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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 3, 2025, are in
compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hedayat et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto.
Regarding Claim 1, Hedayat discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor (Figure 1B. steps S102, S118 of Hedayat – shows an example of a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (102) that comprises a processor (118)) configured to:
receive configuration information, wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of an identifier associated with the WTRU and a set of low-latency resources (Abstract, Figure 5, and paragraph 0072 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU receiving parameters configuring a set of grant-free uplink resources (GF resources) for autonomous transmission. Paragraph 0072 specifically teaches “ A gNB may specify GF resources (e.g., via radio resource control (RRC) signaling). The GF resources may be WTRU- specific or may be WTRU-independent.” Grant-free resources function as low-latency resources by bypassing the dynamic scheduling request delay. Furthermore, regarding the indication of an identifier, paragraph 0099 of Hedayat teaches that “the sensing areas is a priori identified by gNB and/or known to one or more (e.g., all) WTRUs)” and that “The WTRU may select a sensing area from the set.”); determine that a condition is satisfied, wherein the condition is associated with low-latency resource usage (Paragraph 0003 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU assessing parameters of the data, such as determining if a “first part may be a higher priority than the priority associated with the second part,” or evaluating if back-off values are met, which constitutes determining a condition associated with the grant-free/low-latency usage is satisfied);
based on the determination that the condition is satisfied, select a low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources (Abstract and figure 5 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU selecting specific grant-free resource blocks or symbols to perform the transmission based on the priority and back-off evaluations); multiplex, in a bit sequence (the identifier associated with the WTRU – see Yoshimoto below) and at least one control unit or data unit (Paragraphs 0107, 0108 of Hedayat – teaches performing Uplink Control Information (UCI) multiplexing during a grant-free (GF) transmission, explicitly stating that control units such as Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) and HARQ ACK/NACK information are multiplexed along a transport block (TB). This directly corresponds to multiplexing at least one control unit into a bit sequence).
Hedayat does not teach that the identifier associated with the WTRU is multiplexed directly inside that the same bit sequence (the transport block) alongside the control/data units.
However, Yoshimoto teaches:
a wireless communication system using grant-free uplink transmissions wherein a User Equipment (UE/WTRU) identifier is explicitly multiplexed into the transmitted uplink signal (the bit sequence) alongside the payload data (Paragraph 0010 of Yoshimoto – teaches an uplink data channel that includes an uplink data bit alongside a bit representing an identifier of the terminal apparatus itself). Yoshimoto teaches that embedding the identifier directly into the multiplexed uplink data sequence allows the receiving base station to successfully identify the source of the unscheduled, contention-based transmission.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission scheme of Hedayat to explicitly multiplex the WTRU identifier directly into the transport block bit sequence as taught by Yoshimoto. This modification would be to provide robust and unambiguous identification of the transmitting WTRU during contention-based uplink transmissions, thereby preventing data loss from collisions and enabling the base station to properly route and decode the un-scheduled
data payload.
Regarding Claim 2, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1, further Hedayat discloses wherein the processor being configured to determine that the condition is satisfied comprises the processor being configured to determine that: the configuration information indicates that units of a message type are to be sent in the selected low-latency resource, and the at least one control unit or data unit is of the message type (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); a priority of the at least one control unit or data unit is above a first threshold (Paragraph 0003 of Hedayat – teaches determining that the “first part may be a higher priority than the priority associated with the second part”); a remaining delay budget associated with the at least one control unit or data unit is below a second threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); or a number of control units and data units in a buffer satisfies a third threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 3, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1, further Hedayat discloses wherein the processor being configured to determine that the condition is satisfied comprises the processor being configured to determine at least one of: at least one low-latency resource is available within a first window of time (Figure 5 and paragraph 0106 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU performing resource sensing on the “first few symbols of a slot” to determine the first OFDM symbol within the slot that is “available for UL GF transmission”); no non-low-latency resources are available prior to a next low-latency resource (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); or no non-low-latency resources are available within a second window of time (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 6, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1, further Hedayat discloses wherein the processor being configured to select the low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources comprises the processor being configured to: select a temporally first low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0079, 0080 of Hedayat – teaches that the WTRU performs opportunistic resource selection by choosing to transmit its data on the “next immediately available GF resource,” which inherently constitutes selecting the temporally first available low-latency resource from the configured set of resources to lower potential delay); or randomly select the low-latency resource from the set of low-latency (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 7, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1, further Hedayat discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a mapping between a transmission time of the bit sequence and a low- latency-response window of time; determine the low-latency-response window of time based on the transmission time of the bit sequence; and monitor for a low-latency-response during the low-latency-response (Paragraphs 0086, 0087 of Hedayat – teaches that the WTRU receives a parameter via DCI or RRC that expresses the timing/mapping between a grant-free (GF) UL transmission and the expected FIARQ feedback, wherein the network specifies a time interval or range relative to the transmission time that dictates when the WTRU expects to receive and monitors for said low-latency FIARQ response).
Regarding Claim 11, Hedayat discloses a method, performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Figure 1B. steps S102, S118 of Hedayat – shows an example of a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (102) that comprises a processor (118)), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information, wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of an identifier associated with the WTRU and a set of low-latency resources (Abstract, Figure 5, and paragraph 0072 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU receiving parameters configuring a set of grant-free uplink resources (GF resources) for autonomous transmission. Paragraph 0072 specifically teaches “ A gNB may specify GF resources (e.g., via radio resource control (RRC) signaling). The GF resources may be WTRU- specific or may be WTRU-independent.” Grant-free resources function as low-latency resources by bypassing the dynamic scheduling request delay. Furthermore, regarding the indication of an identifier, paragraph 0099 of Hedayat teaches that “the sensing areas is a priori identified by gNB and/or known to one or more (e.g., all) WTRUs)” and that “The WTRU may select a sensing area from the set.”); determining that a condition is satisfied, wherein the condition is associated with low-latency resource usage (Paragraph 0003 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU assessing parameters of the data, such as determining if a “first part may be a higher priority than the priority associated with the second part,” or evaluating if back-off values are met, which constitutes determining a condition associated with the grant-free/low-latency usage is satisfied);
based on the determination that the condition is satisfied, select a low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources (Abstract and figure 5 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU selecting specific grant-free resource blocks or symbols to perform the transmission based on the priority and back-off evaluations); multiplexing, in a bit sequence (the identifier associated with the WTRU – see Yoshimoto below) and at least one control unit or data unit (Paragraphs 0107, 0108 of Hedayat – teaches performing Uplink Control Information (UCI) multiplexing during a grant-free (GF) transmission, explicitly stating that control units such as Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) and HARQ ACK/NACK information are multiplexed along a transport block (TB). This directly corresponds to multiplexing at least one control unit into a bit sequence).
Hedayat does not teach that the identifier associated with the WTRU is multiplexed directly inside that the same bit sequence (the transport block) alongside the control/data units.
However, Yoshimoto teaches:
a wireless communication system using grant-free uplink transmissions wherein a User Equipment (UE/WTRU) identifier is explicitly multiplexed into the transmitted uplink signal (the bit sequence) alongside the payload data (Paragraph 0010 of Yoshimoto – teaches an uplink data channel that includes an uplink data bit alongside a bit representing an identifier of the terminal apparatus itself). Yoshimoto teaches that embedding the identifier directly into the multiplexed uplink data sequence allows the receiving base station to successfully identify the source of the unscheduled, contention-based transmission.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission scheme of Hedayat to explicitly multiplex the WTRU identifier directly into the transport block bit sequence as taught by Yoshimoto. This modification would be to provide robust and unambiguous identification of the transmitting WTRU during contention-based uplink transmissions, thereby preventing data loss from collisions and enabling the base station to properly route and decode the un-scheduled
data payload.
Regarding Claim 12, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11, and further Hedayat discloses wherein determining that the condition is satisfied comprises determining that: the configuration information indicates that units of a message type are to be sent in the selected low-latency resource, and the at least one control unit or data unit is of the message type (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); a priority of the at least one control unit or data unit is above a first threshold (Paragraph 0003 of Hedayat – teaches determining that the “first part may be a higher priority than the priority associated with the second part”); a remaining delay budget associated with the at least one control unit or data unit is below a second threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); or a number of control units and data units in a buffer satisfies a third threshold (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 13, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11, further Hedayat discloses wherein determining that the condition is satisfied comprises determining at least one of: at least one low-latency resource is available within a first window of time (Figure 5 and paragraph 0106 of Hedayat – teaches the WTRU performing resource sensing on the “first few symbols of a slot” to determine the first OFDM symbol within the slot that is “available for UL GF transmission”); no non-low-latency resources are available prior to a next low-latency resource (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); or no non-low-latency resources are available within a second window of time (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 16, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11, further Hedayat discloses wherein selecting the low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources comprises: selecting a temporally first low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0079, 0080 of Hedayat – teaches that the WTRU performs opportunistic resource selection by choosing to transmit its data on the “next immediately available GF resource,” which inherently constitutes selecting the temporally first available low-latency resource from the configured set of resources to lower potential delay); or randomly selecting the low-latency resource from the set of low-latency resources (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 17, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11, further Hedayat discloses receiving a mapping between a transmission time of the bit sequence and a low- latency-response window of time; determining the low-latency-response window of time based on the transmission time of the bit sequence; and monitoring for a low-latency-response during the low-latency-response (Paragraphs 0086, 0087 of Hedayat – teaches that the WTRU receives a parameter via DCI or RRC that expresses the timing/mapping between a grant-free (GF) UL transmission and the expected FIARQ feedback, wherein the network specifies a time interval or range relative to the transmission time that dictates when the WTRU expects to receive and monitors for said low-latency FIARQ response).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over
Hedayat et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto, and further in view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 138.331), hereinafter 3GPP331.
Regarding Claim 4, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1. Hedayat further teaches configuring the WTRU with a set of grant-free (low latency)
resources.
Hedayat does not teach wherein the selected low-latency resource is associated with a
reference signal, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a measurement of the reference signal, and wherein the processor being configured to determine that the condition is satisfied comprises the processor being configured to determine that the measurement of the reference signal satisfies a threshold.
However, 3GPP331 teaches:
procedures for configured grant (grant-free) uplink transmissions, teaching that uplink resources (e.g., PUSCH) are explicitly associated with downlink reference signals (e.g., CSI-RS or SSB), wherein the WTRU is configured to take a measurement of said reference signal (3GPP TS 138 331 V18.4.0 page 733 of 3GPP331 – teaches “pathlossReferenceIndex indicates the reference signal index used as PUSCH pathloss reference” and configuring reference signals for measurement via means configuration). 3GPP331 further teaches that these reference signal measurements are evaluated against configured thresholds to trigger specific WTRU events and determine uplink transmission suitability (3GPP TS 138.331 V18.4.0. page 796 of 3GPP331 – teaches the parameter rsrp-ThresholdSSB, wherein the “UE may select the SS block and corresponding PRACH resource for path-loss estimation and (re)transmission based on SS blocks that satisfy the threshold”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to ensure the WTRU only transmits on the grant-free resource when it is within a proper coverage area and possesses an adequate channel state, thereby minimizing interference and transmission failures.
Regarding Claim 14, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11. Hedayat further teaches configuring the WTRU with a set of grant-free (low latency)
resources.
Hedayat does not teach wherein the selected low-latency resource is associated with a
reference signal, wherein the method further comprises determining a measurement of the reference signal, and wherein determining that the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the measurement of the reference signal satisfies a threshold.
However, 3GPP331 teaches:
procedures for configured grant (grant-free) uplink transmissions, teaching that uplink resources (e.g., PUSCH) are explicitly associated with downlink reference signals (e.g., CSI-RS or SSB), wherein the WTRU is configured to take a measurement of said reference signal (3GPP TS 138 331 V18.4.0 page 733 of 3GPP331 – teaches “pathlossReferenceIndex indicates the reference signal index used as PUSCH pathloss reference” and configuring reference signals for measurement via means configuration). 3GPP331 further teaches that these reference signal measurements are evaluated against configured thresholds to trigger specific WTRU events and determine uplink transmission suitability (3GPP TS 138.331 V18.4.0. page 796 of 3GPP331 – teaches the parameter rsrp-ThresholdSSB, wherein the “UE may select the SS block and corresponding PRACH resource for path-loss estimation and (re)transmission based on SS blocks that satisfy the threshold”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to ensure the WTRU only transmits on the grant-free resource when it is within a proper coverage area and possesses an adequate channel state, thereby minimizing interference and transmission failures.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hedayat
et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto, and further in view of Hoang et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2024/0284408), hereinafter Hoang.
Regarding Claim 5, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1.
Hedayat further teaches using low-latency configured resources for time-sensitive data (Paragraph 0071 of Hedayat – teaches that the application of “grant-free (GF) UL transmission” may be used in “ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC)” to enable devices to communicate with “very low latency” for time-sensitive applications such as “vehicular communication, industrial control, factory automation, remote surgery, smart grids, and/or public safety applications”).
Hedayat does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a threshold based on a remaining latency budget associated with the at least one control unit or data unit; and determine a time duration between availability of the at least one control unit or data unit and a slot associated with the selected low-latency resource, wherein the processor being configured to determine that the condition is satisfied comprises the processor being configured to determine that the time duration is less than the determined threshold.
However, Hoang teaches:
a WTRU evaluating timing conditions for selected resources, teaching the determination of a time duration between resource selection and the selected slot, as well as evaluating the remaining latency budget of the data (Paragraphs 0184-0186 of Hoang – teaches determining whether to “trigger resource re-evaluation” based on the “the time between the slot when it selects the resource and the slot of the first selected resource” and the “remaining delay budget of the TB,” including comparing the time duration to a threshold).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmissions scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the time-gap and delay budget evaluations taught by Hoang. This modification would allow the WTRU to derive the time-gap threshold directly from the remaining delay budget, ensuring that time-critical data units are only mapped to slots that occur soon enough to satisfy the strict Quality of Service (QoS) requirements of the packet, thereby preventing the transmission of expired data.
Regarding Claim 15, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11.
Hedayat further teaches using low-latency configured resources for time-sensitive data (Paragraph 0071 of Hedayat – teaches that the application of “grant-free (GF) UL transmission” may be used in “ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC)” to enable devices to communicate with “very low latency” for time-sensitive applications such as “vehicular communication, industrial control, factory automation, remote surgery, smart grids, and/or public safety applications”).
Hedayat does not teach wherein the method further comprises: determining a threshold based on a remaining latency budget associated with the at least one control unit or data unit; and determining a time duration between availability of the at least one control unit or data unit and a slot associated with the selected low-latency resource, wherein determining that the condition is satisfied comprises determining that the time duration is less than the determined threshold.
However, Hoang teaches:
a WTRU evaluating timing conditions for selected resources, teaching the determination of a time duration between resource selection and the selected slot, as well as evaluating the remaining latency budget of the data (Paragraphs 0184-0186 of Hoang – teaches determining whether to “trigger resource re-evaluation” based on the “the time between the slot when it selects the resource and the slot of the first selected resource” and the “remaining delay budget of the TB,” including comparing the time duration to a threshold).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmissions scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the time-gap and delay budget evaluations taught by Hoang. This modification would allow the WTRU to derive the time-gap threshold directly from the remaining delay budget, ensuring that time-critical data units are only mapped to slots that occur soon enough to satisfy the strict Quality of Service (QoS) requirements of the packet, thereby preventing the transmission of expired data.
6. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hedayat et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto, and further in view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 38.213), hereinafter 3GPP213.
Regarding Claim 8, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1. Hedayat does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: receive an
indication of a set of non-low-latency resources, wherein the set of non-low-latency resources are available prior to availability of low-latency resources; and transmit, in a non-low-latency resource in the set of non-low-latency resources, an indication that the WTRU will send the bit sequence in the selected low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP213 teaches:
physical layer procedures for control, including procedures for multiplexing and prioritizing uplink control information across different resource types. Specifically, 3GPP213 teaches that a WTRU receives configurations for standard, non-low-latency resources (e.g., standard Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resources) that occur prior to configured low-latency resources (e.g., URLLC Configured Grants) and transmits an indication such as a Scheduling Request (SR) in the non-low-latency resource. 3GPP213 details prioritization procedures (e.g., Section 9.2.5.0) involving Scheduling Requests (SR) transmitted via PUCCH and evaluates these transmissions against specific low-latency thresholds, such as sl-PriorityThreshold-UL-URLLC. This demonstrates the transmission of an indication (SR) on a standard control resource to signal intent regarding time-critical (URLLC/low-latency) transmissions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the prior indication and resource mapping scheme as taught by 3GPP213. This modification would be done to efficiently signal the WTRU’s intent to use upcoming low-latency resources without requiring heavy signaling overhead, thereby allowing the base station to preempt other conflicting traffic on the channel and prepare its receivers for fast decoding, ultimately ensuring the strict reliability and latency requirements of the data are successfully met.
Regarding Claim 18, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of
claim 11. Hedayat does not teach receiving an indication of a set of non-low-latency resources,
wherein the set of non-low-latency resources are available prior to availability of low-latency resources; and transmitting, in a non-low-latency resource in the set of non-low-latency resources, an indication that the WTRU will send the bit sequence in the selected low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP213 teaches:
physical layer procedures for control, including procedures for multiplexing and prioritizing uplink control information across different resource types. Specifically, 3GPP213 teaches that a WTRU receives configurations for standard, non-low-latency resources (e.g., standard Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resources) that occur prior to configured low-latency resources (e.g., URLLC Configured Grants) and transmits an indication such as a Scheduling Request (SR) in the non-low-latency resource. 3GPP213 details prioritization procedures (e.g., Section 9.2.5.0) involving Scheduling Requests (SR) transmitted via PUCCH and evaluates these transmissions against specific low-latency thresholds, such as sl-PriorityThreshold-UL-URLLC. This demonstrates the transmission of an indication (SR) on a standard control resource to signal intent regarding time-critical (URLLC/low-latency) transmissions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission method of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the prior indication and resource mapping method as taught by 3GPP213. This modification would be done to efficiently signal the WTRU’s intent to use upcoming low-latency resources without requiring heavy signaling overhead, thereby allowing the base station to preempt other conflicting traffic on the channel and prepare its receivers for fast decoding, ultimately ensuring the strict reliability and latency requirements of the data are successfully met.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over
Hedayat et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto, and further in view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 138.331), hereinafter 3GPP331, and in further view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 38.321), hereinafter 3GPP321.
Regarding Claim 9, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1. Hedayat does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a
mapping between the set of low-latency resources and a set of non-low-latency resources; determine, based on the mapping, a non-low-latency resource associated with the selected low- latency resource; and send a transmission in the non-low-latency resource, wherein the transmission in the non-low- latency resource implicitly indicates that the WTRU will send the bit sequence in the selected low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP331 teaches:
physical layer procedures for control, including mapping and prioritizing uplink control information. 3GPP331 teaches that a WTRU receives configurations that map specific Scheduling Request (SR) resources on a standard, non-low-latency channel (e.g., specific PUCCH resource IDs) to specific traffic priorities or low-latency resources (3GPP TS 138.331 page 1062 of 3GPP331 – teaches the SchedulingRequestresourceConfig Information Element configuring a WTRU to map a specific SchedulingRequestID to a specificPUCCH-ResourceID; and 3GPP TS 38.321, Section 5.4.4 of 3GPP321 – teaches that an SR is triggered for a specific logical channel, instructing the physical layer to signal the SR on the specific valid PUCCH resource mapped to the configured SR ID). By uniquely mapping the SR resource on the non-low-latency channel to the low-latency resource, transmitting the SR inherently and implicitly indicates to the network that the WTRU intends to transmit time-critical data in the associated low-latency resource.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the resource mapping and implicit indication scheme taught by 3GPP321. This modification would efficiently signal the WTRU’s intent to use upcoming low-latency resources without incurring heavy signaling overhead. Furthermore, providing this implicit indication allows the base station to proactively preempt other conflicting traffic on the shared channel and prepare its receivers for fast decoding, ultimately ensuring that the strict reliability and latency requirements of the time-sensitive data consistent with the teachings of Heyadat are successfully met.
Regarding Claim 19, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 11. Hedayat does not teach wherein the method further comprises: receiving a mapping
between the set of low-latency resources and a set of non-low-latency resources; determining, based on the mapping, a non-low-latency resource associated with the selected low- latency resource; and sending a transmission in the non-low-latency resource, wherein the transmission in the non-low- latency resource implicitly indicates that the WTRU will send the bit sequence in the selected low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP331 teaches:
physical layer procedures for control, including mapping and prioritizing uplink control information. 3GPP331 teaches that a WTRU receives configurations that map specific Scheduling Request (SR) resources on a standard, non-low-latency channel (e.g., specific PUCCH resource IDs) to specific traffic priorities or low-latency resources (3GPP TS 138.331 page 1062 of 3GPP331 – teaches the SchedulingRequestresourceConfig Information Element configuring a WTRU to map a specific SchedulingRequestID to a specificPUCCH-ResourceID; and 3GPP TS 38.321, Section 5.4.4 of 3GPP321 – teaches that an SR is triggered for a specific logical channel, instructing the physical layer to signal the SR on the specific valid PUCCH resource mapped to the configured SR ID). By uniquely mapping the SR resource on the non-low-latency channel to the low-latency resource, transmitting the SR inherently and implicitly indicates to the network that the WTRU intends to transmit time-critical data in the associated low-latency resource.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grant-free transmission scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the resource mapping and implicit indication scheme taught by 3GPP321. This modification would efficiently signal the WTRU’s intent to use upcoming low-latency resources without incurring heavy signaling overhead. Furthermore, providing this implicit indication allows the base station to proactively preempt other conflicting traffic on the shared channel and prepare its receivers for fast decoding, ultimately ensuring that the strict reliability and latency requirements of the time-sensitive data consistent with the teachings of Heyadat are successfully met.
8. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hedayat et al (World Intellectual Property Organization WO 2019/099631), hereinafter Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0229843), hereinafter Yoshimoto, and further in view of 3GPP (3GPP TS 38.214), hereinafter 3GPP214.
Regarding Claim 10, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the WTRU of claim 1, including the selected low-latency resource is a first low-latency resource, the at least one control unit or data unit is a first at least one control unit or data unit.
Heyadat does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a time duration between availability of a second at least one control unit or data unit and a slot associated with a second low-latency resource; and based on a determination that the time duration is less than a threshold, send the second at least one control unit or data unit in a non-low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP214 teaches:
physical layer procedures for data, including mandatory device processing timelines and minimum preparation times for uplink transmissions. Specifically, TS 38.214 Section 6.4 of 3GPP214 teaches determining a time duration between when data or an uplink scheduling grant becomes available and the start of the scheduled uplink slot. 3GPP214 further establishes a minimum preparation time threshold based on the device’s hardware processing capabilities. 3GPP214 states that if the scheduled slot occurs before this minimum preparation threshold is met (i.e., the time duration is less than the threshold), the device cannot physically process the data fast enough and is permitted to ignore the scheduling allocation. Skipping this immediate low-latency resource forces the WTRU to use a subsequently available resource, which in a mixed-traffic configuration (as taught by Hedayat) includes available non-low-latency resources.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission and resource selection scheme of Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the preparation time threshold determinations as taught by 3GPP214. This modification accounts for the physical hardware processing limitations of the device, ensuring that it does not attempt to use transmission slots that occur before the data can be successfully prepared, thereby avoiding transmission failures and efficiently managing uplink traffic across available low-latency and non-low-latency resources.
Regarding Claim 20, Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto discloses the method of claim 11,
including the selected low-latency resource is a first low-latency resource, the at least one control unit or data unit is a first at least one control unit or data unit.
Heyadat does not teach wherein the method further comprises: determining a time duration between availability of a second at least one control unit or data unit and a slot associated with a second low-latency resource; and based on a determination that the time duration is less than a threshold, sending the second at least one control unit or data unit in a non-low-latency resource.
However, 3GPP214 teaches:
physical layer procedures for data, including mandatory device processing timelines and minimum preparation times for uplink transmissions. Specifically, TS 38.214 Section 6.4 of 3GPP214 teaches determining a time duration between when data or an uplink scheduling grant becomes available and the start of the scheduled uplink slot. 3GPP214 further establishes a minimum preparation time threshold based on the device’s hardware processing capabilities. 3GPP214 states that if the scheduled slot occurs before this minimum preparation threshold is met (i.e., the time duration is less than the threshold), the device cannot physically process the data fast enough and is permitted to ignore the scheduling allocation. Skipping this immediate low-latency resource forces the WTRU to use a subsequently available resource, which in a mixed-traffic configuration (as taught by Hedayat) includes available non-low-latency resources.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission and resource selection method of
Hedayat in view of Yoshimoto to include the preparation time threshold determinations as taught by 3GPP214. This modification accounts for the physical hardware processing limitations of the device, ensuring that it does not attempt to use transmission slots that occur before the data can be successfully prepared, thereby avoiding transmission failures and efficiently managing uplink traffic across available low-latency and non-low-latency resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Au et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0219627) discloses a system and method which includes implementing, by a base station (BS), a reliable ultra-low latency transmission mechanism in a grant-free uplink transmission scheme.
He et al (World Intellectual Property Organization 2017/136079) discloses technologies that provide mechanisms and formats to accomplish low latency in wireless communication system.
Fan et al, “An Overview of Low latency for Wireless Communications: an Evolutionary Perspective” discloses an evolutionary overview of low latency in mobile communication systems, including two different evolutionary perspectives: 1) network architecture; 2) physical layer air interface technologies.
Eisen et al, “Control Aware Radio Resource Allocation in Low Latency Wireless Control Systems” discloses a novel control-communication co-design approach to the low-latency resource allocation problem.
Dogra et al, “Intelligent routing for enabling haptic communication in 6G Network” discloses an efficient technique for optimal resource allocation and delay minimization in NG networks.
Behera et al, "An Efficient Low-Latency Algorithm and Implementation for Rate-Matching and Bit-Interleaving in 5G NR" discloses the latency aspects while processing the large Transport Blocks corresponding to the maximum downlink (DL) throughput.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ALBERT WESTBROOKS II whose telephone number is (571)270-7711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-7711. 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.
/DENNIS ALBERT WESTBROOKS II/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
