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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
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: “transmitting circuitry” in claims 1 and 12.
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.
5. 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.
The limitations of : “transmitting circuitry” in claims 1 and 12 is being treated in accordance with 112(f), because the associated functions are modified by a word that serves as a generic placeholder (i.e. the claims use the terms “circuitry” that is a substitute for “means”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kundu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0261391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kundu discloses a user equipment (UE) (See Fig. 14; Device 1400 [may be included in a UE]), comprising: transmitting circuitry (See Fig. 14; RF Circuitry 1406) configured to report a high-priority positive scheduling request (SR) and uplink control information (UCI) multiplexed on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on an overlapping condition (See Par. [88]-[90], [113]-[116] and Fig. 12 of Kundu for a reference to UE may multiplex multiple UCI types and carry them into one of multiple uplink channels in accordance with the rule used for simultaneous transmission of multiple UCI types with full overlapping. In the case when PUCCH [Currying SR] and PUSCH fully overlaps, UE would piggyback [Multiplex] the UCI on PUSCH and drop PUCCH).
Regarding claim 2, Kundu discloses wherein a channel dropping procedure with potential simultaneous SR physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and UCI reporting on the PUSCH is a feature of the UE (See Par. [95]-[100], [114] of Kundu for a reference to PUCCH carrying SR partially collides with PUSCH, UE drops PUCCH carrying SR and transmits the PUSCH. A collision-handling (dropping) procedure governing whether SR on PUCCH and UCI on PUSCH can be simultaneously reported).
Regarding claim 3, Kundu discloses wherein the feature is supported based on UE capability and is configured by a base station via higher-layer signaling (See Par. [90]-[91] of Kundu for a reference to overlap-handling parameters/rules may be configured via higher-layer signaling (e.g., RRC), consistent with network configuration and UE support).
Regarding claim 4, Kundu discloses the UE of claim 1, further comprising a processor (See Fig. 14; CPU 1404E) configured to evaluate the overlapping condition between the UCI multiplexed on the PUSCH and a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) for a position of the high-priority SR, and to determine whether or not to report UCI together with the high-priority SR (See Par. [95], [114]-[116] of Kundu for a reference to evaluating where overlap occurs (colliding symbols) and deciding whether to transmit both (by puncturing) or to drop one, matching the decision of reporting UCI with higher-priority SR based on overlap).
Regarding claim 5, Kundu discloses wherein the evaluation is performed in several steps for all UCIs to reduce or minimize dropping of UCI multiplexed on a low-priority PUSCH (See Par. [88]-[90], [114]-[116] of Kundu for a reference to considering multiple UCI types and applying multiplexing/dropping/priority rules over colliding symbols. This implies iterative evaluation across UCI types to reduce unnecessary dropping).
Regarding claim 6, Kundu discloses wherein the evaluation is performed only for hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACKs) (See Par. [38]-[40], [95]-[100] of Kundu for a reference to SR collision handling driven by HARQ-ACK priority and SR multiplexing with HARQ-ACK, supporting an implementation that evaluates overlap for HARQ-ACK-related UCI).
Regarding claim 7, Kundu discloses wherein the HARQ-ACKs comprise at least one of high-priority HARQ-ACK and low-priority HARQ-ACK multiplexed on a low-priority PUSCH (See Par. [88]-[90] of Kundu for a reference to using priority rules for overlapping uplink signals and handling multiple UCI types. This supports distinguishing priority classes of HARQ-ACK/UCI when multiplexed on a channel such as PUSCH).
Regarding claim 8, Kundu discloses wherein the evaluation is performed only for high- priority hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) multiplexed on a low-priority PUSCH (See Par. [95]-[96], [99] of Kundu for a reference to prioritization among UCI types (including HARQ-ACK) in collisions, which supports evaluating overlap when a higher-priority HARQ-ACK is at stake).
Regarding claim 10, Kundu discloses wherein if there is overlapping, simultaneous reporting is not performed for the UCI and channel dropping rules based on multiplexed UCI priority are applied (See Par. [89], [95]-[100], [114] of Kundu for a reference to that when overlap/collision occurs, one transmission is dropped based on priority rules, matching the claimed non-simultaneous reporting and priority-based dropping).
Regarding claim 11, Kundu discloses wherein if there is no overlapping, the UCI is reported together with the SR (See Par. [88], [114]-[116] of Kundu for a reference to that in non-colliding portions/symbols transmissions can proceed, and partial-overlap solutions include puncturing to allow both. This supports reporting UCI together with SR when no overlap prevents it).
Regarding claim 12, Kundu discloses a base station (gNB), (See Fig. 14; Device 1400 [may be included in a BS]), comprising: transmitting circuitry (See Fig. 14; RF Circuitry 1406) configured to transmit higher-layer signaling to a user equipment (UE) (See Par. [95]-[100], [114] and Fig. 12 of Kundu for a reference to transmitting, to the UE a higher priority PUCCH [Currying SR]), wherein the higher-layer signaling indicates a configuration of a channel dropping procedure with potential simultaneous SR physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and UCI reporting on the PUSCH (See Par. [88]-[90], [113]-[116] and Fig. 12 of Kundu for a reference to UE may multiplex multiple UCI types and carry them into one of multiple uplink channels in accordance with the rule used for simultaneous transmission of multiple UCI types with full overlapping. In the case when PUCCH [Currying SR] and PUSCH fully overlaps, UE would piggyback [Multiplex] the UCI on PUSCH and drop PUCCH).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu et al. in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0230683 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kundu does not explicitly disclose wherein if there is UCI multiplexed on a low- priority PUSCH, whether a UCI multiplexed on the PUSCH can be reported simultaneously with a high-priority SR physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) is determined based whether a high-priority SR PUCCH resource overlaps with any of UCI carrying symbols or a corresponding demodulation reference signal (DMRS) for the UCI carrying symbols.
However, Akkarakaran discloses wherein if there is UCI multiplexed on a low- priority PUSCH, whether a UCI multiplexed on the PUSCH can be reported simultaneously with a high-priority SR physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) is determined based whether a high-priority SR PUCCH resource overlaps with any of UCI carrying symbols or a corresponding demodulation reference signal (DMRS) for the UCI carrying symbols (See Par. [97]-[99] of Akkarakaran for a reference to overlapping evaluation involving UCI transmission and DMRS/OFDM symbol positions, supporting determining simultaneity based on whether SR resources overlap UCI-carrying symbols or their DMRS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran to Kundu. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by shifting the overlapping slot to the beginning or to the end of the other multi-slot assignment to obtain a contiguous set of slot repetitions with the same structure to improve the UE processing timeline. (Akkarakaran; Par. [92])
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2023/0337240 Al) teaches handling or enabling communication, e.g. handling uplink control information (UCI) from the UE to the radio network node, in a wireless communication network.
Lee et al. (U.S. 2022/0248410 Al) teaches a method for transmitting an uplink signal by a user equipment in a wireless communication system comprises: receiving information on a plurality of PUCCH resource sets.
Islam et al. (US 2020/0228248 A1) discloses methods, systems, and storage media are described for the prioritization of services for control and data transmission for new radio (NR) systems.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413