DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 09/09/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. A preliminary amendment submitted on 03/13/2025 is acknowledged and entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024, 11/20/2024, and 06/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim [[19]]17 (which supposed to be claim amended claim 18) is objected to because of the following informalities: [[19]]17 seems to be a typo of [[19]]18. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 13, 17 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, the claim recites “determine whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel and/or PUSCH transmissions….” While the claim determines whether and how to multiplex, there nowhere in the claim where actual multiplexing is been performed. It is not clear how the transmission claimed would be carried out without any actual multiplexing. Once the claimed transmission of the first UCI is to take place, the solution claimed does not indicate the order in which UCI should be transmitted, i.e., how the UCI should be multiplexed. Clarification is, therefore, needed.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, the claim recites “determine whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel and/or PUSCH transmissions….” It is unclear how UCI or PUSCH could be multiplexed on its own, as two or more separate elements with be needed for multiplexing to take place. Thus, the claim language is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,689 (hereafter Patent ‘689). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because are claiming the same limitations with minor difference. All the limitations of claims 1-20 of current application are transparently found in the claims 1-20 of the current application. Both sets of claims are obvious variant of each other. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit some limitations of the independent claims of Patent 689’ to arrive at the independent claims of the current application based on user design preference to achieve desired design goals.
Regarding claim 1, Patent ‘689 discloses a apparatus, comprising: a baseband processor configured to (see Patent ‘689, claim 1, lines 1-2):
determine whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and/or physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) transmissions, said determining comprising (see Patent ‘689, claim 1, lines 4-9):
identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with a same priority (see Patent ‘689, claim 1, lines 10-13);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for a plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with the same priority, identifying whether an overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claim 1, lines 14-21);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities, identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claim 1, lines 22-28); and
transmit the first UCI based on the determination to a base station (see Patent 689’, claim 1, line 31).
Regarding claim 13, Patent ‘689 discloses a method, comprising (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, lines 1-2):
determining whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and/or physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) transmissions, wherein said determining is performed based at least in part on one or more of (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, lines 4-7):
identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with a same priority (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, lines 8-11);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for a plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with the same priority, identifying whether an overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, lines 12-19); and
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities, identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, lines 20-26); and
transmitting the first UCI, based on the determination, to a base station (see Patent ‘689, claim 19, line 29).
Regarding claim 17, US patent ‘689 discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: a radio; and a processor operably connected to the radio and configured to cause the UE to (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, lines 1-4):
determine whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and/or physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) transmissions, wherein said determining is performed based at least in part on one or more of (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, lines 6-10):
identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with a same priority (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, lines 11-14);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for a plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with the same priority, identifying whether an overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, lines 15-22); and
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities, identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, lines 23-29); and
transmit the first UCI, based on the determination, to a base station (see Patent ‘689, claims 16, line 32).
Regarding claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20, they are also rejected since they are similar to claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20 of Patent ‘689.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ 2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)”. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED; May 30, 2001).
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, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0104239 Papasakellariou (hereafter Papas).
Regarding claim 1, Papas discloses an apparatus (see Papas, Fig 1 and Fig 3), comprising:
a baseband processor (see Papas, Fig 3, controller/processor 340; ¶ 0006: The UE further includes a processor operably coupled to the transceiver. The processor is configured to determine a first priority for a first PUCCH and a second priority for a first PUSCH) configured to:
determine whether and how to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) including a first UCI within one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and/or physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) transmissions (see Papas, ¶ 0098: Accordingly, embodiments of the present disclosure take into consideration that conditions need: to be defined for a UE to determine when to multiplex UCI in a PUSCH transmission and when to simultaneously transmit a PUCCH and one or more PUSCHs; ¶ 0148: a UE multiplexes UCI in a PUCCH transmission or in a PUSCH transmission when the UE transmits simultaneously the PUCCH and the PUSCH; ¶ 0149: The UE can also be scheduled/configured whether or not to multiplex UCI having a first priority to a PUSCH having a second priority), said determining comprising:
identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with a same priority (see Papas, ¶ 0006: The processor is configured to determine a first priority for a first PUCCH and a second priority for a first PUSCH. Transmissions of the first PUCCH and of the first PUSCH are scheduled to overlap in time. The first PUCCH is scheduled to provide the first UCI…… The transceiver is further configured to transmit only the first PUSCH when the first priority is same as the second priority, where the first UCI is included in the first PUSCH; ¶ 0096: In certain embodiments, for overlapping PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions from a UE, the UE first resolves an overlapping among PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with same priority value to obtain a single PUCCH or PUSCH where all corresponding UCI for the priority value is multiplexed, when possible. Subsequently, the UE resolves an overlapping among PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with different priorities; ¶ 0157: a UE would simultaneously transmit a PUCCH with a first priority value and a PUSCH with a second priority value (step 1410). In step 1420, the UE determines whether the first and second priority values are same. When the first and second priority values are same, the UE, in step 1430, multiplexes UCI from the PUCCH in the PUSCH and does not transmit the PUCCH);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for a plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with the same priority, identifying whether an overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Papas, ¶ 0006: The transceiver is further configured to transmit: both the first PUCCH and the first PUSCH when the first priority is different than the second priority, where first UCI is included in the first PUCCH; ¶ 0149: a UE can be scheduled/configured to simultaneously transmit more than one PUCCHs with different priority values or to different reception points and more than one PUSCHs with different priority values or to different reception points of a serving cell. The notion of simultaneous transmissions means that the transmissions overlap in time. The UE can also be scheduled/configured whether or not to multiplex UCI having a first priority to a PUSCH having a second priority; ¶ 0150: the UE is scheduled to simultaneously transmit two PUCCHs with two corresponding priority values, such as 0 and 1, and one PUSCH. When the PUSCH has a first priority value, the UE multiplexes the UCI from the PUCCH having the first priority value and transmits the PUSCH with the first priority value and the PUCCH with the second priority value; ¶ 0157: when the first and second priority values are not same, the UE, in step 1440, transmits the PUCCH and the PUSCH);
subsequent to identifying whether the overlap occurs for the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities, identifying whether an overlap occurs for PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Papas, ¶ 0006: The transceiver is further configured to transmit: both the first PUCCH and the first PUSCH when the first priority is different than the second priority, where first UCI is included in the first PUCCH; ¶ 0149: a UE can be scheduled/configured to simultaneously transmit more than one PUCCHs with different priority values or to different reception points and more than one PUSCHs with different priority values or to different reception points of a serving cell. The notion of simultaneous transmissions means that the transmissions overlap in time. The UE can also be scheduled/configured whether or not to multiplex UCI having a first priority to a PUSCH having a second priority; ¶ 0150: the UE is scheduled to simultaneously transmit two PUCCHs with two corresponding priority values, such as 0 and 1, and one PUSCH. When the PUSCH has a first priority value, the UE multiplexes the UCI from the PUCCH having the first priority value and transmits the PUSCH with the first priority value and the PUCCH with the second priority value; ¶ 0157: when the first and second priority values are not same, the UE, in step 1440, transmits the PUCCH and the PUSCH); and
transmit the first UCI based on the determination to a base station (see Papas, ¶ 0006: The first PUCCH is scheduled to provide the first UCI; ¶ 0148: a UE multiplexes UCI in a PUCCH transmission or in a PUSCH transmission when the UE transmits simultaneously the PUCCH and the PUSCH).
Regarding claim 2, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the first UCI within a first PUSCH, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, based on identifying the overlap for the PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with the same priority (see Papas, ¶ 0006: The processor is configured to determine a first priority for a first PUCCH and a second priority for a first PUSCH. Transmissions of the first PUCCH and of the first PUSCH are scheduled to overlap in time. The first PUCCH is scheduled to provide the first UCI…… The transceiver is further configured to transmit only the first PUSCH when the first priority is same as the second priority, where the first UCI is included in the first PUSCH; ¶ 0096: In certain embodiments, for overlapping PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions from a UE, the UE first resolves an overlapping among PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with same priority value to obtain a single PUCCH or PUSCH where all corresponding UCI for the priority value is multiplexed, when possible. Subsequently, the UE resolves an overlapping among PUCCH or PUSCH transmissions with different priorities; ¶ 0157: a UE would simultaneously transmit a PUCCH with a first priority value and a PUSCH with a second priority value (step 1410). In step 1420, the UE determines whether the first and second priority values are same. When the first and second priority values are same, the UE, in step 1430, multiplexes UCI from the PUCCH in the PUSCH and does not transmit the PUCCH).
Regarding claim 5, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the first UCI within a second PUCCH including a second UCI based on identifying the overlap occurs for the PUCCHs and PUSCHs transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions, with different priorities (see Papas, ¶ 0006; ¶ 0153; ¶ 0146).
Regarding claim 8, Papas in view of Gao discloses the apparatus of the apparatus of claim 1, Papas does not explicitly disclose wherein in multiplexing the first UCI with a second UCI of a different priority, the processor is configured to cause the UE to perform one of: multiplexing the first UCI with the second UCI with a second PUCCH; or multiplexing the first UCI and the second UCI within a second PUSCH (see Papas, ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 9, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first UCI comprises one or more of: wherein the first UCI comprises: a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) or negative acknowledgment (NACK) (see Papas, ¶ 0074: UCI includes hybrid automatic repeat request (HARD) acknowledgement (ACK) information, indicating correct or incorrect detection of data transport blocks (TBs) or of code block groups (CBGs) in a PDSCH, scheduling request (SR) indicating whether a UE has data in its buffer to transmit, and CSI reports enabling a gNB to select appropriate parameters for PDSCH or PDCCH transmissions to a UE).
Regarding claim 10, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first UCI additional comprises one or more of: a scheduling request (SR); or channel state information (CSI) (see Papas, ¶ 0074: UCI includes hybrid automatic repeat request (HARD) acknowledgement (ACK) information, indicating correct or incorrect detection of data transport blocks (TBs) or of code block groups (CBGs) in a PDSCH, scheduling request (SR) indicating whether a UE has data in its buffer to transmit, and CSI reports enabling a gNB to select appropriate parameters for PDSCH or PDCCH transmissions to a UE).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4 ,11, 12, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0104239 Papasakellariou (hereafter Papas) in view of US 2024/0179715 to GAO et al. (hereafter Gao).
Regarding claim 3, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Papas discloses multiplex the first UCI within a first PUCCH based on identifying the overlap occurs for first PUCCH transmission and PUSCH transmission (see Papas, ¶ 0006 and ¶ 0149 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the first UCI within a first PUCCH based on identifying the overlap occurs for a first PUCCH transmission and a second PUCCH transmission of the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions.
However, Gao discloses wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the first UCI within a first PUCCH based on identifying the overlap occurs for a first PUCCH transmission and a second PUCCH transmission of the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions (see Gao, ¶ 0109: determining a target PUCCH resource for simultaneously carrying the UCI on both the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource, and performing multiplexing transmission of UCIs on the target PUCCH resource; ¶ 0165: in case that multiplexing transmission of uplink control informations (UCIs) on physical uplink control channels (PUCCHs) with different physical layer priority is configured or supported and the PUCCHs overlap in time domain, determining a target time unit and determining PUCCH resources for UCI transmission in the target time unit as a set of PUCCH resources; ¶ 0199: selecting, from the set of PUCCH resources, PUCCH resource with the earliest start time as a first PUCCH resource, and determining, from the set of PUCCH resources, a second PUCCH resource overlapping with the first PUCCH resource in time domain; ¶ 0200: multiplexing, based on a predetermined multiplexing rule, UCI on both the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Papas to achieve to realize multiplexing of uplink control informations in a 5G NR system (see Gao, ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 4, Papas in view of Gao discloses the apparatus of claim 3, Papas does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PUCCH transmission has an earlier resource allocation than a third PUCCH transmission of the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, having the same priority as the first PUCCH transmission and also having a time overlap with the second PUCCH transmission.
However, Gao discloses wherein the first PUCCH transmission has an earlier resource allocation than a third PUCCH transmission of the plurality of PUCCH transmissions, of the PUCCH and PUSCH transmissions, having the same priority as the first PUCCH transmission and also having a time overlap with the second PUCCH transmission (see Gao, ¶ 0013: in case that the set of PUCCH resources includes multiple PUCCH resources with the earliest start time, selecting a PUCCH resource with longer duration, from the multiple PUCCH resources with the earliest start time, as the first PUCCH resource; ¶ 0014: in case that the set of PUCCH resources includes multiple PUCCH resources with the earliest start time and the same duration, selecting any one PUCCH resource, from the multiple PUCCH resources with the earliest start time and the same duration, as the first PUCCH resource; ¶ 0103: selecting, from the set of PUCCH resources, PUCCH resource with the earliest start time as a first PUCCH resource, and determining, from the set of PUCCH resources, a second PUCCH resource overlapping with the first PUCCH resource in time domain).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Papas to achieve to realize multiplexing of uplink control informations in a 5G NR system (see Gao, ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 11, Papas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Papas does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: report a capability for supporting UCI multiplexing for channels at different physical layer priorities.
However, Gao discloses wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: report a capability for supporting UCI multiplexing for channels at different physical layer priorities (see Gao, ¶ 0069: When PUCCH transmissions with two different physical layer priority are supported, the relevant information of PUCCH with each priority is configured independently, including whether the PUCCH is transmitted based on slot or sub-slot. UE can support PUCCHs with two different priority are transmitted respectively in slots or in sub-slots or PUCCHs with one priority are transmitted in slots and PUCCHs with the other priority are transmitted in sub-slots; ¶ 0089 and ¶ 0077: When the PUCCHs with different physical layer priority overlap in time domain, if multiplexing transmission of UCIs on the PUCCHs with different physical layer priority is configured or supported, the target time unit is determined, and the target time unit is used as a unit, and PUCCH resources for UCI transmission in the target time unit are determined as a set of PUCCH resources).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Papas to achieve to realize multiplexing of uplink control informations in a 5G NR system (see Gao, ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 12, Papas in view of Gao discloses the apparatus of claim 11, Papas does not explicitly disclose wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the UCI including UCI with different priorities within the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions based on a configuration from the base station.
However, Gao discloses wherein the baseband processor is further configured to: multiplex the UCI including UCI with different priorities within the one or more PUCCH and/or PUSCH transmissions based on a configuration from the base station (see Gao, ¶ 0093: when a terminal configures or supports multiplexing transmission of UCIs on PUCCHs with different physical layer priority and the PUCCHs overlap in time domain, a target time unit is determined and PUCCH resources for UCI transmission in the target time unit is determined as a set of PUCCH resources; ¶ 0125: performing, based on a second target multiplexing rule, multiplexing transmission of UCIs for PUCCH resources with different physical layer priority among the first PUCCH resource).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Papas to achieve to realize multiplexing of uplink control informations in a 5G NR system (see Gao, ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 3 and 4. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0143675 to LI discloses that time domain resources for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) that have a same priority overlap, the UE may multiplex uplink control information (UCI) onto the PUSCH for transmission. In a case that time domain resources for a PUCCH and a PUSCH that have different priorities overlap, the UE cancels transmission of the lower-priority channel, and transmits only the higher-priority channel.
US 2024/0089970 to Jung et al. discloses methods, and systems are disclosed for multiplexing uplink control information of different priorities. One method includes determining a first transmission of first uplink control information (UCI) on a PUCCH of a first priority, the first PUCCH being based on a first PUCCH configuration. The method includes determining a second transmission of second UCI on a second PUCCH of a second priority, the second PUCCH being based on a second PUCCH configuration. The method includes, in response to determining that the first PUCCH of the first priority overlaps in time with the second PUCCH of the second priority, multiplexing at least part of the first UCI with the second UCI on a third PUCCH of the second priority, the third PUCCH being based on the second PUCCH configuration. The second priority is higher than the first priority.
US 2023/0189273 to LI discloses a method and device for transmitting. The method includes: receiving a multiplexing indication signal indicating multiplexing uplink control information (UCI) on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); multiplexing the UCI on the PUSCH; and transmitting the multiplexed PUSCH, wherein the number of priorities of UCI multiplexed on one PUSCH is at least one.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights