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 .
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-12, 27-28, 31-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar US 20210152418 in view of HOSSEINI WO 2022103540
1. A network node for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Abdelghaffar: fig. 12, unit 1235); and
one or [[more]] processors, coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured (Abdelghaffar: fig. 12, unit 1240) to cause the network node to:
identify whether a first downlink channel or downlink reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in a full-duplex configuration, with a second uplink channel or uplink reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0192-0193, 0279] identify one or more RF spectrum bands for full-duplex communications, the full-duplex communications being associated with uplink resources that overlap in time with downlink resources) based at least in part on:
a first channel type or reference signal type of the first downlink channel or downlink reference signal, and a second channel type or reference signal type of the second uplink channel or uplink reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0006, 0016] - the one or more types of full-duplex communications includes at least a first type associated with uplink resources that at least partially overlap in time and frequency with downlink resources or a second type associated with the uplink resources overlapping in time with the downlink resources); and
schedule a communication of a user equipment (UE) based at least in part on whether the first downlink channel or downlink reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or uplink reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0186] the base station 105-a schedule full-duplex communication between the UE 115-a and the base station 105-a over the one or more RF spectrum bands over which the UE 115-a is capable of performing full-duplex communications).
Abdelghaffar merely discloses the term “more processors”
HOSSEINI further teaches more processors (HOSSEINI: [0116] a plurality of microprocessors)
HOSSEINI further teaches identify whether a first downlink channel or downlink reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in a full-duplex configuration, with a second uplink channel or uplink reference signal (HOSSEINI: fig, 3a-3c [0078, 0050-0052] determine whether to configure a certain slot to be a DL slot, an UL slot, or a full-duplex slot, for example, depending on traffic needs in the UL direction and in the DL direction).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Kalkunte’s invention in order dynamically switch between UL and downlink to meet the current traffic needs, as taught by HOSSEINI.
2. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to identify whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal, are configured to receive, from the UE, signaling indicating whether the first downlink channel or reference
signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
3. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein identifying whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal is based at least in part on a prioritization rule or a legacy rule (Abdelghaffar: [0293, 0347] – predetermined; HOSSEINI: traffic priority).
4. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to identify whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal, are configured to identify whether channels or signals of the first channel type or reference signal type are permitted to overlap in time with channels or signals of the second channel type or reference signal type (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
5. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein identifying whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal is based at least in part on the first downlink channel or reference signal and the second uplink channel or reference signal being associated with a beam pair (Abdelghaffar: fig. 6, units 620-625 [0226-0227]).
6. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to identify whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal, are configured to transmit an indication of whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
7. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the first downlink channel or reference signal overlaps, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal at the network node based at least in part on the network node being a full- duplex network node (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
8. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the first downlink channel or reference signal overlaps, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal at the UE based at least in part on the UE being a full-duplex UE (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
9. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the first channel type or reference signal type comprises at least one of:
a synchronization signal block (SSB) type,
a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) type,
a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) type,
a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) type, or
a positioning reference signal (PRS) type (Abdelghaffar: [0141, 0170, 0172], fig. 4, unit 410, 420 [0212]).
10. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the second channel type or reference signal type comprises at least one of:
a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) type,
a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) type,
a physical random access channel (PRACH) type,
a sounding reference signal (SRS) type, or
an uplink positioning reference signal (PRS) type (Abdelghaffar: fig. 4, unit 405, 415 [0212]).
11. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein identifying whether the first downlink channel or reference signal is permitted to overlap in time, in the full-duplex configuration, with the second uplink channel or reference signal is based at least in part on a use case of the first downlink channel or reference signal or on a use case the second uplink channel or reference signal (Abdelghaffar: [0016, 0068, 0177, 0198, 0192-0193, 0279]).
12. (Original) The network node of claim 1, wherein the full-duplex configuration comprises at least one of:
a sub-band full-duplex configuration,
a partially overlapped full-duplex configuration, or
a fully overlapped full-duplex configuration (Abdelghaffar: [0005]).
Regarding claims 27-28, 31-44 the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-12, where the difference used is a “UE” with a processor and a memory (Abdelghaffar: fig. 12, unit 1200 includes a processor unit 1240, a memory 1235) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 27-28, 31-44 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Remark(s):
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff 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. 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.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights