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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 08/05/2024 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claim 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
Claim 1 recites “A method for wireless communication, comprising: in a case that a first channel carries first information and second information, determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority, wherein a priority of the first information is a first priority, a priority of the second information is the second priority, and a predefined priority of the first channel is the first priority, wherein the first channel is overlapped with a second channel configured to transmit the second information, and the second priority is higher than the first priority.”
Claim 11 recites “A communication device, comprising: a processor and a memory storing at least one computer program, which when executed by the processor, causes the communication device to: in a case that a first channel carries first information and second information, determine a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority, wherein a priority of the first information is a first priority, a priority of the second information is the second priority, and a predefined priority of the first channel is the first priority, wherein the first channel is overlapped with a second channel configured to transmit the second information, and the second priority is higher than the first priority.”
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-10 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an communication device.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for wireless communication, comprising: in a case that a first channel carries first information and second information, determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority, wherein a priority of the first information is a first priority, a priority of the second information is the second priority, and a predefined priority of the first channel is the first priority, wherein the first channel is overlapped with a second channel configured to transmit the second information, and the second priority is higher than the first priority.”
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” and “performing” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, as these step(s), process(es) or action(s) can be performed mentally.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority”. Accordingly, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A communication device, comprising: a processor and a memory storing at least one computer program, which when executed by the processor, causes the communication device to: in a case that a first channel carries first information and second information, determine a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority, wherein a priority of the first information is a first priority, a priority of the second information is the second priority, and a predefined priority of the first channel is the first priority, wherein the first channel is overlapped with a second channel configured to transmit the second information, and the second priority is higher than the first priority.”
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” and “performing” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority…” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, as these step(s), process(es) or action(s) can be performed mentally.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using hardware (i.e. “communication device”) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements besides the abstract idea. Merely reciting the step of “determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority” does not make the claim patent eligible.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a communication device) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely contain limitations that are used to define terms that are recited in the claims. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to independent claims 1 and 11, to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 , 2, 10-12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0179731 A1 (foreign priority date of Sep. 30, 2021) to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”)
Regarding Claim 1 and 11, Li teaches A method for wireless communication, comprising:
a communication device, comprising a processor and a memory storing at least one computer program, which when executed by the processor, causes the communication device to: (Figure 12 and [0506]-[0507], illustrates communication apparatus such as a terminal device including a processing module)
in a case that a first channel carries first information and second information, ([0194], discloses As shown in FIG. 7B, after the low-priority PUCCH and the high-priority PUCCH are multiplexed, a generated multiplexed PUCCH (i.e. first channel) includes the high-priority UCI (i.e. second information) and the low-priority UCI (i.e. first information). A time-frequency resource occupied by the multiplexed PUCCH may be a time-frequency resource originally occupied by the low-priority PUCCH (i.e. first channel) or the high-priority PUCCH )
determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority or performing a corresponding operation where a priority of the first channel is considered as a second priority, ([0194], discloses A time-frequency resource occupied by the multiplexed PUCCH may be a time-frequency resource originally occupied by the low-priority PUCCH (i.e. first channel) or the high-priority PUCCH. [0203], discloses A multiplexed uplink channel (i.e. first channel) generated after a low-priority uplink channel and a high-priority uplink channel are multiplexed may be referred to as a high-priority uplink channel because high-priority UCI and/or data are/is included (i.e. determining a priority of the first channel as a second priority))
wherein a priority of the first information is a first priority, ([0194] discloses The low-priority PUCCH carries low-priority UCI (i.e. priority of first information is a first priority))
a priority of the second information is the second priority, ([0194], discloses the high-priority PUCCH carries high-priority UCI.
a predefined priority of the first channel is the first priority, (([0194] discloses The low-priority PUCCH carries low-priority UCI (i.e. first priority). [0145], discloses for HARQ-ACK on a PUCCH, For a HARQ-ACK on a PDSCH dynamically scheduled by DCI, a priority is indicated by adding a 1-bit (bit) priority indicator (priority indicator) field to the DCI (i.e. predefined priority) )
wherein the first channel is overlapped with a second channel configured to transmit the second information, and ([0193], discloses A low-priority PUCCH overlaps a high-priority PUCCH)
the second priority is higher than the first priority. ([0194], discloses The low-priority PUCCH carries low-priority UCI, and the high-priority PUCCH carries high-priority UCI (i.e. higher priority than the first priority))
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the predefined priority of the first channel being the first priority comprises one of the following scenarios: ([0145], discloses for HARQ-ACK on a PUCCH, For a HARQ-ACK on a PDSCH dynamically scheduled by DCI, a priority is indicated by adding a 1-bit (bit) priority indicator (priority indicator) field to the DCI (i.e. predefined priority) )
Regarding Claim 10, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first channel is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). ([0194], discloses low-priority PUCCH (i.e. first channel) )
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 2 and 10, respectively, except the claims are in apparatus format.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2022/0132496 A1 to Lu et al. (hereinafter “Lu”)
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein
Li does not explicitly teach the first channel carrying the first information and the second information comprises at least one of following scenarios: the first information is transmitted over the first channel upon being processed based on a configuration parameter of the first priority; and the second information is transmitted over the first channel upon being processed based on a configuration parameter of the second priority.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lu discloses in [0035], the multiplexing the first UCI and the second UCI on a same channel for transmission may be: multiplexing all or some bits of the first UCI and the second UCI on the same channel for transmission. [0039], discloses a priority of the first UCI (i.e. second priority of second channel) is higher than a priority of the second UCI (i.e. first priority of the first channel). [0040], discloses the first UCI is UCI of a URLLC service, and the second UCI is UCI of an eMBB service. [0084], discloses in the foregoing implementation in which the first UCI and the second UCI are multiplexed, for transmission, on the PUCCH resource of the first PUCCH carrying the first UCI, the first UCI and the second UCI may be coded jointly or independently. [0092], discloses the HARQ-ACK of URLLC and the HARQ-ACK of eMBB are coded independently and use different code rates. [0092], further discloses a high-level parameter PUCCH-MaxCodeRate 1 (i.e. configuration parameter of the second priority), and corresponds to a maximum code rate for a PUCCH of a service having a high priority, and a high-level parameter PUCCH-MaxCodeRate 2 (i.e. configuration parameter of the first priority), and corresponds to a maximum code rate for a PUCCH of a service having a low priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to include the above limitations as suggested by Lu, to ensure transmission reliability of a URLLC service and transmission efficiency of an eMBB service as indicated in [0136] of Lu.
Regarding Claim 4, Li/Lu teaches The method according to claim 3, wherein
Lu further teaches the processing comprises at least one of: encoding, rate matching, or resource mapping. ([0084], discloses in the foregoing implementation in which the first UCI and the second UCI are multiplexed, for transmission, on the PUCCH resource of the first PUCCH carrying the first UCI, the first UCI and the second UCI may be coded jointly or independently (i.e. processing comprises encoding)) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in Claim 3 above.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 3 and 4, respectively, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2022/0210743 A1 to Yi et al. (hereinafter “Yi’743”)
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein
Li does not explicitly teach determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority comprises: in a case of handling transmission power reduction, determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, For example, Yi’743 in [0465], discloses the wireless device may transmit the first priority of UCI piggybacked on a first priority PUCCH. The wireless device may need to reduce a power or drop the first priority PUCCH (i.e. handling transmission power reduction). To minimize dropping or performance degradation of the UCI, the wireless device may multiplex the first priority UCI in the second priority PUCCH (i.e. determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to include the above limitations as suggested by Yi’743, to provide efficient power sharing as indicated in [0397] and [0475] of Yi’743.
Claim 15 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 5, except the claim is in apparatus format.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2021/0105126 A1 to Yi et al. (hereinafter “Yi’126”)
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein Li does not explicitly teach determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority comprises: in a case of handling a collision with a sidelink (SL) channel, determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yi’126 discloses in [0275], FIG. 23 shows an example PUSCH transmission with piggybacked sidelink information. The piggybacked sidelink information may comprise SL UCI (e.g., SL HARQ-ACK). A wireless device may piggyback the SL UCIs on a PUSCH transmission (i.e. determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority), for example, if the PUSCH transmission and a PUCCH transmission (comprising the SL UCIs) are scheduled on a same cell or on different cells (i.e. handling a collision with sidelink channel). [0253], discloses priorities associated with PUCCH and PUSCH)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to include the above limitations as suggested by Yi’126, thus allowing efficient coexistence between mode 1 sidelink operation and downlink/uplink operation without increasing wireless device and base station complexity and without incurring performance degradation as indicated in [0234] of Yi’126.
Regarding Claim 7, Li/Yi’126 teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein Yi’126 further teaches the SL channel is configured to transmit SL hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information. ([0275], FIG. 23 shows an example PUSCH transmission with piggybacked sidelink information. The piggybacked sidelink information may comprise SL UCI (e.g., SL HARQ-ACK)) Examiner maintains same motivation to combine as indicated in claim 6 above.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 6 and 7, respectively, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority comprises:
Li does not explicitly teach in a case that signaling indicates cancellation of uplink transmission, determining the priority of the first channel as the second priority or performing the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel considered as the second priority.
However, Li discloses in [0003], In the release R16, a “high eliminating low” rule is set for uplink channels with different priorities. To be specific, when the uplink channels with different priorities overlap, sending of a low-priority uplink channel is cancelled (i.e. signaling indicates cancellation of uplink transmission. In the two manners, corresponding processing manners for overlapping uplink channels are not flexible enough. [0004], discloses Embodiments of this application provide a channel processing method and apparatus. A first uplink channel set is obtained through division, to process overlapping of low-priority uplink channels, and then process overlapping of a low-priority uplink channel and a high-priority uplink channel, including multiplexing processing of the channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to perform UCI multiplexing instead of cancelling a lower priority overlapping channel as suggested by Li, to improves efficiency of sending uplink control information and/or uplink data on the low-priority uplink channel as indicated in [0004] of LI.
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein Li further teaches the corresponding operation where the priority of the first channel is considered as the second priority comprises at least one of: not cancelling transmission of the first channel; or canceling transmission of a target channel, wherein the target channel does not carry information of the second priority. ([0011], discloses when the second uplink channel and the third uplink channel do not meet the first multiplexing condition, but the second priority corresponding to the third uplink channel is higher than the first priority, the determining a fourth uplink channel includes: cancelling sending of the second uplink channel, and determining that the fourth uplink channel is the third uplink channel. Examiner notes that cancellation of the transmission of the first channel is only performed if the first multiplexing condition is not met. Otherwise, if the multiplexing condition is met, the cancellation does not occur (i.e. not cancelling transmission of the first channel)) Examiner maintains same motivation as indicated in Claim 8 above.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 8 and 9, respectively, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights