DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claims 40-45, claims 40-45 recites ‘machine readable medium’ ‘Machine readable medium’ could cover a signal per se. Signals per se do not fall under one of the four statutory classes of patent-eligible subject matter and, therefore, are non-statutory. Applicant can overcome this rejection by adding the words 'non-transitory' to the claim. (See David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium, 26 January 2010; available via the USPTO's website)
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is missing the word ‘to’ before ‘send’. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites ‘receiving’ It is believed this should be ‘receive’. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, claims 41 and 42 have subject verb agreement errors; instructions is plural so cause should be causes. Please review all of your claims.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 appears to be missing the word ‘to’ before support. Appropriate action 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 26-32, 37, 41, and 43 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 26-32, claim 26 recites ‘…decode a first downlink (DL) control information (DCI) or higher layer signaling from a first base station, the DCI to comprise a cross-link interference (CLI) measurement and report configuration, the CLI measurement and report configuration to comprise an identification of a communication resource within which to measure a sounding reference signal (SRS) or other uplink (UL) transmission…’ This is unclear. That is, claim 26 recites DCI or higher layer signaling but only utilizes the DCI. In other words, it is unclear if only the DCI conveys the measurement and report configuration or either one could have the measurement and report configuration depending on which is actually received. The rest of the claim reads like the DCI is received and not the higher layer signaling part. Therefore, the claim needs clarification. Claims 27-32 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 26 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites ‘…the processing circuitry further send a second DCI to a second UE to schedule the SRS transmission from the second UE, wherein the second DCI comprises a DCI format 0_1 or a DCI format 1_1…’ Claim 26 upon which 32 depends is a UE apparatus. A review of the specification does not show the UE performing this step. Rather the base station sends the second DCI to the second UE; not the UE. (See para. 35 of the published specification; see also para. 76, 77) Therefore, based upon what is disclosed in the specification, it is not clear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Please provide clarification and please review all of your claims for accuracy.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites ‘the first DCI’ DCI was not introduced in claim 33. Claim 33 introduces DL control information. It is assumed claim 33 should use the acronym DCI instead of DL. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 recites ‘control state information (CSI)’. It is unclear if this should be channel state information or not. Please clarify.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 recites ‘…multiplex multiple uplink control information (UCI) types to send the CLI measurement report on the PUSCH, in a PUSCH format 3 or a PUSCH format 4, to support up to two separate encodings for the multiple UCI types…’ This is unclear. The specification discloses that the PUCCH format 3/4 is up to two separate encodings; not the PUSCH. (See published spec para. 92, 93) It appears that this is a mistake in the claim. Please clarify and review all of your claims to ensure accuracy.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 recites ‘…multiplex multiple uplink control information (UCI) types to send the CLI measurement report on the PUCCH, support up to three separate encodings for the multiple UCI types…’ This is unclear. The specification discloses that the PUSCH supports up to three separate encodings; not the PUCCH. (See published spec para. 94) It appears that this is a mistake in the claim. Please clarify and review all of your claims to ensure accuracy.
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.
Claims 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Ibrahim (2022/0014298).
