian.
Regarding Claim 14, Although the combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran discloses the terminal as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose “wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel”.
However, Fakoorian discloses the terminal, wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 8 and paragraphs 123-129; the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH is different between a first slot/(first resources) and a second slot/(second resources) among a plurality of slots/(first and second resources) for the repetition/repetition of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel” as taught by Fakoorian in the combined system of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran to enhance signaling efficiencies and to substantially reduce latency (see page 1, paragraph 4 of Fakoorian).
Regarding Claim 27, Although the combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran discloses the communication method as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose “wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel”.
However, Fakoorian discloses the communication method, wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 8 and paragraphs 123-129; the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH is different between a first slot/(first resources) and a second slot/(second resources) among a plurality of slots/(first and second resources) for the repetition/repetition of the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein, the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel is different between a first slot and a second slot among a plurality of slots for the repetition of the transmission of the uplink shared channel” as taught by Fakoorian in the combined system of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran to enhance signaling efficiencies and to substantially reduce latency (see page 1, paragraph 4 of Fakoorian).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Yang and further in view of Akkarakaran, and further in view of Wang et al (US 2020/0296715 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 17, Although the combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran discloses the terminal as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose “wherein the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel includes at least one of controlling a number of bits of a signal that is transmitted with the resource for the uplink shared channel, configuring the resource for the uplink shared channel to be unavailable, and controlling an HARQ process for the downlink shared channel”.
However, Wang discloses the terminal, wherein the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel includes at least one of controlling a number of bits of a signal that is transmitted with the resource for the uplink shared channel (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 27, 33, 43-44 and 56-64; wherein the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel/PUSCH includes at least one of controlling a number of bits/bits of a signal/(UCI bits) that is transmitted/transmitted with the resource/(TTI #8) for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the control of the transmission of the uplink shared channel includes at least one of controlling a number of bits of a signal that is transmitted with the resource for the uplink shared channel, configuring the resource for the uplink shared channel to be unavailable, and controlling an HARQ process for the downlink shared channel” as taught by Wang in the combined system of Yamamoto, Yang and Akkarakaran to facilitate multiplexing of UCI in PUSCH in NR to increase the user throughput and to improve the system performance (see page 1, paragraph 3 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 20, Yamamoto discloses the terminal, wherein the control circuitry (see Figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 56 and 88; wherein the control circuitry/controller 211) gives priority to a transmission of the signal using the uplink control channel over the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST110-ST111 and Figure 6 and paragraphs 93, 95 and 114; gives priority to a transmission/transmission of the signal/signal using the uplink control channel/(URLLC PUCCH) over the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/eMBB PUSCH), and configures a resource in which the uplink control channel and the uplink shared channel overlap in time with each other as a resource that is unavailable for the transmission of the uplink shared channel (see Figure 4, step ST110-ST111 and Figure 6 and paragraphs 112, 114; and configures a resource/slot in which the uplink control channel/(URLLC PUCCH) and the uplink shared channel/(eMBB PUSCH) overlap/overlapping in/in time/time with each other as a resource/slot that is unavailable/(terminal 200 punctures eMBB PUSCH (the uplink data) in the duration overlapping in time with the transmission duration of URLLC PUCCH) for the transmission/transmission of the uplink shared channel/eMBB PUSCH).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Yang, and further in view of Akkarakaran, and further in view of Wang, and further in view of Du et al (US 2020/0359372 A1), hereinafter Du.
Regarding Claim 22, Although the combination of Yamamoto, Yang, Akkarakaran and Wang discloses the terminal as set forth above,
The combination of Yamamoto, Yang, Akkarakaran and Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the control circuitry applies ACK skipping to the HARQ process for the downlink shared channel, in a case where the resource for the uplink control channel and the resource for the uplink shared channel overlap in time with each other”.
However, Du discloses the terminal, wherein the control circuitry (see Figure 4 and paragraph 95; wherein the control circuitry/processing unit 401) applies ACK skipping to the HARQ process for the downlink shared channel (see paragraphs 40-42, 53 and 58; applies ACK/ACK skipping/(The condition herein can be determined according to a threshold of the Time Difference, supported by the user equipment, between the reception time of the PDSCH and the transmission time of the ACK/NACK corresponding to the downlink data, or according to the end time of the at least one PUSCH and the PUCCH) to the HARQ process/HARQ for the downlink shared channel/PDSCH), in a case where the resource for the uplink control channel and the resource for the uplink shared channel overlap in time with each other (see paragraph 42, 48, 51, 59, 68, 74-76 and 78-79; in a case where the resource for the uplink control channel/PUCCH and the resource for the uplink shared channel/PUSCH overlap/overlaps in/in time/time with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the control circuitry applies ACK skipping to the HARQ process for the downlink shared channel, in a case where the resource for the uplink control channel and the resource for the uplink shared channel overlap in time with each other” as taught by Du in the combined system of Yamamoto, Yang, Akkarakaran and Wang to determine the PUSCH for transmitting the UCI from the multiple PUSCHs overlapping with the PUCCH in time (see page 1, paragraph 6 of Du).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii et al (US 2010/0091725 A1) discloses Base Station Apparatus and Communication Control Method. Specifically, see paragraphs 67-165.
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 LATRESA A McCALLUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4pm.
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, IAN N MOORE can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/L.A.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 2469 /Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights