DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered. No claims are currently amended; claims 2, 11-15, 17-19, 22-27, 29-42, 44-46, 49-54, and 56-61 is cancelled; claims 1, 3-10, 16, 20, 21, 28, 43, 47, 48, 55, and 62-64 are previously presented; no claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-10, 16, 20, 21, 28, 43, 47, 48, 55, and 62-64 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 20, 21, 28, 47, 48, 55, 63, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel Corporation: “On Intra-UE Multiplexing and Prioritization for Release 17 URLLC/IoT”, 3GPP Draft; R1-2008987, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mobile Competence Centre; 650, Route Des Lucioles; F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex; France, vol. Ran Wg1, no. e-Meeting; 20201026-20201113 24 October 2020, hereafter referred Intel, in view of Li (US 2023/0171751 A1). Intel was cited in applicant’s IDS filed 20 February 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Intel teaches a wireless communication method performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
being configured, by a base station, with an indication indicating an availability of a multiplexing between uplink transmissions with different priorities, wherein the UE is configured with a multiplexing enabling indication by a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (Intel, Section 3; higher layer RRC signaling or explicit indication in a scheduling DCI can indicate that multiplexing across different priorities is enabled); and
performing the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities according to the indication (Intel, Section 6 and 7; if UE supports intra-UE multiplexing across different priorities, UE may jointly consider multiplexing the channels of different priorities whenever applicable).
Intel does not expressly teach wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority.
However, Li teaches wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority (Li, [0093]; if the UCI carried on the PUCCH is low-priority UCI and a plurality of PUSCHs do not include a low priority PUSCH (the examiner contends that this means the PUSCHs are high priority PUSCHs), the UE may multiplex the UCI carried on the PUCCH to the high-priority PUSCH for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to provide a collision processing method to avoid greatly reduced performance of the low-priority uplink transmission (Li, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 28, Intel teaches a wireless communication method performed by a base station, comprising:
configuring, to a user equipment (UE), an indication indicating an availability of a multiplexing between uplink transmissions with different priorities, wherein the base station configures, to the UE, a multiplexing enabling indication by a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (Intel, Section 3; higher layer RRC signaling or explicit indication in a scheduling DCI can indicate that multiplexing across different priorities is enabled); and
controlling the UE to perform the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities according to the indication (Intel, Section 6 and 7; if UE supports intra-UE multiplexing across different priorities, UE may jointly consider multiplexing the channels of different priorities whenever applicable).
Intel does not expressly teach wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority.
However, Li teaches wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority (Li, [0093]; if the UCI carried on the PUCCH is low-priority UCI and a plurality of PUSCHs do not include a low priority PUSCH (the examiner contends that this means the PUSCHs are high priority PUSCHs), the UE may multiplex the UCI carried on the PUCCH to the high-priority PUSCH for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to provide a collision processing method to avoid greatly reduced performance of the low-priority uplink transmission (Li, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 55, Intel teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
wherein the processor is configured by a base station, with an indication indicating an availability of a multiplexing between uplink transmissions with different priorities, wherein the processor is configured with a multiplexing enabling indication by a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (Intel, Section 3; higher layer RRC signaling or explicit indication in a scheduling DCI can indicate that multiplexing across different priorities is enabled); and
wherein the processor is configured to perform the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities according to the indication (Intel, Section 6 and 7; if UE supports intra-UE multiplexing across different priorities, UE may jointly consider multiplexing the channels of different priorities whenever applicable).
Intel does not expressly teach a memory; a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the memory and the transceiver; and
wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority.
However, Li teaches a memory; a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the memory and the transceiver (Li, Fig. 8, [0266]; the UE includes components such as a radio frequency unit, a network module, a memory, and a processor); and
wherein the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities comprises at least one of the followings: a multiplexing between physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) or a multiplexing between a PUCCH and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein if the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities, the multiplexed uplink transmission is regarded as high priority (Li, [0093]; if the UCI carried on the PUCCH is low-priority UCI and a plurality of PUSCHs do not include a low priority PUSCH (the examiner contends that this means the PUSCHs are high priority PUSCHs), the UE may multiplex the UCI carried on the PUCCH to the high-priority PUSCH for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to provide a collision processing method to avoid greatly reduced performance of the low-priority uplink transmission (Li, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein the UE is configured with the multiplexing enabling indication according to a priority-level indication by the RRC parameter (Intel, Section 3; higher layer RRC signaling or explicit indication in a scheduling DCI can indicate that multiplexing across different priorities is enabled).
Regarding claim 4, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 3 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein the UE is configured to enable and trigger the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions according to the RRC parameter (Intel, Section 3; higher layer RRC signaling or explicit indication in a scheduling DCI can indicate that multiplexing across different priorities is enabled).
Regarding claim 5, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein the UE performs the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities if all overlapping uplink transmissions are configured with the multiplexing enable indication, or otherwise the multiplexing between the uplink transmissions with different priorities is not supported (Intel, Section 6 and 7; if UE supports intra-UE multiplexing across different priorities, UE may jointly consider multiplexing the channels of different priorities whenever applicable).
Regarding claim 6, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein an uplink transmission with high priority is configured with the multiplexing enable indication (Intel, Sections 3 and 6; Proposals 3 and 4 - indication can be provided to the UE to enable multiplexing across different priorities. In the following Figure 1, where overlap of HP SR, HP HARQ-ACK, and LP HARQ-ACK are shown and this scenario was agreed to be supported in RAN 1-102e).
Regarding claim 8, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein if an uplink transmission with low priority overlaps with uplink transmissions with high priority, the UE drops the uplink transmission with low priority and transmits the uplink transmissions with high priority (Intel, Section 3; In Rel16, UE would drop low priority PUCCH in the event of overlap with a high priority PUCCH or PUSCH).
Regarding claims 20, 47, and 63, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, the wireless communication method of claim 28, and the UE of claim 55 above. Intel does not expressly teach wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH with low priority and a PUSCH with high priority, the UE multiplexes and transmits the PUSCH with high priority on a resource.
However, Li teaches wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH with low priority and a PUSCH with high priority, the UE multiplexes and transmits the PUSCH with high priority on a resource (Li, [0093]; if the UCI carried on the PUCCH is low-priority UCI and a plurality of PUSCHs do not include a low priority PUSCH (the examiner contends that this means the PUSCHs are high priority PUSCHs), the UE may multiplex the UCI carried on the PUCCH to the high-priority PUSCH for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to provide a collision processing method to avoid greatly reduced performance of the low-priority uplink transmission (Li, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claims 21, 48, and 64, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 20, the wireless communication method of claim 47, and the UE of claim 55 above. Intel does not expressly teach wherein if the PUCCH with low priority carries a HARQ-ACK and a CSI feedback, the UE multiplexes the HARQ-ACK with the PUSCH of high priority if available.
However, Li teaches wherein if the PUCCH with low priority carries a HARQ-ACK and a CSI feedback the UE multiplexes the HARQ-ACK with the PUSCH of high priority if available (Li, [0055]-[0056] and [0093]; the first control information may be uplink control information (UCI) and may include: a scheduling request (SR), hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledge (HARQ-ACK), and CSI, where the CSI may be at least one of P-CSI or SP-CSI. If the UCI carried on the PUCCH is low-priority UCI and a plurality of PUSCHs do not include a low priority PUSCH (the examiner contends that this means the PUSCHs are high priority PUSCHs), the UE may multiplex the UCI carried on the PUCCH to the high-priority PUSCH for transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li in order to provide a collision processing method to avoid greatly reduced performance of the low-priority uplink transmission (Li, [0005]-[0006]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2024/0215015 A1), hereafter referred Su.
Regarding claim 7, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Intel in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein if an uplink transmission with low priority overlaps with uplink transmissions with high priority, the UE follows a chronological order to process the overlapping between the uplink transmission with low priority and the uplink transmissions with high priority.
However, Su teaches wherein if an uplink transmission with low priority overlaps with uplink transmissions with high priority, the UE follows a chronological order to process the overlapping between the uplink transmission with low priority and the uplink transmissions with high priority (Su, [0020]-[0023]; the priority information may be based on a time order of a content of the uplink transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Su in order to improve coverage in the random access procedure (Su, [0006]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0116960 A1), hereafter referred Yang.
Regarding claim 9, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Further, Intel teaches wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH carrying a scheduling request (SR) with high priority and a PUCCH carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) with low priority, the UE drops the HARQ-ACK with low priority (Intel, Section 6; Proposal 8 – Adopt the following tables for collision handling behavior of HP SR and LP HARQ-ACKs, where the table shows to drop HARQ-ACK and transmit SR on the SR resource).
Intel in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein the HARQ-ACK with low priority is a PUCCH format 2 or 3 or 4 if the SR with high priority is positive.
However, Yang teaches wherein the HARQ-ACK with low priority is a PUCCH format 2 or 3 or 4 if the SR with high priority is positive (Yang, [0202]; where the HARQ ACK resource is associated with PUCCH format 2, 3, or 4 collides with one or more SR resources associated with a high priority and determine the payload of an SR resource associated with high priority indicates a positive SR).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yang in order to handle collisions between scheduling requests and HARQ ACK feedback having different priorities (Yang, [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1 above. Intel in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH carrying a SR with high priority and a PUCCH carrying a HARQ-ACK with low priority, the UE drops the SR with high priority and transmits the HARQ-ACK with low priority on a PUCCH resource scheduling for the HARQ-ACK with low priority if the SR with high priority is negative.
However, Yang teaches wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH carrying a SR with high priority and a PUCCH carrying a HARQ-ACK with low priority, the UE drops the SR with high priority and transmits the HARQ-ACK with low priority on a PUCCH resource scheduling for the HARQ-ACK with low priority if the SR with high priority is negative (Yang, [0172]; the collision is between a HARQ ACK resource associated with low priority and associated with a PUCCH format 0 and an SR resource associated with a high priority and associated with PUCCH format 1, dropping the SR resource based at least in part on the payload of the SR resource indicating the negative SR).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yang in order to handle collisions between scheduling requests and HARQ ACK feedback having different priorities (Yang, [0002]).
Claims 16, 43, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel in view of Li as applied to claims 1, 28, and 55 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0095324 A1), hereafter referred Huang.
Regarding claims 16, 43, and 62, Intel in view of Li teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, the wireless communication method of claim 28, and the UE of claim 55 above. Intel in view of Li does not expressly teach wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH with high priority and a PUSCH only carrying an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) and/or uplink control information (UCI) types with low priority, the UE multiplexes the UCI transmitted on PUCCH with high priority in PUSCH with low priority.
However, Huang teaches wherein if there is a collision between a PUCCH with high priority and a PUSCH only carrying an uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) and/or uplink control information (UCI) types with low priority, the UE multiplexes the UCI transmitted on PUCCH with high priority in PUSCH with low priority (Huang, [0026]; the UE multiplexes UCI when overlapping PUCCH and PUSCH with different priorities, such as when the high priority UCI is scheduled on a PUCCH and overlaps with a PUSCH carrying low priority UL-SCH data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Intel in view of Li to include the above recited limitations as taught by Huang in order to prevent loss of UCI from dropped transmissions (Huang, [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights