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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 8-7-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-6-26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8-20-25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5-2-24. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) 1, 7 & 13 contain(s) subject matter “determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission” {Specification, US 20250344205 A1: step 1104-Fig.11 & ¶0150} which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. It is noticed that ¶0150 discloses the same language as recited in claims 1, 7 & 13. Please define what is means by “determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission”. Please define what was being “configured for the configured grant transmission”.
-Claims 2-6, 8-12 & 14-18 are also rejected in virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims 1, 7 & 13, respectively.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 7 & 13 recite(s) the broad recitation “determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission”, and the claim(s) also recite(s) “select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
-Claims 2-6, 8-12 & 14-18 are also rejected in virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims 1, 7 & 13, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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. Claims 1, 7 & 13 are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is means by “determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant
transmission”? Please clarify what was being “configured for the configured grant transmission”? Please clarify whether the determined priority being configured for the configured grant transmission. Are there multiple priorities or just one priority being configured for the configured grant transmission? If UE had already configured the determined priorit(ies) for the configured grant transmission, please clarify what cause the UE to again “select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities”?
-Claims 2-6, 8-12 & 14-18 are also rejected in virtue of their dependencies on the independent claims 1, 7 & 13, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15 & 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 25=, 28, 30, 32 & 38 of copending Application No. 18/040,655= {Yue (US 2023/0284214 A1), granted 7-15-26 yet printed} in view of Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1.
Yue (US 2023/0284214 A1) discloses all the claimed limitations {Yue: copending claims 1 & 25, now =claims 1 & 23, respectively} except the italic limitations as highlighted as following:
A user equipment (UE) {Yue: apparatus, copending claim 23} for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory {Yue: non-transitory computer readable medium, copending claim 23}; and
at least one processor {Yue: processor, copending claim 23} coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission;
determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission,
wherein the priority is based on:
a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and
a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels; and
select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1) discloses (1) determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission {Chin: steps 702+704 in Fig.7 and ¶0261-¶0262}; and (2) select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs {Chin: step 706-Fig.7 and ¶0263-¶0266 & ¶0269-¶0270}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Chin’s teaching to Yue’s system with the motivation being for “enabling the first HARQ process ID selection procedure in a CG configuration, the UE is allowed to select a HARQ process ID of a CG PUSCH corresponding to the CG configuration based on the priority of the HARQ process ID.”{Chin: ¶0268}.
Regarding Claim 2. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels {Chin: ¶0266 wherein “the UE may select, based on the first HARQ process ID selection procedure, the first HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process ID from the set of HARQ process IDs for the CG PUSCH in a case that a Logical Channel (LCH)-based prioritization indication, a CG retransmission timer, and an Information Element (IE) for enabling the first HARQ process ID selection procedure are configured”; and ¶0270 wherein “when the group of more than one HARQ process ID with equally highest priority consists of a HARQ process ID for new transmission and a HARQ process ID for retransmission, the UE may select the HARQ process ID for retransmission for a CG PUSCH. The reason is that the HARQ process ID for retransmission corresponds to a MAC PDU which has not been successfully transmitted before. In order to ensure the latency requirement of the data in the MAC PDU is met, the UE may prioritize the HARQ process ID for retransmission in order to perform retransmission of the MAC PDU first.” In other words, the retransmission data is the claimed latency value, emphasis added}.
Regarding Claim 3. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 2, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels {Chin: ¶0266 wherein “the UE may select, based on the first HARQ process ID selection procedure, the first HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process ID from the set of HARQ process IDs for the CG PUSCH in a case that a Logical Channel (LCH)-based prioritization indication, a CG retransmission timer, and an Information Element (IE) for enabling the first HARQ process ID selection procedure are configured”; In other words, the retransmission timer is the claimed remaining time}.
Regarding Claim 6. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs) {Chin: ¶0263-¶0264, ¶0266 & ¶0270}.
Regarding Claim 7.
-Claim 7 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, and further as following:
A processor {spec: 700-Fig.7} {Yue: apparatus, copending claim 23} for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller {Yue: processor, copending claim 23} coupled with at least one memory {Yue: non-transitory computer readable medium, copending claim 23} and configured to cause the processor to:
receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission;
determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission,
wherein the priority is based on:
a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and
a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels; and
select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs.
Regarding Claim 8. The processor of claim 7, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 8 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 2.
Regarding Claim 9. The processor of claim 8, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 9 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 3.
Regarding Claim 12. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs).
-Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 6.
Regarding Claim 13.
-Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission;
determining a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission,
wherein the priority is based on:
a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and
a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels; and
selecting a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs.
Regarding Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7-8, 13 & 2.
Regarding Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 9, 13 & 3.
Regarding Claim 18. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs).
-Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 12-13 & 6.
Claims 4-5, 10-11 & 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 25=, 28, 30, 32 & 38 of copending Application No. 18/040,655= {Yue (US 2023/0284214 A1), granted 7-15-26 yet printed} in view of Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9 & 13-15 as above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2011/0013506 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 4. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, Yue does not explicitly disclose wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishii (US 2011/0013506 A1) disclose wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU){Ishii: ¶0432 wherein “the data (MAC PDU) including RLC SDU having the maximum "buffer residence time of the RLC SDU" of the logical channel having the Highest priority are selected as the MAC PDU to be transmitted via the subframe”}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Ishii’s teaching to Yue’s system with the motivation being for the UE to select the retransmittable MAC PDU including RLC SDU having the highest priority for transmission {Ishii: ¶0432-¶0433}.
Regarding Claim 5. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs){Yue: ¶0266 & ¶0270 and Ishii: ¶0432-¶0433}.
Regarding Claim 10. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
-Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 4.
Regarding Claim 11. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs).
-Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 5.
Regarding Claim 16. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
-Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 10, 13 & 4.
Regarding Claim 17. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs).
-Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 11, 13 & 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1-2) as being anticipated by Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. A user equipment (UE) {Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1): node 800-Fig.8} for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory {Chin: memory 834-Fig.8}; and
at least one processor {Chin: processor 828-Fig.8} coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission {Chin: step 702-Fig.7 and ¶0261};
determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission {Chin: step 704-Fig.7 and ¶0262},
wherein the priority is based on: a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels {Chin: ¶0263-¶0266}; and
select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs {Chin: step 706-Fig.7 & ¶0263-¶0266}.
Regarding Claim 2. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels {Chin: ¶0266 wherein “the UE may select, based on the first HARQ process ID selection procedure, the first HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process ID from the set of HARQ process IDs for the CG PUSCH in a case that a Logical Channel (LCH)-based prioritization indication, a CG retransmission timer, and an Information Element (IE) for enabling the first HARQ process ID selection procedure are configured”; and ¶0270 wherein “when the group of more than one HARQ process ID with equally highest priority consists of a HARQ process ID for new transmission and a HARQ process ID for retransmission, the UE may select the HARQ process ID for retransmission for a CG PUSCH. The reason is that the HARQ process ID for retransmission corresponds to a MAC PDU which has not been successfully transmitted before. In order to ensure the latency requirement of the data in the MAC PDU is met, the UE may prioritize the HARQ process ID for retransmission in order to perform retransmission of the MAC PDU first.” In other words, the retransmission data is the claimed latency value, emphasis added}.
Regarding Claim 3. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 2, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels {Chin: ¶0266 wherein “the UE may select, based on the first HARQ process ID selection procedure, the first HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process ID from the set of HARQ process IDs for the CG PUSCH in a case that a Logical Channel (LCH)-based prioritization indication, a CG retransmission timer, and an Information Element (IE) for enabling the first HARQ process ID selection procedure are configured”; In other words, the retransmission timer is the claimed remaining time}.
Regarding Claim 6. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs) {Chin: ¶0263- wherein “a priority of first data multiplexed in the first MAC PDU as a first priority of the first HARQ process ID; and a priority of second data to be multiplexed in the second MAC PDU as a second priority of the second HARQ process ID;” ¶0264 wherein “the first data may be from a first set of Logical Channels (LCHs), the second data may be from a second set of LCHs, the priority of the first data may be determined based on an LCH with a highest LCH priority among the first set of LCHs, and the priority of the second data may be determined based on an LCH with a highest LCH priority among the second set of LCHs;” and ¶0266- wherein “the UE may select, based on a second HARQ process ID selection procedure, the first HARQ process ID or the second HARQ process ID from the set of HARQ process IDs for the CG PUSCH in a case that at least one of the LCH-based prioritization indication, the CG retransmission timer, and the IE is not configured. The second HARQ process ID selection procedure may include: prioritizing the first HARQ process ID over the second HARQ process ID. In some implementations, the UE prioritizes the first HARQ process ID over the second HARQ process ID may mean that the UE selects the first HARQ process ID for the CG PUSCH rather than the second HARQ process ID”; and also ¶0270 wherein “when the group of more than one HARQ process ID with equally highest priority consists of a HARQ process ID for new transmission and a HARQ process ID for retransmission, the UE may select the HARQ process ID for retransmission for a CG PUSCH. The reason is that the HARQ process ID for retransmission corresponds to a MAC PDU which has not been successfully transmitted before. In order to ensure the latency requirement of the data in the MAC PDU is met, the UE may prioritize the HARQ process ID for retransmission in order to perform retransmission of the MAC PDU first”. In other words, the CG retransmission timer is the claimed delay-critical PDU}
Regarding Claim 7.
-Claim 7 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
A processor {spec: 700-Fig.7} {Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1): node 800-Fig.8} for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one controller {Chin: processor 828-Fig.8} coupled with at least one memory {Chin: memory 834-Fig.8} and configured to cause the processor to:
receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission;
determine a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission,
wherein the priority is based on:
a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and
a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels; and
select a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs.
Regarding Claim 8. The processor of claim 7, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 8 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 2.
Regarding Claim 9. The processor of claim 8, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 9 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 3.
Regarding Claim 12. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs).
-Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 6.
Regarding Claim 13.
-Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 7.
A method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission, wherein the uplink grant is a configured uplink grant of a configured grant transmission;
determining a priority for each hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID of a set of HARQ process IDs available for the configured grant transmission and configured for the configured grant transmission,
wherein the priority is based on:
a priority of logical channels that are multiplexed or have data to be multiplexed in a medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) transmitted on the configured uplink grant; and
a parameter associated with data associated with the logical channels; and
selecting a HARQ process ID for the configured grant transmission based on the determined priorities for the set of HARQ process IDs.
Regarding Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the parameter comprises a latency value for the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7-8, 13 & 2.
Regarding Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the parameter comprises a remaining time that is available for transmission of the data associated with the logical channels.
-Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 9, 13 & 3.
Regarding Claim 18. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical packet data units (PDUs).
-Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7, 12-13 & 6.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 10-11 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 2022/0338241 A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9 & 13-15 as above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2011/0013506 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, Chin does not explicitly disclose wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishii (US 2011/0013506 A1) disclose wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU){Ishii: ¶0432 wherein “the data (MAC PDU) including RLC SDU having the maximum "buffer residence time of the RLC SDU" of the logical channel having the Highest priority are selected as the MAC PDU to be transmitted via the subframe”}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Ishii’s teaching to Chin’s system with the motivation being for the UE to select the retransmittable MAC PDU including RLC SDU having the highest priority for transmission {Ishii: ¶0432-¶0433}.
Regarding Claim 5. With the same reasons as set forth in the UE of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs){Ishii: ¶0432-¶0433}.
Regarding Claim 10. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
-Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 4.
Regarding Claim 11. The processor of claim 7, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs).
-Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 5.
Regarding Claim 16. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises a radio link control (RLC) service data unit (SDU).
-Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 4.
Regarding Claim 17. The method of claim 13, wherein the data associated with the logical channels comprises delay-critical service data units (SDUs).
-Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 5.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lohr (US 20250344204 A1, same assignee) discloses various aspects relate to enabling a network to implement the use of delay status information when performing certain reporting (delay status reports, or DSR) and/or transmission procedures (logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedures). For example, an LCP procedure may identify data units that satisfy a delay condition for transmission (e.g., delay-critical data units), and assign uplink resources allocated by an uplink grant to logical channels associated with the identified data units {Claims 1-20}.
Lin (US 20260095911 A1) discloses that a user equipment (UE) executes a wireless communication method to harmonize features for NR-based access to unlicensed spectrum (NR-U) and Ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC). The UE comprises a medium access control (MAC) entity. The MAC entity prioritizes autonomous transmission of a pending MAC protocol data unit (PDU) through a first UL grant over transmission of the MAC PDU indicated as new data through a second UL grant when a logical channel (LCH) priority associated with the MAC PDU indicated as new data is not higher than an LCH priority associated with the pending MAC PDU. The MAC entity prioritizes transmission of the MAC PDU indicated as new data through the second UL grant over autonomous transmission of the pending MAC PDU when the LCH priority associated with the MAC PDU indicated as new data is higher than the LCH priority associated with the pending MAC PDU {Figs.1-18}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONGCHAU BA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 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, RICKY NGO can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/PHUONGCHAU BA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
