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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 recites the limitation "…the first transmission or the second transmission…" in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is confusing on what the first or second transmission is referring to as it has not been previously established in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, 13-15, The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
For claim 1 the conditional statements, “if the first resource is not within an Uplink (UL) subband and the second resource is within the UL subband;” and “if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband.”
For claim 10 the conditional statement, “if the first resource is not within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband.”
For claim 11 the conditional statement, “if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband.”
For claim 13 the conditional statement, “if the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband.”
For claim 14 the conditional statements, “if the first resource is within the UL subband and/or cancels the PUSCH transmission if the second resource is within the UL subband.”
For claim 15 the conditional statement, “if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is not within the UL subband.”
The respective functions are not required to be performed if the respective condition does NOT happen. In order to give a patentable weight for the contingent limitations, the limitations should be amended by adding the respective determining steps for the conditions.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20260122638 A1) in view of Intel Corporation (R1-2300946, On SBFD in NR systems, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #112, hereinafter, “Intel”).
Regarding claim 1 Yang discloses:
being configured with or scheduled to perform a first transmission in a first resource and to perform a second transmission in a second resource, wherein the first resource overlaps with the second resource in time domain; (Paragraph [0082], “the network entity 105-a may schedule two PUCCH transmissions that overlap in time such that the PUCCH transmissions collide.”)
and performing the first transmission in the first resource and not performing the second transmission in the second resource
However Yang does not disclose:
not performing the first transmission in the first resource and performing the second transmission in the second resource if the first resource is not within an Uplink (UL) subband and the second resource is within the UL subband; if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband.
Intel discloses:
not performing the first transmission in the first resource and performing the second transmission in the second resource if the first resource is not within an Uplink (UL) subband and the second resource is within the UL subband; if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 2 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE determines whether the second transmission is cancelled due to the first resource overlapping with the second resource (Paragraph [0084], “the UE 115-a may perform the first stage to determine whether to prioritize the UCI 210-a or the UCI 210-b” and Paragraph [0086], “For example, if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a.”)
Yang does not disclose:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not.
Intel discloses:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 3 Yang discloses:
wherein the first transmission is a first Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission. (Paragraph [0084], “the UE 115-a may resolve overlapping or PUCCH transmissions, PUSCH transmissions, or both of a same priority index.”)
Regarding claim 4 Yang discloses:
wherein the second transmission is a triggered Scheduling Request (SR) transmission. (Paragraph [0084], “the UE 115-a may perform the first stage to determine whether to prioritize the UCI 210-a or the UCI 210-b…That is, a UCI 210 carrying a HARQ-ACK may be prioritized over a UCI 210 carrying an SR, and so on.” There is not a major reason why the first or second transmission must be as described in the claim, in fact in claim 6 the second transmission changes again. Therefore is no patentable weight on first or second for the transmission.)
Regarding claim 5 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE determines whether to suspend or cancel the SR transmission (Paragraph [0084], “The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” And paragraph [0086], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a… Dropping (e.g., selectively dropping) a UCI 210 or some other data may include canceling a transmission of the UCI 210, refraining from transmitting the UCI 210, or removing the UCI 210 from memory, a buffer, or a storage of the UE 115-a, among other forms of dropping a transmission.” Lower priority UCI may be dropped/cancel.)
Yang does not disclose:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not.
Intel discloses:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 6 Yang discloses:
wherein the second transmission is a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission for Channel State information (CSI) and/or Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ)-Acknowledgement (ACK). (Paragraph [0084], “the UE 115-a may resolve overlapping or PUCCH transmissions, PUSCH transmissions, or both of a same priority index… The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” As stated above there is no patentable weight for first or second transmission. As stated by Yang PUCCH for CSI and HARQ-ACK is considered for one of the UCI type transmission.)
Regarding claim 7 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE determines whether to multiplex the CSI and/or the HARQ-ACK into the first transmission (Paragraph [0090], “the UE 115-a may multiplex downlink HARQ-ACK information with or without scheduling requests, and one or more CSI reports in a same PUCCH.” And paragraph [0091], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c or the uplink data 215, the UE 115-a may transmit the UCI 210-a to the network entity 105-a. In some other examples, if the UCI 210-a and the UCI 210-b have a same priority index, the UE 115-a may multiplex the UCIs 210 into one PUCCH and transmit the PUCCH to the network entity 105-a.”)
Yang does not disclose:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not.
Intel discloses:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 8 Yang discloses:
wherein the second transmission is a second PUSCH transmission. (Paragraph [0084], “the UCI 210-a may overlap with the UCI 210-b, where the UCI 210-a and the UCI 210-b share a same priority index. In some cases, the UE 115-a may resolve overlapping or PUCCH transmissions, PUSCH transmissions, or both of a same priority index.”)
Regarding claim 9 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE determines whether to cancel the second PUSCH due to priority (Paragraph [0084], “the UCI 210-a may overlap with the UCI 210-b, where the UCI 210-a and the UCI 210-b share a same priority index. In some cases, the UE 115-a may resolve overlapping or PUCCH transmissions, PUSCH transmissions, or both of a same priority index… The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” And paragraph [0086], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a.” CSI and HARQ-ACK can be carried on PUSCH transmission depending on the priority for example high csi > low csi the lower gets dropped.)
Yang does not disclose:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not.
Intel discloses:
after determining whether the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband or not. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 10 Yang does not disclose:
wherein the UE cancels or postpones the first transmission if the first resource is not within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband.
Intel discloses:
wherein the UE cancels or postpones the first transmission if the first resource is not within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 11 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE cancels the second transmission if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is within the UL subband. (Paragraph [0084], “The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” And paragraph [0086], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a.” This is similar to what is described in the specification, “a UE is unable to perform both of them, the UE would perform on one of them (e.g. due to priority, property, and/or some other criteria) and drop or cancel the other”)
Regarding claim 13 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE determines to perform the PUSCH transmission and to cancel or suspend the SR transmission (Paragraph [0084], “The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” And paragraph [0086], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a.”)
Yang does not disclose:
if the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband.
Intel discloses:
if the first resource and the second resource are within the UL subband. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Regarding claim 14 Yang discloses:
wherein the UE cancels the SR transmission if the first resource is within the UL subband and/or cancels the PUSCH transmission if the second resource is within the UL subband. (Paragraph [0084], “The priority of the UCI type may indicate that a HARQ-ACK has a higher priority than an SR, which may have a higher priority than a high priority CSI, which may have a higher priority than a low priority CSI (e.g., HARQ-ACK>SR>high priority CSI>low priority CSI).” And paragraph [0086], “if the UCI 210-a has a higher priority than the UCI 210-c, the UE 115-a may selectively drop the UCI 210-c in favor of the UCI 210-a.” The UE cancels the transmission overlapping based on prioritization exactly as described in the specification.)
Regarding claim 15 Yang does not disclose:
wherein the UE performs the SR transmission and cancels the PUSCH transmission if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is not within the UL subband.
Intel discloses:
wherein the UE performs the SR transmission and cancels the PUSCH transmission if the first resource is within the UL subband and the second resource is not within the UL subband. (Introduction 1, “For SBFD operation in a symbol configured as flexible in TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon, study the following options for SBFD aware: UEs UL transmissions within UL subband are allowed in the symbol, UL transmissions outside UL subband are not allowed in the symbol” As disclosed in the discussion the SBFD aware UEs have a baseline knowledge of whether the resources are within the subband or not.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang’s UCI prioritization with Intel’s UL subband transmission. One would have been motivated to do this to avoid interfering other transmissions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
