Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/579,929

METHODS OF JOINT REPORTING OF HARQ-ACK AND HIGH PRIORITY SR ON A LOW PRIORITY PUSCH

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 17, 2024
Examiner
CHOWDHURY, HARUN UR R
Art Unit
2473
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
439 granted / 581 resolved
+17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
636
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 581 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites that the PUSCH is low priority PUSCH (LP PUSCH). Dependent claim 9 recites the PUSCH on which HP HARQ-ACK is multiplexed. It is not clear whether “the PUSCH” is a low priority PUSCH (LP PUSCH). Moreover, claim 9 recites the limitation "the PUSCH" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 5. Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 20230199761, hereinafter referred to as Li). Re claim 1, Li teaches a user equipment (UE) (terminal, Fig. 7), comprising: (i) a processor (Processor, 710) (Fig. 7, Par 0154); and (ii) transmitting circuitry (Radio frequency unit 701) (Fig. 7, Par 0157) configured to: (iii) if a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) for high priority (HP) scheduling request (SR) (HP SR PUCCH, Fig. 3-4, Par 0097, Par 0111) overlaps with a low priority (LP) PUSCH (LP PUSCH, Fig. 3-4, Par 0097, Par 0111), and if HP SR multiplexing on LP PUSCH is enabled (handling uplink channel overlapping according to a preset rule, Par 0046-0054, Abstract), use different SR multiplexing methods (multiplexing HP SR onto LP PUSCH using different manners as disclosed in Par 0099, Par 0102, Par 0105, Par 0108) based on whether HARQ-ACK is multiplexing (HARQ-ACK is multiplexed onto LP PUSCH) and a HARQ-ACK priority (High Priority (HP) HARQ-ACK, Low priority HARQ-ACK) (Fig. 3-4, Par 0097, Par 0101-0103, Par 0105, Par 0108, Par 0111-0114). Re claim 3, Li teaches that if there is HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, report the HP SR jointly with a HARQ-ACK (HARQ-ACK and HP SR are multiplexed onto the LP PUSCH) (Fig. 3-4, Par 0102, Par 0105, Par 0108, Par 0113). Re claim 9, Li teaches that if there is HP HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the PUSCH, report the HP SR jointly with an HP HARQ-ACK following HP HARQ-ACK multiplexing procedures (Fig. 3-4, Par 0102, Par 0105, Par 0108, Par 0113). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 7. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of 3GPP (R1-2104310, On UL intra-UE multiplexing and prioritization enhancements, hereinafter referred to as 3GPP). Re claim 2, Li does not explicitly disclose that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, report the HP SR following HP HARQ-ACK multiplexing procedures using reserved REs for HP HARQ-ACK. 3GPP teaches that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, report the HP SR following HP HARQ-ACK multiplexing procedures using reserved REs for HP HARQ-ACK (HP SR is reported using reserved REs for HARQ-ACK) (Sec 3.2.2- Low-priority PUSCH vs. high-priority SR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by including the step that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, report the HP SR following HP HARQ-ACK multiplexing procedures using reserved REs for HP HARQ-ACK, as taught by 3GPP for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary retransmission, as taught by 3GPP (Sec. 3.2.2, Line 1-4). Re claim 4, Li does not explicitly disclose that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is reported, report the positive HP SR on reserved RE resources for up to 2 bits of HP HARQ-ACK. 3GPP teaches that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is reported, report the positive HP SR on reserved RE resources for up to 2 bits of HP HARQ-ACK (positive HP SR is reported using reserved REs for HARQ-ACK) (Sec 3.2.2- Low-priority PUSCH vs. high-priority SR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by including the step that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is reported, report the positive HP SR on reserved RE resources for up to 2 bits of HP HARQ-ACK, as taught by 3GPP for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary retransmission, as taught by 3GPP (Sec. 3.2.2, Line 1-4). 8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al (US 20210329658, hereinafter referred to as Li ‘658). Re claim 5, Li does not explicitly disclose that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is not reported, do not report a negative SR. Li ‘658 teaches that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is not reported, do not report a negative SR (negative SR is dropped, Fig. 2B(a)) (Par 0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by including the step that if there is no HARQ-ACK multiplexed on the LP PUSCH, and if a positive HP SR is not reported, do not report a negative SR, as taught by Li ‘658 for the purpose of allowing “the network node to adjust processing of the received information based on the priority mismatch indication”, as taught by Li ‘658 (Par 0045). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM. 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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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. /HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598570
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE FOR CORRECTING OFFSET BETWEEN BASE STATION AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587900
ERROR HANDLING IN DUAL ACTIVE LINK HANDOVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581531
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LISTEN-BEFORE-TALK IN A FREQUENCY BAND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12556316
CONFIGURABLE MINI-SLOT RETRANSMISSIONS IN SIDELINK COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549428
DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+26.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 581 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month