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
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(s) 1-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Consideration on LCP enhancement” (R2-2407999) to CATT in view of US 20220287057 A1 to Yamamoto; Tetsuya et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1
CATT discloses a node of a telecommunications system which uses dynamic prioritization of logical channels (Section 2 – priority to LCH with delay critical data is configured. Additional priority is given for a given LCH when there is delay critical UL data; otherwise the legacy priority is applied (i.e., priority is given dynamically based on the type of UL data. A node is inherent),
the node comprising: processor circuitry (inherent. A node that would be performing the prioritized LCH for UL data would require a processor).
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose that the node is configured to make a determination of priority of a scheduling request triggered by a logical channel. In other words, although CATT discloses prioritization of LCH, CATT does not disclose how to subsequently prioritize a related scheduling request in to order to utilize the LCH for UL transmission of delay critical data.
However, attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses a method of determining priority of uplink signals (Fig. 6 and 0153-0159 - FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an operation example relating to terminal operation 1 for determining the SR priority … Terminal 200 obtains information on the association, for example, between the SR priority in the PHY layer and the logical channel priority (S112) … Terminal 200 may determine the SR priority in the PHY layer (S114). For example, terminal 200 may determine the SR priority based on the logical channel priority corresponding to the uplink data. For example, in the association between SR priorities in the PHY layer and logical channel priorities, terminal 200 may determine the SR priority associated with the logical channel priority of a logical channel that triggered the SR).
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 CATT invention by employing the teaching as taught by Yamamoto to provide the ability to determine a priority of a scheduling request based upon a priority of a LCH that triggered the scheduling request. The motivation for the combination is merely the application of a known method of uplink transmission prioritization to another known method of uplink transmission prioritization to achieve predictable results.
Re: Claim(s) 2
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose interface circuitry configured to transmit the scheduling request across a radio interface to another node of the system in accordance with the priority for the scheduling request.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (Fig. 6 and 0156-0157. S113 is after S112. Terminal 200 (e.g., MAC layer) triggers SR transmission (in other words, BSR transmission) (S113). Terminal 200 may determine the SR priority in the PHY layer (S114). For example, terminal 200 may determine the SR priority based on the logical channel priority corresponding to the uplink data).
Re: Claim(s) 3
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is configured to make the determination based on a logical channel priority at a time of triggering of the scheduling request transmission.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0157-0159 – priority is determined based on the logical channel priority of a logical channel that triggered the scheduling request. The Examiner notes that the phrase “at the time of” is relative and thus performing the determination based upon being triggered by the logical channel sufficiently reads on a relative time period surrounding when the triggering occurred).
Re: Claim(s) 4
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is configured to make the determination based on a logical channel priority at a time of transmission of the scheduling request.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0157-0159 – priority is determined based on the logical channel priority of a logical channel that triggered the scheduling request. The Examiner notes that the phrase “at the time of” is relative and thus performing the determination based upon being triggered by the logical channel and then subsequently transmitting the SR sufficiently reads on a relative time period surrounding when the transmission occurred).
Re: Claim(s) 5
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is configured to make the determination based on a logical channel priority at a time of multiplexing of data for the protocol data unit).
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0241 - Grouping of the logical channel priorities can make it easier, for example, for terminal 200 to configure the same priority between ACK/NACK and another uplink signal different from ACK/NACK, such as the SR, CSI, or uplink data. For example, in FIG. 15, when the priority of an uplink signal different from ACK/NACK is within the range of logical channel priorities 2 to 7 (e.g., priority set 2), terminal 200 determines that the ACK/NACK priority and the priority of the other uplink signal are the same. Since the same priority is more likely to be configured for the ACK/NACK and the other uplink signal, it becomes easier for terminal 200 to multiplex and transmit a plurality of uplink signals when determining uplink signals to be actually transmitted in terminal operation 3, for example).