Regarding claim 26, Faxer discloses an apparatus of a User Equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory; and
processing circuitry coupled with the memory to: (See Faxer para. 122, 123, fig. 14; UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
decode higher layer signaling from a first base station, comprise a cross-link interference (CLI) measurement and report configuration, the CLI measurement and report configuration to comprise an identification of a communication resource within which to measure a sounding reference signal (SRS) or other uplink (UL) transmission; (See Faxer para. 87; UE configured with CLI-IMRs which is the physical resource (e.g. id of communication resource) upon which the UE is to perform a CLI measurement (e.g. a CLI measurement and report configuration as defined by the claim); para. 88; time frequency resource of CLI-IMRs indicated directly or indirectly (e.g. UE receives a physical signal waveform and decodes this to recover the data); fig. 9; Base station; para. 91; SRS; see also para. 148, 150, 75)
measure the SRS or other UL transmission based on the identification of the communication resource; (See Faxer para. 95, fig. 7; UE performs CLI measurements in accordance with the CLI-IMR; para. 91; SRS measurement)
generate a CLI measurement report based on measurement of the SRS or other UL transmission and based on a definition for the CLI measurement report; and (See Faxer para. 80; UE configured with report configurations indicating how the CLI measurements are to be reported including periodic, event-triggered reporting (e.g. it is generated before it is sent); see also para. 83; report is compiled in a message and transmitted)
encode physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) data including the CLI measurement report, for the first base station. (See Faxer para. 101; CLI measurement reports may be encoded using PUCCH or PUSCH; fig. 7; report sent to base station)
Faxer discloses that the CLI configuration is done by RRC signaling. (See Faxer para. 73)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE receives a DCI having measurement configuration and reporting configurations information. However, Ibrahim does disclose wherein the UE receives a DCI having measurement configuration and reporting configurations information. (See Ibrahim fig. 13; DCI received by UE; para. 89; DCI with a CLI request field; para. 91; CLI request field indicates CSI-IM resource set for performing the CLI measurements and may also have reporting triggers and report settings) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein the UE receives a DCI having measurement configuration and reporting configurations information of Ibrahim with the motivation being to effectively coordinate aggressor UE and victim UE to eliminate or reduce CLI and further it is more responsive for on-demand CLI measurements and further to reduce signaling overhead and thereby utilize limited wireless resources more efficiently and further to allow for scalability of multiple aggressor and victim UEs.
Regarding claim 27, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the processing circuitry comprises a processor and a memory coupled with the processor, a radio frequency circuitry coupled with the processor, and one or more antennas coupled with the radio frequency circuitry. (See Faxer para. 122, 123, fig. 14; UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory, transceivers (e.g. part of radio frequency circuitry) and antennas)
Regarding claim 28, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic SRS to generate a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP) for the CLI measurement report. (See Faxer para. 88-90; timing behavior of CLI-IMR is aperiodic, semi-persistent or periodic; para. 91; RSRP-based CLI measurement resource may identify an SRS; para. 100 SRS-RSRP as the report quantity for an RSRP-based CLI measurement performed using SRS)
Regarding claim 30, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a periodic, a semi-persistent, or an aperiodic report for a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP) or CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI) to send via the PUSCH or the PUCCH. (See Faxer para. 108; CLI report aperiodic, PUSCH or PUCCH, reportQuantity filed indicates SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI)
Regarding claim 31, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, the processing circuitry to encode a Medium Access Control-Control Element (MAC-CE) comprising the CLI measurement report. (See Faxer para. 83; MAC-CE; para. 122; processing circuitry)
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Ibrahim (2022/0014298) and further in view of Ying (2022/0104214).
Regarding claim 29, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a CLI measurement and report can be used for UE-to-UE CLI mitigation. (See Faxer para. 72, 86; UE-to-UE CLI measurements)
Faxer also discloses using the PUCCH and PUSCH.
Faxer does not explicitly disclose wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1. However, Ying does disclose wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1. (See Ying para. 58; layer 1 measurements; para. 59; L1-RSSI, L1-RSRP, L1-SINR; see also para. 3; L1 CLI measurement and reporting) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1 of Ying with the motivation being to enable mitigation based on current transmission conditions and further permit link adaptation before or in connection with data transmission and further reuse existing mechanisms for reporting link quality and further lower-complexity reporting (than using higher layers).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Ibrahim (2022/0014298) and further in view of Zhang (2019/0327115).
Regarding claim 32, Faxer in view of Ibrahim discloses the apparatus of claim 26. Ibrahim discloses sending a DCI common to a group of UEs to coordinate SRS transmissions by an aggressor UE and CLI measurement by a victim UE. (See Ibrahim fig. 13, 17;
Faxer in view of Ibrahim do not explicitly disclose a second DCI for transmission to another UE that triggers an SRS. However, Zhang does disclose a second DCI for transmission to another UE that triggers an SRS. (See Zhang para. 260; 1st and 2nd DCI format is 0_1 or 1_1; para. 19, 20; DCI trigger SRS) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Faxer in view of Ibrahim to include the teaching of a second DCI for transmission to another UE that triggers an SRS of Zhang with the motivation being to separately control a second SRS operation and further permitting on-demand rather than continuously active SRS transmissions.
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)(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.
Claims 33, 34, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faxer (WO2020144624).
Regarding claim 33, Faxer discloses a method of a User Equipment (UE), comprising: (See Faxer para. 122, 123, fig. 14; UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
decoding information on a cross-link interference (CLI) measurement and report configuration received via a first downlink (DL) control information or higher layer signaling from a first base station, the CLI measurement and report configuration to comprise an identification of a communication resource within which to measure a sounding reference signal (SRS) or other uplink transmission; (See Faxer para. 87; UE configured with CLI-IMRs which is the physical resource (e.g. id of communication resource) upon which the UE is to perform a CLI measurement (e.g. a CLI measurement and report configuration as defined by the claim); para. 88; time frequency resource of CLI-IMRs indicated directly or indirectly (e.g. UE receives a physical signal waveform and decodes this to recover the data); fig. 9; Base station; para. 91; SRS; para. 73; RRC signaling (e.g. higher layer signaling); see also para. 148, 150, 75)
measuring, by processing circuitry, the SRS or other uplink transmission based on the identification of the communication resource; (See Faxer para. 95, fig. 7; UE performs CLI measurements in accordance with the CLI-IMR; para. 91; SRS measurement)
generating, by the processing circuitry, a CLI measurement report based on measurement of the SRS or other uplink transmission based on a definition for the CLI measurement report; and (See Faxer para. 80; UE configured with report configurations indicating how the CLI measurements are to be reported including periodic, event-triggered reporting (e.g. it is generated before it is sent); see also para. 83; report is compiled in a message and transmitted)
encoding, via a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the CLI measurement report for the first base station. (See Faxer para. 101; CLI measurement reports may be encoded using PUCCH or PUSCH; fig. 7; report sent to base station)
Regarding claim 34, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic SRS to generate a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP) for the CLI measurement report. (See Faxer para. 88-90; timing behavior of CLI-IMR is aperiodic, semi-persistent or periodic; para. 91; RSRP-based CLI measurement resource may identify an SRS; para. 100 SRS-RSRP as the report quantity for an RSRP-based CLI measurement performed using SRS)
Regarding claim 36, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a periodic, a semi-persistent, or an aperiodic report for a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP) or CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI) to send via the PUSCH or the PUCCH. (See Faxer para. 108; CLI report aperiodic, PUSCH or PUCCH, reportQuantity filed indicates SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI)
Regarding claim 39, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33, comprising sending the CLI measurement report including a SRS-reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP), a CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI), or both as part of an uplink control information (UCI) type. (See Faxer para. 88-90; timing behavior of CLI-IMR is aperiodic, semi-persistent or periodic; para. 91; RSRP-based CLI measurement resource may identify an SRS; para. 100 SRS-RSRP as the report quantity for an RSRP-based CLI measurement performed using SRS; para. 108; UCI)
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Ying (2022/0104214).
Regarding claim 35, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33, wherein the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a CLI measurement and report can be used for UE-to-UE CLI mitigation. (See Faxer para. 72, 86; UE-to-UE CLI measurements)
Faxer also discloses using the PUCCH and PUSCH.
Faxer does not explicitly disclose wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1. However, Ying does disclose wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1. (See Ying para. 58; layer 1 measurements; para. 59; L1-RSSI, L1-RSRP, L1-SINR; see also para. 3; L1 CLI measurement and reporting) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein the CLI measurement and reporting is layer 1 of Ying with the motivation being to enable mitigation based on current transmission conditions and further permit link adaptation before or in connection with data transmission and further reuse existing mechanisms for reporting link quality and further lower-complexity reporting (than using higher layers).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Ibrahim (2022/0014298).
Regarding claim 37, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33. Faxer discloses that the CLI-interference-measurement resource can be an SRS-based resource; (See Faxer para. 91) and that the UE performs the CLI measurements in accordance with the CLI-IMR config. and reports the result. (See Faxer para. 95, fig. 7)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose the UE receiving a DCI having measurement and reporting configuration information that triggers the CLI measurement. However, Ibrahim does disclose the UE receiving a DCI having measurement and reporting configuration information that triggers the CLI measurement. (See Ibrahim fig. 13; DCI received by UE; para. 89; DCI with a CLI request field; para. 91; CLI request field indicates CSI-IM resource set for performing the CLI measurements and may also have reporting triggers and report settings) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein the UE receiving a DCI having measurement and reporting configuration information that triggers the CLI measurement of Ibrahim with the motivation being to effectively coordinate aggressor UE and victim UE to eliminate or reduce CLI and further it is more responsive for on-demand CLI measurements and further to reduce signaling overhead and thereby utilize limited wireless resources more efficiently and further to allow for scalability of multiple aggressor and victim UEs.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Xiong (2020/0295899).
Regarding claim 38, Faxer discloses the method of claim 33, comprising sending the CLI measurement report including a SRS-reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP), a CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI), or both as part of a channel state information (CSI) report. (See Faxer para. 88-90; timing behavior of CLI-IMR is aperiodic, semi-persistent or periodic; para. 91; RSRP-based CLI measurement resource may identify an SRS; para. 100 SRS-RSRP as the report quantity for an RSRP-based CLI measurement performed using SRS; para. 101; treat CLI reports as CSI report permits reuse of existing CSI procedures)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurements are in a CSI part 1 or a CSI part 2. However, Xiong does disclose wherein the measurements are in a CSI part 1 or a CSI part 2. (See Xiong para. 129; fig. 8) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein the measurements are in a CSI part 1 or a CSI part 2 of Xiong with the motivation being to allow for a compact basic report with optional additional info if helpful and further avoids transmitting a maximum-size report every time (which saves bandwidth) and further provides compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards which save time and money (by using what is already available in the standard).
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)(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.
Claims 40, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faxer (WO2020144624).
Regarding claim 40, Faxer discloses a machine-readable medium containing instructions of a User Equipment (UE) for mobile communication, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations to report a cross link interference, the operations to: (See Faxer para. 122, 123, fig. 14; UE with a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receiving information on a cross-link interference (CLI) measurement and report configuration received via a downlink (DL) control information transmission or higher layer signaling from a first base station, the CLI measurement and report configuration to comprise an identification of a communication resource within which to measure a sounding reference signal (SRS) or other uplink transmission; (See Faxer para. 87; UE configured with CLI-IMRs which is the physical resource (e.g. id of communication resource) upon which the UE is to perform a CLI measurement (e.g. a CLI measurement and report configuration as defined by the claim); para. 88; time frequency resource of CLI-IMRs indicated directly or indirectly (e.g. UE receives a physical signal waveform and decodes this to recover the data); fig. 9; Base station; para. 91; SRS; para. 73; RRC signaling (e.g. higher layer signaling); see also para. 148, 150, 75)
measure the SRS or other uplink transmission based on the identification of the communication resource; (See Faxer para. 95, fig. 7; UE performs CLI measurements in accordance with the CLI-IMR; para. 91; SRS measurement)
generate a CLI measurement report based on measurement of the SRS or other uplink transmission based on a definition for the CLI measurement report; and (See Faxer para. 80; UE configured with report configurations indicating how the CLI measurements are to be reported including periodic, event-triggered reporting (e.g. it is generated before it is sent); see also para. 83; report is compiled in a message and transmitted)
encode, via a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), the CLI measurement report for the first base station. (See Faxer para. 101; CLI measurement reports may be encoded using PUCCH or PUSCH; fig. 7; report sent to base station)
Regarding claim 44, Faxer discloses the machine-readable medium of claim 40, wherein the CLI measurement and report configuration to define a periodic, a semi-persistent, or an aperiodic report for a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP) or CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI) to send via the PUSCH or the PUCCH. (See Faxer para. 108; CLI report aperiodic, PUSCH or PUCCH, reportQuantity filed indicates SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI)
Regarding claim 45, Faxer discloses the machine-readable medium of claim 40, comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to encode a Medium Access Control-Control Element (MAC-CE) comprising the CLI measurement report. (See Faxer para. 83; MAC-CE; para. 122; processing circuitry)
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Kundu (2019/0373598).
Regarding claim 41, Faxer discloses the machine-readable medium of claim 40, comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to multiplex multiple uplink control information (UCI) types to send the CLI measurement report on the PUSCH, PUCCH, or both, wherein the CLI measurement report comprises a SRS-Reference Signal Received Power (SRS-RSRP), a CLI-received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI), or both appended in a UCI type (See Faxer; para. 100 SRS-RSRP as the report quantity for an RSRP-based CLI measurement performed using SRS; para. 108; CLI report multiplexed in UCI together with other UCI content and transmitted on PUSCH or PUCCH)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose wherein there is a priority to how the UCI information is multiplexed. However, Kundu does disclose wherein there is a priority to how the UCI information is multiplexed. (See Kundu para. 68; multiplexing according to a priority) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Faxer to include the teaching of wherein there is a priority to how the UCI information is multiplexed of Kundu with the motivation being to ensure more important data will fit inside the available capacity and further to allow for the most important data to be processed before less important data and further to possibly adjust coding rate etc of less important data based upon how much capacity is left after the important data is encoded.
Kundu discloses CSI part 1 and part 2. (See Kundu para. 78)
Faxer in view of Kundu does not explicitly disclose wherein append in a UCI type after control state information (CSI) part 1 and before CSI part 2 or after CSI part 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity before the effective filing date to modify the method of Faxer in view of Kundu to include the teaching of append in a UCI type after control state information (CSI) part 1 and before CSI part 2 or after CSI part 2 with the motivation being it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to prioritize data and order them; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. as disclosed in Kundu there are multiple UCI data types which are prioritized in ascending order according to a priority rule); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of prioritizing multiple CSI reports where some reports would come before other reports and some would come after according to the priority rule) and further it is common sense (Kundu discloses there is a priority for placing CSI reports into the PUCCH according to a priority rule; it logically follows that some CSI reports (comprising CSI part 1 and 2) will come before other CSI reports).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of Yang (2023/0006776).
Regarding claim 42, Faxer discloses the machine-readable medium of claim 40, comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to multiplex multiple uplink control information (UCI) types to send the CLI measurement report on the PUSCH, (See Faxer para. 108; multiplexing CLI report with other UCI content on PUCCH or PUSCH)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose in a PUCCH format 3 or a PUCCH format 4, to support up to two separate encodings for the multiple UCI types. (See 112 issue above regarding PUCCH instead of PUSCH) However, Yang does disclose a PUCCH format 3 or a PUCCH format 4, to support up to two separate encodings for the multiple UCI types. (See Yang para. 281, 283, 284) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Faxer to include the teaching of a PUCCH format 3 or a PUCCH format 4, to support up to two separate encodings for the multiple UCI types of Yang with the motivation being to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards for encoding and further to save time and money and provide compatibility and further different groups of UCI can receive different reliability treatment and reuses the established NR procedure which saves time and money and provides compatibility.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faxer (WO2020144624) and further in view of 3GPP TS 38.212 (“5G; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding” version 15.8.0 Release 15; January 2020).
Regarding claim 43, Faxer discloses the machine-readable medium of claim 40, comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to multiplex multiple uplink control information (UCI) types to send the CLI measurement report on the PUSCH. (See Faxer para. 108; PUCCH and CLI report is multiplexed with HARQ ACK, SR, CSI reports (e.g. other UCI types); see 112 above)
Faxer does not explicitly disclose the PUSCH supports up to three separate encodings for the multiple UCI types. However, 3GPP TS 38.212 does disclose the PUSCH supports up to three separate encodings for the multiple UCI types. (See 3GPP TS 38.212 section 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.4; NR procedure for encoding and multiplexing UCI on PUSCH for HARQ-ACK, CSI Part1, CSIPart2; section 6.3.2.6 multiplexes the separately coded UCI bits onto the PUSCH; see sections 6.3.2.4.1.1-6.3.2.4.1.3 and 6.3.2.4.2.1-6.3.2.4.2.3; see section 6.2.7 which identifies separate coded-bit sequences for those three UCI components). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Faxer to include the teaching of the PUSCH supports up to three separate encodings for the multiple UCI types of 3GPP TS 38.212 with the motivation being that separated encoding and rate matching allow the three information groups to receive different resource allocations and treatment (for example CSI part 2 may be less important and can be reduced if not enough room while not losing CSI part 1) and further may allow for prioritization of certain traffic over other traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights