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 .
Claims 6-11 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment of 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues:
On pages 6-7 of the remarks applicant argues the claims limitation requires that the processor specify, based on the priority of each UCI, a coefficient to be multiplied to the number of bits of the UCI in rate matching of that UCI, such that the coefficient is applied during rate matching to determine the respective resources. Therefore, Lin fails to remedy the defects of Hamss with respect to the above- mentioned limitation.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Examiner notes that the claim limitation recites “a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information” and not a coefficient to be multiplied to the number of bits of the UCI in rate matching of that UCI as being argued. The claims requires specifying the coefficient based priority of each uplink control information in rate matching.
Lin teaches in [0031], [0034], [0084], determining coefficient A to be multiplied to a number of bits in determining UCI resources. Furthermore, Lin discloses performing rate matching for the UCIs based on priority, see [0030]-[0032].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit”, “transmission unit”, “reception unit” in claims 6-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al (US 2022/0078768 A1) in view of Lin et al (US 2022/0124703 A1).
Regarding claim 6, El Hamss teaches a terminal comprising:
a control unit that multiplexes two or more uplink control information having different priorities on an uplink shared channel (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], multiplexing UCIs with different priorities on PUSCH); and
a transmission unit that transmits an uplink signal using the uplink shared channel on which the two or more uplink control information is multiplexed (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], transmission data on PUSCH).
El Hamss does not explicitly disclose
wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information.
Lin teaches wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information (Lin: [0031], [0034], [0084], determining coefficient A to be multiplied to a number of bits in determining UCI resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El Hamss wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information as disclosed by Lin to provide a system for multiplexing UCIs (Lin: Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, El Hamss in view of Lin teaches wherein when a first Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) having a first priority and a second HARQ-ACK having a second priority lower than the first priority are multiplexed on the uplink shared channel, the control unit specifies, based on the first priority in rate matching of the first HARQ-ACK, a first coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the first HARQ-ACK, and specifies, based on the second priority in rate matching of the second HARQ-ACK, a second coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the second HARQ-ACK (Lin: [0082]-[0084] UCI Y with highest priority, coefficient is 1; other UCI, coefficient is A).
Regarding claim 8, El Hamss teaches a base station comprising:
a control unit that assumes that two or more uplink control information having different priorities is multiplexed on an uplink shared channel (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], multiplexing UCIs with different priorities on PUSCH); and
a reception unit that receives an uplink signal using the uplink shared channel on which the two or more uplink control information is multiplexed (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], transmission data on PUSCH).
El Hamss does not teach but Lin teaches from a terminal that respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information (Lin: [0031], [0034], [0084], determining coefficient A to be multiplied to a number of bits in determining UCI resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El Hamss wherein the signal is received from a terminal that respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information as disclosed by Lin to provide a system for multiplexing UCIs (Lin: Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, El Hamss teaches a radio communication system comprising: a terminal; and a base station, wherein the terminal comprises a control unit that multiplexes two or more uplink control information having different priorities on an uplink shared channel (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], multiplexing UCIs with different priorities on PUSCH); and a transmission unit that transmits an uplink signal to the base station, using the uplink shared channel on which the two or more uplink control information is multiplexed (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], transmission data on PUSCH).
El Hamss does not explicitly disclose
wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information.
Lin teaches wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information (Lin: [0031], [0034], [0084], determining coefficient A to be multiplied to a number of bits in determining UCI resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El Hamss wherein the control unit respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information as disclosed by Lin to provide a system for multiplexing UCIs (Lin: Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, E Hamss teaches a radio communication method comprising: a step of multiplexing, by a terminal, two or more uplink control information having different priorities on an uplink shared channel (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], multiplexing UCIs with different priorities on PUSCH); and
a step of transmitting, by the terminal, an uplink signal using the uplink shared channel on which the two or more uplink control information is multiplexed (El Hamss: [0249]-[0250], transmission data on PUSCH).
El Hamss does not teach but Lin teaches from a terminal that respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information (Lin: [0031], [0034], [0084], determining coefficient A to be multiplied to a number of bits in determining UCI resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El Hamss wherein the signal is received from a terminal that respectively determines resources of the two or more uplink control information by specifying, based on a priority of each uplink control information in rate matching of each of the two or more uplink control information, a coefficient to be multiplied to a number of bits of the uplink control information as disclosed by Lin to provide a system for multiplexing UCIs (Lin: Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al (US 2022/0078768 A1) in view of Lin et al (US 2022/0124703 A1) in further view of Lin et al (US 2020/0296716 A1) (hereinafter Lin716).
Regarding claim 11, El Hamss in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein when determining the resources, the processor applies a scaling factor that limits the resources usable for the uplink control information.
Lin716 teaches wherein when determining the resources, the processor applies a scaling factor that limits the resources usable for the uplink control information (Lin716: [0092], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of El Hamss in view of Lin wherein when determining the resources, the processor applies a scaling factor that limits the resources usable for the uplink control information as disclosed by Lin716 to provide a system for multiplexing UCI (Lin716: Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm.
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, Avellino Joseph can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478