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 § 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 16-18 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2021/0119745, hereinafter Li), in view of Kwak et al (US 2021/0184824, hereinafter Kwak, claiming priority date of provisional application 62/948,941) and in view of Lee et al (US 2020/0404690, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a scheduling entity (network device, Fig. 14) in a wireless communication network, comprising: one or more memories (memory, Para [0293]); and one or more processors (processor, Para [0293]) communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, wherein the processor and the memory are configured to: communicate with a scheduled entity to configure an active anchor bandwidth part (BWP) of a plurality of BWPs of a carrier bandwidth for the scheduled entity (plurality of BWPs can be configured for the UE, Para [0164], BS activates one of the plurality of BWPs, Para [0164]); communicate with a scheduled entity to configure the complementary BWP as a new active anchor and configured the active anchor BWP as a new complementary BWP in response to the scheduled entity activating the complementary BWP and deactivating the active anchor bandwidth part (first and second BWP can be considered sub-band bandwidths, Para [0134], the BWPS are uplink BWPs, Para [0193], the first BWP is a smaller bandwidth than the second BWP, Para [0157]/Fig. 3, UE receives a message in the active BWP that the new BWP is a second BWP, Para [0026], where UE deactivates old BWP and activates the new BWP, Para [0164], there is a need to quickly switch from eMBB service in BWP 1 to URRLC service in BWP 2, Para [0169]); complementary BWP selected by the scheduled entity based on slot format (the selection is performed by the scheduled entity and is not a limitation on the scheduling entity); but does not explicitly disclose the active BWP is configured to be in a first full-duplex (FD) slot. Kwak discloses a first DL BWP and first UL BWP for paired spectrum, e.g. FDD (i.e. full duplex) and the UE can switch UL BWP after BWP switch-delay, Para [0277], the BWP switch-delay is at least 1 slot, Para [0281], therefore the switch to second BWP will be in a different slot than the active BWP. Also see Para [0205, 285, 289] from the provisional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Kwak in the system of Li in order to switch BWPs without increasing signaling overhead.
Regarding claims 17 and 26, Li discloses the method/entity of claim 16/25, wherein the second BWP has at least a partially overlapping bandwidth with the activated BWP (first and second BWP can overlap, Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Li discloses the method/entity of claim 16/25, wherein the second BWP comprises a different sub-carrier spacing from the activated BWP (one BWP can have SCS of 15 kHz and another BWP can have SCS of 30 kHz, Para [0138]).
Regarding claim 25, Li discloses a method of full duplex communication in a scheduling entity, comprising: communicate with a scheduled entity to configure an active anchor bandwidth part (BWP) of a plurality of BWPs of a carrier bandwidth for the scheduled entity (plurality of BWPs can be configured for the UE, Para [0164], BS activates one of the plurality of BWPs, Para [0164]); communicate with a scheduled entity to configure the complementary BWP as a new active anchor and configured the active anchor BWP as a new complementary BWP in response to the scheduled entity activating the complementary BWP and deactivating the active anchor bandwidth part (first and second BWP can be considered sub-band bandwidths, Para [0134], the BWPS are uplink BWPs, Para [0193], the first BWP is a smaller bandwidth than the second BWP, Para [0157]/Fig. 3, UE receives a message in the active BWP that the new BWP is a second BWP, Para [0026], where UE deactivates old BWP and activates the new BWP, Para [0164], there is a need to quickly switch from eMBB service in BWP 1 to URRLC service in BWP 2, Para [0169]); complementary BWP selected by the scheduled entity based on slot format (the selection is performed by the scheduled entity and is not a limitation on the scheduling entity); but does not explicitly disclose the active BWP is configured to be in a first full-duplex (FD) slot and the second BWP is configured to be in a second FD slot. Kwak discloses a first DL BWP and first UL BWP for paired spectrum, e.g. FDD (i.e. full duplex) and the UE can switch UL BWP after BWP switch-delay, Para [0277], the BWP switch-delay is at least 1 slot, Para [0281], therefore the switch to second BWP will be in a different slot than the active BWP. Also see Para [0205, 285, 289] from the provisional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Kwak in the system of Li in order to switch BWPs without increasing signaling overhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant amends the limitations in the claim and argues the references do not disclose the limitations in the claim. Applicant argues over claim 1 and states claims 10, 16 and 25 has been amended analogously to claim 1. In response, claim 1 and 10 have different limitations than claim 16 and 25. For example, claim 1 and 10, have an extra limitation where the first UL band is smaller than the second UL band, and other different limitations. The claims are not the same. Further claims 16 and 25 are apparatus and method performed by the scheduling entity and not the UE/scheduled entity. The complementary BWP being selected by the scheduled entity based on slot format is not a limitation on the scheduling entity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:30-18:00 (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached on (571) 272-3155. The fax 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.
/KEVIN M CUNNINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461