Re: Claim(s) 6
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is configured to make the determination based on a static logical channel priority.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0294-0295 - the number of priorities of at least one of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer may be different from the number of logical channel priorities. In this case, terminal 200 may compare the priorities of each of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer data based on a criterion different from the logical channel priorities. In the criterion in the PHY layer, the priority of the uplink signal may be determined, for example, in association with the logical channel priority. The association between the priority of the uplink signal and the logical channel priority may be indicated by base station 100 to terminal 200 by RRC, for example, or may be predefined in the specifications (i.e., if signaled or predefined, the priority would be fixed, unless reconfigured as opposed to dynamically determined)).
Re: Claim(s) 7
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 6 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is configured to a predetermined one of plural priorities to make the determination.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0294-0295 - the number of priorities of at least one of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer may be different from the number of logical channel priorities. In this case, terminal 200 may compare the priorities of each of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer data based on a criterion different from the logical channel priorities. In the criterion in the PHY layer, the priority of the uplink signal may be determined, for example, in association with the logical channel priority. The association between the priority of the uplink signal and the logical channel priority may be indicated by base station 100 to terminal 200 by RRC, for example, or may be predefined in the specifications (i.e., if signaled or predefined, the priority would be fixed, unless reconfigured as opposed to dynamically determined). The Examiner notes that a plurality of priorities is disclosed but a single logical channel priority associated with the uplink signal (e.g., SR) is indicated by the base station).
Re: Claim(s) 8
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the node is configured by signaling from another node to use the predetermined one of plural priorities to make the determination.
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0294-0295 - the number of priorities of at least one of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer may be different from the number of logical channel priorities. In this case, terminal 200 may compare the priorities of each of the SR, ACK/NACK, CSI, and uplink data in the PHY layer data based on a criterion different from the logical channel priorities. In the criterion in the PHY layer, the priority of the uplink signal may be determined, for example, in association with the logical channel priority. The association between the priority of the uplink signal and the logical channel priority may be indicated by base station 100 to terminal 200 by RRC, for example, or may be predefined in the specifications).
Re: Claim(s) 9
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to cancel the scheduling request when the priority of the logical channel which triggered the scheduling request has been changed to a lower priority..
However, further attention is directed to Yamamoto which discloses said limitation (0329-0336 - When a transmission resource (e.g., PUCCH) for an SR and a transmission resource (e.g., PUCCH) for ACK/NACK overlap one another in the time domain, terminal 200 determines, for example, the priority of the triggered SR in the PHY layer and the ACK/NACK priority based on terminal operation 1, and compares the SR priority and the ACK/NACK priority in the PHY layer based on terminal operation 2 … Then, terminal 200 determines a signal to be actually transmitted by one of the following methods of terminal operation 3 based on the result of comparing the SR and ACK/NACK priorities … When the SR and ACK/NACK priorities in the PHY layer are different from each other, terminal 200 drops (in other words, does not transmit) one of the SR and ACK/NACK which has a lower priority and transmits the other of the ACK/NACK and SR which has a higher priority).
Re: Claim(s) 11
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses all the limitations of claim 11 for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 2 above.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “SR triggering for multiple pending BSRs” (R2-1907770) to Huawei.
Re: Claim(s) 10
CATT in view of Yamamoto discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
CATT in view of Yamamoto does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor circuitry to configured to make a determination of priority of a scheduling request for a dynamically prioritized logical channel by selecting between plural scheduling request configurations, the plural scheduling request configurations corresponding to respective plural priorities associated with the dynamically prioritized logical channel.
However, attention is directed to Huawei which discloses said limitation (Section 2, Option 3 – the SR configuration associated with the LCH that has the highest priority will be selected).
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 CATT in view of Yamamoto invention by employing the teaching as taught by Huawei to provide the ability to select a SR configuration based upon the priority of the LCH that triggered the BSR/SR. The motivation for the combination is given by Huawei (Introduction).
Re: Claim(s) 12
CATT in view of Yamamoto in view of Huawei discloses all the limitations of claim 12 for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 10 above.
Re: Claim(s) 13
CATT in view of Yamamoto in view of Huawei discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 12 above.
CATT in view of Yamamoto in view of Huawei discloses all the limitations of claim 13 for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 3 and 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights