DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 17/995,683 filed on October 6th, 2022.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 01/15/2026, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 1 – 48 are pending.
Claims 1 – 48 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination, filed on 01/15/2026, under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11 – 13 of the Remarks, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37, and dependent claims 2 – 12, 14 – 24, 26 – 36, and 38 – 48, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 09/15/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nam et al. [US 20190150118 A1] and further in view of Burke et al. [US 20210136696 A1]. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-22, 24-25, 27, 29-34, 36-37, 39, 41-46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. [US 20190150118 A1] hereinafter Nam, and further in view of Burke et al. [US 20210136696A1] (with a provisional priority date of November 2, 2019) hereinafter Burke.
Regarding claim 1, Nam teaches a method of operating a wireless node (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120), comprising:
determining, within a slot (Nam: Fig. 9 – 11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)), an allocation of first and second virtual resource block (VRB) groups to physical resource blocks (PRBs) (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)) based upon one or more VRB- to-PRB mapping rules (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-84, ¶ 94-104; in view of techniques of mapping VRBs to PRBs based on interleaving are provided. In provided techniques, a one-to-one mapping from VRBs to PRBs is determined by an interleaver); and
communicating data in accordance with the allocation (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the UE communicating with the BS via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit… UE 120 communicates with BS 110a by receiving a PDSCH from BS 110a via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit).
Nam teaches that (NAM: ¶ 51 – 52; Certain wireless networks (e.g., LTE) utilize orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) on the downlink and single-carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) on the uplink. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the system bandwidth into multiple (K) orthogonal subcarriers… The spacing between adjacent subcarriers may be fixed, and the total number of subcarriers (K) may be dependent on the system bandwidth… The system bandwidth may also be partitioned into subbands. For example, a subband may cover 1.08 MHz (e.g., 6 resource blocks), and there may be 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 subbands for system bandwidth of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 MHz, respectively… aspects of the present disclosure may be applicable with other wireless communications systems, such as NR. NR may utilize OFDM with a CP on the uplink and downlink ... A single component carrier bandwidth of 100 MHz may be supported. NR resource blocks may span 12 sub-carriers with a sub-carrier bandwidth of 75 kHz over a 0.1 ms duration… Each subframe may indicate a link direction (e.g., DL or UL) for data transmission and the link direction for each subframe may be dynamically switched. Each subframe may include DL/UL data as well as DL/UL control data). However, Nam does not explicitly disclose that the determining is within a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot, or that the allocation of VRBs to PRBs is across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments.
Referring to the invention of Burke, Burke teaches sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 24-30, ¶ 56; wherein a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) mode is proposed in which the second and third slots are SBFD slots modified to support frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink and downlink transmissions… The second and third slots (SLOT 2 and SLOT 3) are SBFD slots… Note that neither the UL nor the DL in the SBFD slots may occupy the entire frequency resource range (the frequency band) for these slots. Instead, the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band), and that resource blocks can be across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments (Burke: ¶ 24, ¶ 56; wherein the division of the frequency band for an SBFD slot may result in contiguous or non-contiguous sub-bands. For example, the DL lower sub-band is non-contiguous with the DL upper sub-band. But in other implementations, the DL sub-band may be analogous to just the DL lower sub-band or the DL upper sub-band in that the slot frequency band is divided into a first contiguous sub-band for the DL and a second contiguous sub-band for the UL. Therefore, the non-contiguous downlink subbands (i.e., bandwidth parts (BWP), separated by the uplink subband/ guard band are disjoint BWPs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-contiguous DL sub-bands teachings of Burke into the VRB to PRB teachings of Nam in order to enable higher spectral efficiency, flexible and interference-aware scheduling, QoS-driven resource allocation, and compatibility with both current and future NR deployments, all while leveraging SBFD’s unique ability to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same carrier.
Regarding claim 3, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment with interleaving, and mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment with interleaving that is independent relative to the interleaving associated with the first disjoint BWP segment (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be specific to a device and/or a bandwidth part (BWP)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP, while the allocating device (e.g., a BS) uses a different interleaver and interleaving unit for other BWPs).
Regarding claim 5, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise merging the first and second VRB groups, and then mapping the merged VRB group to the first and second disjoint BWP parts with interleaving (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89, ¶ 109; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein a grant may allocate a plurality of the interleaving units (e.g., for a PDSCH from a UE). Therefore, when taking into consideration the 2 disjoint sub-band segments of Burke, the proposed modification would consolidate two related DL resource groups into a common allocation/interleaving operation, reducing the need to treat the two SBFD DL regions as unrelated allocations).
Regarding claim 6, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise jointly interleaving the first and second VRBs across the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP. Therefore, when taking into consideration the disjoint sub-band segments of Burke wherein the intervening UL region is not intended to receive DL data, a common interleaving operation across two separated DL resource regions is a natural extension of Nam’s objective of distributing VRB resources in frequency).
Regarding claim 7, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the allocation of the first and second PRBs is across the first and second disjoint BWP segments only such that an intervening BWP segment is bypassed ((Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band …and the DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band … and wherein DL UE 205 may use adaptive filtering (either high-pass, low-pass, or complex filtering) to reject the interference from UL UE 210. For example, rather than transmit in a central sub-band, each UL UE 210 may be configured to utilize the lower half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot. Base station 200 would then use the upper half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot for the DL symbols) and also (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 97 – 99; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP). Therefore, the intervening central UL sub-band is occupied by UL transmission. Applying the Nam mapping to the SBFD DL allocation while excluding the intervening UL region prevents the DL VRB mapping from consuming resources intended for UL).
Regarding claim 8, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the allocation of the first and second VRBs is across PRBs that overlap with an intervening BWP segment between the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 117 – 118; wherein some resources in PRBs may be reserved for some other purposes…The reserved resources may be semi-statically and/or dynamically indicated to UEs for rate matching. Since data resources (i.e., resources for PDSCH or PUSCH) are allocated in VRBs, the reserved resources in PRBs should be translated (e.g., de-interleaved) to VRBs for rate matching…allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and… perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping. Therefore, since Nam teaches that the PRB resources reserved for other purposes (e.g., PUSCH resources) must be translated into the VRB domain and handled during the data mapping/rate matching, thus, the VRB allocation can be according to the Nam teachings above, while the mapping should account for the intervening UL/guard-band region resources identified by Burke).
Regarding claim 9, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 8,
wherein the first and second disjoint BWP segments comprise downlink (DL) data (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band.... The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band),
wherein the intervening BWP segment comprises a guard band (GB), uplink (UL) data, or a combination thereof (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 10, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 9,
wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP segment (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 12, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a wireless network component, or
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a user equipment (UE) (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120).
Regarding claim 13, Nam teaches a wireless node (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120), comprising:
means for determining, within a slot (Nam: Fig. 9 – 11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)), an allocation of first and second virtual resource block (VRB) groups to physical resource blocks (PRBs) (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)) based upon one or more VRB- to-PRB mapping rules (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-84, ¶ 94-104; in view of techniques of mapping VRBs to PRBs based on interleaving are provided. In provided techniques, a one-to-one mapping from VRBs to PRBs is determined by an interleaver); and
means for communicating data in accordance with the allocation (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the UE communicating with the BS via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit… UE 120 communicates with BS 110a by receiving a PDSCH from BS 110a via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit).
Nam teaches that (NAM: ¶ 51 – 52; Certain wireless networks (e.g., LTE) utilize orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) on the downlink and single-carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) on the uplink. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the system bandwidth into multiple (K) orthogonal subcarriers… The spacing between adjacent subcarriers may be fixed, and the total number of subcarriers (K) may be dependent on the system bandwidth… The system bandwidth may also be partitioned into subbands. For example, a subband may cover 1.08 MHz (e.g., 6 resource blocks), and there may be 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 subbands for system bandwidth of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 MHz, respectively… aspects of the present disclosure may be applicable with other wireless communications systems, such as NR. NR may utilize OFDM with a CP on the uplink and downlink ... A single component carrier bandwidth of 100 MHz may be supported. NR resource blocks may span 12 sub-carriers with a sub-carrier bandwidth of 75 kHz over a 0.1 ms duration… Each subframe may indicate a link direction (e.g., DL or UL) for data transmission and the link direction for each subframe may be dynamically switched. Each subframe may include DL/UL data as well as DL/UL control data). However, Nam does not explicitly disclose that the determining is within a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot, or that the allocation of VRBs to PRBs is across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments.
Referring to the invention of Burke, Burke teaches sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 24-30, ¶ 56; wherein a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) mode is proposed in which the second and third slots are SBFD slots modified to support frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink and downlink transmissions… The second and third slots (SLOT 2 and SLOT 3) are SBFD slots… Note that neither the UL nor the DL in the SBFD slots may occupy the entire frequency resource range (the frequency band) for these slots. Instead, the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band), and that resource blocks can be across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments (Burke: ¶ 24, ¶ 56; wherein the division of the frequency band for an SBFD slot may result in contiguous or non-contiguous sub-bands. For example, the DL lower sub-band is non-contiguous with the DL upper sub-band. But in other implementations, the DL sub-band may be analogous to just the DL lower sub-band or the DL upper sub-band in that the slot frequency band is divided into a first contiguous sub-band for the DL and a second contiguous sub-band for the UL. Therefore, the non-contiguous downlink subbands (i.e., bandwidth parts (BWP), separated by the uplink subband/ guard band are disjoint BWPs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-contiguous DL sub-bands teachings of Burke into the VRB to PRB teachings of Nam in order to enable higher spectral efficiency, flexible and interference-aware scheduling, QoS-driven resource allocation, and compatibility with both current and future NR deployments, all while leveraging SBFD’s unique ability to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same carrier.
Regarding claim 15, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment with interleaving, and mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment with interleaving that is independent relative to the interleaving associated with the first disjoint BWP segment (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be specific to a device and/or a bandwidth part (BWP)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP, while the allocating device (e.g., a BS) uses a different interleaver and interleaving unit for other BWPs).
Regarding claim 17, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise merging the first and second VRB groups, and then mapping the merged VRB group to the first and second disjoint BWP parts with interleaving (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89, ¶ 109; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein a grant may allocate a plurality of the interleaving units (e.g., for a PDSCH from a UE). Therefore, when taking into consideration the 2 disjoint sub-band segments of Burke, the proposed modification would consolidate two related DL resource groups into a common allocation/interleaving operation, reducing the need to treat the two SBFD DL regions as unrelated allocations).
Regarding claim 18, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise jointly interleaving the first and second VRBs across the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP. Therefore, when taking into consideration the disjoint sub-band segments of Burke wherein the intervening UL region is not intended to receive DL data, a common interleaving operation across two separated DL resource regions is a natural extension of Nam’s objective of distributing VRB resources in frequency).
Regarding claim 19, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 18, wherein the allocation of the first and second PRBs is across the first and second disjoint BWP segments only such that an intervening BWP segment is bypassed ((Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band …and the DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band … and wherein DL UE 205 may use adaptive filtering (either high-pass, low-pass, or complex filtering) to reject the interference from UL UE 210. For example, rather than transmit in a central sub-band, each UL UE 210 may be configured to utilize the lower half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot. Base station 200 would then use the upper half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot for the DL symbols) and also (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 97 – 99; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP). Therefore, the intervening central UL sub-band is occupied by UL transmission. Applying the Nam mapping to the SBFD DL allocation while excluding the intervening UL region prevents the DL VRB mapping from consuming resources intended for UL).
Regarding claim 20, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 18, wherein the allocation of the first and second VRBs is across PRBs that overlap with an intervening BWP segment between the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 117 – 118; wherein some resources in PRBs may be reserved for some other purposes…The reserved resources may be semi-statically and/or dynamically indicated to UEs for rate matching. Since data resources (i.e., resources for PDSCH or PUSCH) are allocated in VRBs, the reserved resources in PRBs should be translated (e.g., de-interleaved) to VRBs for rate matching…allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and… perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping. Therefore, since Nam teaches that the PRB resources reserved for other purposes (e.g., PUSCH resources) must be translated into the VRB domain and handled during the data mapping/rate matching, thus, the VRB allocation can be according to the Nam teachings above, while the mapping should account for the intervening UL/guard-band region resources identified by Burke).
Regarding claim 21, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 20,
wherein the first and second disjoint BWP segments comprise downlink (DL) data (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band.... The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band),
wherein the intervening BWP segment comprises a guard band (GB), uplink (UL) data, or a combination thereof (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 22, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 21,
wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP segment (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 24, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13,
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a wireless network component, or
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a user equipment (UE) (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120).
Regarding claim 25, Nam teaches a wireless node (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120), comprising:
a memory (Nam: Fig. 4, ¶ 66-70; in view of memory 442 and 482); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Nam: Fig. 4, ¶ 66-70; in view of processors 440 and 480 coupled to memories 442 and 482 respectively) and configured to:
determine, within a slot (Nam: Fig. 9 – 11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)), an allocation of first and second virtual resource block (VRB) groups to physical resource blocks (PRBs) (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)) based upon one or more VRB- to-PRB mapping rules (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-84, ¶ 94-104; in view of techniques of mapping VRBs to PRBs based on interleaving are provided. In provided techniques, a one-to-one mapping from VRBs to PRBs is determined by an interleaver); and
communicate data in accordance with the allocation (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the UE communicating with the BS via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit… UE 120 communicates with BS 110a by receiving a PDSCH from BS 110a via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit).
Nam teaches that (NAM: ¶ 51 – 52; Certain wireless networks (e.g., LTE) utilize orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) on the downlink and single-carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) on the uplink. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the system bandwidth into multiple (K) orthogonal subcarriers… The spacing between adjacent subcarriers may be fixed, and the total number of subcarriers (K) may be dependent on the system bandwidth… The system bandwidth may also be partitioned into subbands. For example, a subband may cover 1.08 MHz (e.g., 6 resource blocks), and there may be 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 subbands for system bandwidth of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 MHz, respectively… aspects of the present disclosure may be applicable with other wireless communications systems, such as NR. NR may utilize OFDM with a CP on the uplink and downlink ... A single component carrier bandwidth of 100 MHz may be supported. NR resource blocks may span 12 sub-carriers with a sub-carrier bandwidth of 75 kHz over a 0.1 ms duration… Each subframe may indicate a link direction (e.g., DL or UL) for data transmission and the link direction for each subframe may be dynamically switched. Each subframe may include DL/UL data as well as DL/UL control data). However, Nam does not explicitly disclose that the determining is within a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot, or that the allocation of VRBs to PRBs is across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments.
Referring to the invention of Burke, Burke teaches sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 24-30, ¶ 56; wherein a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) mode is proposed in which the second and third slots are SBFD slots modified to support frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink and downlink transmissions… The second and third slots (SLOT 2 and SLOT 3) are SBFD slots… Note that neither the UL nor the DL in the SBFD slots may occupy the entire frequency resource range (the frequency band) for these slots. Instead, the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band), and that resource blocks can be across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments (Burke: ¶ 24, ¶ 56; wherein the division of the frequency band for an SBFD slot may result in contiguous or non-contiguous sub-bands. For example, the DL lower sub-band is non-contiguous with the DL upper sub-band. But in other implementations, the DL sub-band may be analogous to just the DL lower sub-band or the DL upper sub-band in that the slot frequency band is divided into a first contiguous sub-band for the DL and a second contiguous sub-band for the UL. Therefore, the non-contiguous downlink subbands (i.e., bandwidth parts (BWP), separated by the uplink subband/ guard band are disjoint BWPs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-contiguous DL sub-bands teachings of Burke into the VRB to PRB teachings of Nam in order to enable higher spectral efficiency, flexible and interference-aware scheduling, QoS-driven resource allocation, and compatibility with both current and future NR deployments, all while leveraging SBFD’s unique ability to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same carrier.
Regarding claim 27, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment with interleaving, and mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment with interleaving that is independent relative to the interleaving associated with the first disjoint BWP segment (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be specific to a device and/or a bandwidth part (BWP)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP, while the allocating device (e.g., a BS) uses a different interleaver and interleaving unit for other BWPs).
Regarding claim 29, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise merging the first and second VRB groups, and then mapping the merged VRB group to the first and second disjoint BWP parts with interleaving (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89, ¶ 109; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein a grant may allocate a plurality of the interleaving units (e.g., for a PDSCH from a UE). Therefore, when taking into consideration the 2 disjoint sub-band segments of Burke, the proposed modification would consolidate two related DL resource groups into a common allocation/interleaving operation, reducing the need to treat the two SBFD DL regions as unrelated allocations).
Regarding claim 30, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise jointly interleaving the first and second VRBs across the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP. Therefore, when taking into consideration the disjoint sub-band segments of Burke wherein the intervening UL region is not intended to receive DL data, a common interleaving operation across two separated DL resource regions is a natural extension of Nam’s objective of distributing VRB resources in frequency).
Regarding claim 31, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 30, wherein the allocation of the first and second PRBs is across the first and second disjoint BWP segments only such that an intervening BWP segment is bypassed ((Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band …and the DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band … and wherein DL UE 205 may use adaptive filtering (either high-pass, low-pass, or complex filtering) to reject the interference from UL UE 210. For example, rather than transmit in a central sub-band, each UL UE 210 may be configured to utilize the lower half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot. Base station 200 would then use the upper half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot for the DL symbols) and also (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 97 – 99; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP). Therefore, the intervening central UL sub-band is occupied by UL transmission. Applying the Nam mapping to the SBFD DL allocation while excluding the intervening UL region prevents the DL VRB mapping from consuming resources intended for UL).
Regarding claim 32, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 30, wherein the allocation of the first and second VRBs is across PRBs that overlap with an intervening BWP segment between the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 117 – 118; wherein some resources in PRBs may be reserved for some other purposes…The reserved resources may be semi-statically and/or dynamically indicated to UEs for rate matching. Since data resources (i.e., resources for PDSCH or PUSCH) are allocated in VRBs, the reserved resources in PRBs should be translated (e.g., de-interleaved) to VRBs for rate matching…allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and… perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping. Therefore, since Nam teaches that the PRB resources reserved for other purposes (e.g., PUSCH resources) must be translated into the VRB domain and handled during the data mapping/rate matching, thus, the VRB allocation can be according to the Nam teachings above, while the mapping should account for the intervening UL/guard-band region resources identified by Burke).
Regarding claim 33, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 32,
wherein the first and second disjoint BWP segments comprise downlink (DL) data (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band.... The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band),
wherein the intervening BWP segment comprises a guard band (GB), uplink (UL) data, or a combination thereof (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 34, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 33,
wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP segment (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 36, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25,
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a wireless network component, or
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a user equipment (UE) (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120).
Regarding claim 37, Nam teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Nam: Fig. 4, ¶ 66-70, ¶ 129; in view of non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., tangible media) memories 442 and 482memory 745) containing instructions stored thereon, for causing at least one processor (Nam: Fig. 4, ¶ 66-70; in view of Processor 440 and 480) in a wireless node (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120) to :
determine, within a slot (Nam: Fig. 9 – 11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)), an allocation of first and second virtual resource block (VRB) groups to physical resource blocks (PRBs) (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe)… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)) based upon one or more VRB- to-PRB mapping rules (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-84, ¶ 94-104; in view of techniques of mapping VRBs to PRBs based on interleaving are provided. In provided techniques, a one-to-one mapping from VRBs to PRBs is determined by an interleaver); and
communicate data in accordance with the allocation (Nam: Fig. 9, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the UE communicating with the BS via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit… UE 120 communicates with BS 110a by receiving a PDSCH from BS 110a via the PRBs mapped to the VRBs of the interleaving unit).
Nam teaches that (NAM: ¶ 51 – 52; Certain wireless networks (e.g., LTE) utilize orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) on the downlink and single-carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) on the uplink. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the system bandwidth into multiple (K) orthogonal subcarriers… The spacing between adjacent subcarriers may be fixed, and the total number of subcarriers (K) may be dependent on the system bandwidth… The system bandwidth may also be partitioned into subbands. For example, a subband may cover 1.08 MHz (e.g., 6 resource blocks), and there may be 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 subbands for system bandwidth of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 MHz, respectively… aspects of the present disclosure may be applicable with other wireless communications systems, such as NR. NR may utilize OFDM with a CP on the uplink and downlink ... A single component carrier bandwidth of 100 MHz may be supported. NR resource blocks may span 12 sub-carriers with a sub-carrier bandwidth of 75 kHz over a 0.1 ms duration… Each subframe may indicate a link direction (e.g., DL or UL) for data transmission and the link direction for each subframe may be dynamically switched. Each subframe may include DL/UL data as well as DL/UL control data). However, Nam does not explicitly disclose that the determining is within a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot, or that the allocation of VRBs to PRBs is across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments.
Referring to the invention of Burke, Burke teaches sub-band full duplex (SBFD) slot (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 24-30, ¶ 56; wherein a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) mode is proposed in which the second and third slots are SBFD slots modified to support frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink and downlink transmissions… The second and third slots (SLOT 2 and SLOT 3) are SBFD slots… Note that neither the UL nor the DL in the SBFD slots may occupy the entire frequency resource range (the frequency band) for these slots. Instead, the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band), and that resource blocks can be across first and second disjoint bandwidth part (BWP) segments (Burke: ¶ 24, ¶ 56; wherein the division of the frequency band for an SBFD slot may result in contiguous or non-contiguous sub-bands. For example, the DL lower sub-band is non-contiguous with the DL upper sub-band. But in other implementations, the DL sub-band may be analogous to just the DL lower sub-band or the DL upper sub-band in that the slot frequency band is divided into a first contiguous sub-band for the DL and a second contiguous sub-band for the UL. Therefore, the non-contiguous downlink subbands (i.e., bandwidth parts (BWP), separated by the uplink subband/ guard band are disjoint BWPs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-contiguous DL sub-bands teachings of Burke into the VRB to PRB teachings of Nam in order to enable higher spectral efficiency, flexible and interference-aware scheduling, QoS-driven resource allocation, and compatibility with both current and future NR deployments, all while leveraging SBFD’s unique ability to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same carrier.
Regarding claim 39, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment with interleaving, and mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment with interleaving that is independent relative to the interleaving associated with the first disjoint BWP segment (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be specific to a device and/or a bandwidth part (BWP)… an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP, while the allocating device (e.g., a BS) uses a different interleaver and interleaving unit for other BWPs).
Regarding claim 41, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise merging the first and second VRB groups, and then mapping the merged VRB group to the first and second disjoint BWP parts with interleaving (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89, ¶ 109; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein a grant may allocate a plurality of the interleaving units (e.g., for a PDSCH from a UE). Therefore, when taking into consideration the 2 disjoint sub-band segments of Burke, the proposed modification would consolidate two related DL resource groups into a common allocation/interleaving operation, reducing the need to treat the two SBFD DL regions as unrelated allocations).
Regarding claim 42, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise jointly interleaving the first and second VRBs across the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 87 – 89; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP. Therefore, when taking into consideration the disjoint sub-band segments of Burke wherein the intervening UL region is not intended to receive DL data, a common interleaving operation across two separated DL resource regions is a natural extension of Nam’s objective of distributing VRB resources in frequency).
Regarding claim 43, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 42, wherein the allocation of the first and second PRBs is across the first and second disjoint BWP segments only such that an intervening BWP segment is bypassed ((Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band …and the DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band … and wherein DL UE 205 may use adaptive filtering (either high-pass, low-pass, or complex filtering) to reject the interference from UL UE 210. For example, rather than transmit in a central sub-band, each UL UE 210 may be configured to utilize the lower half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot. Base station 200 would then use the upper half of the bandwidth of the SBFD slot for the DL symbols) and also (Nam: ¶ 83 – 84, ¶ 97 – 99; wherein an interleaver may perform interleaving based on an interleaving unit of N RBs (e.g., a VRB bundle). The interleaver may map a group of N consecutive VRBs (e.g., a VRB bundle) to a group of N consecutive PRBs (e.g., a PRB bundle)…and wherein an interleaver and its interleaving unit may be used for resource allocations to devices operating on a BWP). Therefore, the intervening central UL sub-band is occupied by UL transmission. Applying the Nam mapping to the SBFD DL allocation while excluding the intervening UL region prevents the DL VRB mapping from consuming resources intended for UL).
Regarding claim 44, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 42, wherein the allocation of the first and second VRBs is across PRBs that overlap with an intervening BWP segment between the first and second disjoint BWP segments (Nam: ¶ 117 – 118; wherein some resources in PRBs may be reserved for some other purposes…The reserved resources may be semi-statically and/or dynamically indicated to UEs for rate matching. Since data resources (i.e., resources for PDSCH or PUSCH) are allocated in VRBs, the reserved resources in PRBs should be translated (e.g., de-interleaved) to VRBs for rate matching…allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and… perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping. Therefore, since Nam teaches that the PRB resources reserved for other purposes (e.g., PUSCH resources) must be translated into the VRB domain and handled during the data mapping/rate matching, thus, the VRB allocation can be according to the Nam teachings above, while the mapping should account for the intervening UL/guard-band region resources identified by Burke).
Regarding claim 45, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44,
wherein the first and second disjoint BWP segments comprise downlink (DL) data (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band.... The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band),
wherein the intervening BWP segment comprises a guard band (GB), uplink (UL) data, or a combination thereof (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 46, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 45,
wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP segment (Burke: Fig. 1B, ¶ 30 – 33; wherein the UL occupies a central sub-band in the frequency band for the SBFD slots. The DL thus occupies a lower sub-band that ranges from the lower frequency for frequency band up to a lowest frequency for the UL central sub-band. It will be appreciated, however, that the sub-bands may be separated by a guard band. The DL also occupies an upper sub-band in the frequency band and extends from a greatest frequency for the UL central sub-band to a greatest frequency for the frequency band. Therefore, the top and bottom DL sub-bands are separated by the UL sub-band wherein DL data is omitted from the intervening BWP UL segment).
Regarding claim 48, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37,
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a wireless network component, or
wherein the wireless node corresponds to a user equipment (UE) (Nam: Fig. 1, ¶ 41-45, ¶ 97-101; wherein a wireless node can be BS 110, or relay station 110, or UE 120).
Claims 2, 14, 26, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al., and Burke et al., as applied to claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 above, and further in view of 3GPP TS 38.211 [3GPP TS 38.211 V15.4.0 (2018-12); Technical Specification; 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical channels and modulation (Release 15)] hereinafter TS 38.211.
Regarding claim 2, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or a combination thereof (Nam: ¶ 37; wherein localized VRBs (e.g., resource allocation types 0 and 1), in which there is a direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB is supported. Therefore, localized VRBs use direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB without interleaving, distinguishing it from distributed /interleaved VRBS).
Assuming arguendo that Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or a combination thereof, TS 38.211 teaches it.
Referring to the invention of TS 38.211, TS 38.211 teaches that “the UE shall assume the virtual resource blocks are mapped to physical resource blocks according to the indicated mapping scheme, non-interleaved or interleaved mapping. If no mapping scheme is indicated, the UE shall assume non-interleaved mapping” (TS 38.211: Page 84, Section 7.3.1.6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the interleaving and non-interleaving teachings of TS 38.211 into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined Nam and Burke inventions in order to effectively map the VRB to PRBs based on the mapping scheme that is indicated or selected for each SBFD DL sub-band.
Regarding claim 14, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or a combination thereof (Nam: ¶ 37; wherein localized VRBs (e.g., resource allocation types 0 and 1), in which there is a direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB is supported. Therefore, localized VRBs use direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB without interleaving, distinguishing it from distributed /interleaved VRBS).
Assuming arguendo that Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or a combination thereof, TS 38.211 teaches it.
Referring to the invention of TS 38.211, TS 38.211 teaches that “the UE shall assume the virtual resource blocks are mapped to physical resource blocks according to the indicated mapping scheme, non-interleaved or interleaved mapping. If no mapping scheme is indicated, the UE shall assume non-interleaved mapping” (TS 38.211: Page 84, Section 7.3.1.6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the interleaving and non-interleaving teachings of TS 38.211 into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined Nam and Burke inventions in order to effectively map the VRB to PRBs based on the mapping scheme that is indicated or selected for each SBFD DL sub-band.
Regarding claim 26, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or a combination thereof (Nam: ¶ 37; wherein localized VRBs (e.g., resource allocation types 0 and 1), in which there is a direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB is supported. Therefore, localized VRBs use direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB without interleaving, distinguishing it from distributed /interleaved VRBS).
Assuming arguendo that Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or a combination thereof, TS 38.211 teaches it.
Referring to the invention of TS 38.211, TS 38.211 teaches that “the UE shall assume the virtual resource blocks are mapped to physical resource blocks according to the indicated mapping scheme, non-interleaved or interleaved mapping. If no mapping scheme is indicated, the UE shall assume non-interleaved mapping” (TS 38.211: Page 84, Section 7.3.1.6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the interleaving and non-interleaving teachings of TS 38.211 into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined Nam and Burke inventions in order to effectively map the VRB to PRBs based on the mapping scheme that is indicated or selected for each SBFD DL sub-band.
Regarding claim 38, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment without interleaving, or a combination thereof (Nam: ¶ 37; wherein localized VRBs (e.g., resource allocation types 0 and 1), in which there is a direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB is supported. Therefore, localized VRBs use direct mapping from each VRB to a corresponding PRB without interleaving, distinguishing it from distributed /interleaved VRBS).
Assuming arguendo that Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that mapping the first VRB to a first disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or mapping the second VRB to a second disjoint BWP segment is without interleaving, or a combination thereof, TS 38.211 teaches it.
Referring to the invention of TS 38.211, TS 38.211 teaches that “the UE shall assume the virtual resource blocks are mapped to physical resource blocks according to the indicated mapping scheme, non-interleaved or interleaved mapping. If no mapping scheme is indicated, the UE shall assume non-interleaved mapping” (TS 38.211: Page 84, Section 7.3.1.6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the interleaving and non-interleaving teachings of TS 38.211 into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined Nam and Burke inventions in order to effectively map the VRB to PRBs based on the mapping scheme that is indicated or selected for each SBFD DL sub-band.
Claims 4, 16, 28, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al., and Burke et al., as applied to claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 above, and further in view of Yang et al. [US 20190215809 A1] hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 4, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment with interleaving (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe (i.e., a disjoint BWP segment or SBFD slot as taught by Burke))… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)).
Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that the mapping of a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment is with interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is above a size threshold and without interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is not above the size threshold.
Referring to the invention of Yang, Yang teaches in example scenarios that a block interleaver can interleave VRB to PRB over a BWP having 24 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 and cannot interleave VRB to PRB when the BWP has 21 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 (Yang: Fig. 3, ¶ 85; wherein referring to part (A) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300A, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 can properly handle VRB-PRB interleaving over a BWP having twenty-four PRBs with a PRB-VRB bundle size of two. Referring to part (B) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300B, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 would not be able to handle interleaving (i.e., will not perform interleaving) when there are twenty-one PRBs in the BWP with a VRB-PRB bundles size of two. Therefore, the size threshold could be above 21 (e.g., 22 or 23) and the VRB to BWP mapping will be interleaved if above the size threshold and not interleaved if below the size threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 and as taught by Yang into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to correctly handle VRB-PRB interleaving in the case where the PRB-VRB bundle size divides the number of PRBs in a BWP in the frequency domain (Yang: ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 16, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 13, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment with interleaving (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe (i.e., a disjoint BWP segment or SBFD slot as taught by Burke))… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)).
Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that the mapping of a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment is with interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is above a size threshold and without interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is not above the size threshold.
Referring to the invention of Yang, Yang teaches in example scenarios that a block interleaver can interleave VRB to PRB over a BWP having 24 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 and cannot interleave VRB to PRB when the BWP has 21 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 (Yang: Fig. 3, ¶ 85; wherein referring to part (A) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300A, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 can properly handle VRB-PRB interleaving over a BWP having twenty-four PRBs with a PRB-VRB bundle size of two. Referring to part (B) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300B, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 would not be able to handle interleaving (i.e., will not perform interleaving) when there are twenty-one PRBs in the BWP with a VRB-PRB bundles size of two. Therefore, the size threshold could be above 21 (e.g., 22 or 23) and the VRB to BWP mapping will be interleaved if above the size threshold and not interleaved if below the size threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 and as taught by Yang into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to correctly handle VRB-PRB interleaving in the case where the PRB-VRB bundle size divides the number of PRBs in a BWP in the frequency domain (Yang: ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 28, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 25, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment with interleaving (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe (i.e., a disjoint BWP segment or SBFD slot as taught by Burke))… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)).
Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that the mapping of a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment is with interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is above a size threshold and without interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is not above the size threshold.
Referring to the invention of Yang, Yang teaches in example scenarios that a block interleaver can interleave VRB to PRB over a BWP having 24 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 and cannot interleave VRB to PRB when the BWP has 21 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 (Yang: Fig. 3, ¶ 85; wherein referring to part (A) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300A, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 can properly handle VRB-PRB interleaving over a BWP having twenty-four PRBs with a PRB-VRB bundle size of two. Referring to part (B) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300B, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 would not be able to handle interleaving (i.e., will not perform interleaving) when there are twenty-one PRBs in the BWP with a VRB-PRB bundles size of two. Therefore, the size threshold could be above 21 (e.g., 22 or 23) and the VRB to BWP mapping will be interleaved if above the size threshold and not interleaved if below the size threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 and as taught by Yang into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to correctly handle VRB-PRB interleaving in the case where the PRB-VRB bundle size divides the number of PRBs in a BWP in the frequency domain (Yang: ¶ 84).
Regarding claim 40, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more VRB-to-PRB mapping rules comprise mapping a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment with interleaving (Nam: Fig. 9-11, ¶ 83-87, ¶ 94-104; wherein the BS determines a first interleaved mapping that maps a first interleaving unit of four consecutive first VRBs (e.g., unit 960, shown in FIG. 9) to four consecutive first PRBs (e.g., unit 912, shown in FIG. 9), wherein each first PRB comprises a set of frequency resources (e.g., the frequencies of PRBs 4, 5, 6, and 7) during a period (e.g., a slot or a subframe (i.e., a disjoint BWP segment or SBFD slot as taught by Burke))… and wherein… in the exemplary mapping, the boundaries of the BWP 910 do not coincide with PRG grid 930. Hence, the PRGs include four PRGs, 912, 914, 916, and 918, that each have four PRBs, and two PRGs, 922 and 924, that each have two PRBs. The interleaver 940 maps the 20 PRBs of the BWP 910 to 20 VRBs 950. The VRBs are organized into four interleaving units, 960, 962, 964, and 966, that each have four VRBs and two interleaver units, 970 and 972, that each have two VRBs. Therefore, the wireless node determines the allocation of multiple VRB groups (e.g., VRBs in interleaving unit 960 with four VRBs) to PRB groups (e.g., PRBs in PRG group 912 with four PRBs) so, VRBs of interleaving unit 960 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 912 (i.e., as the first group) and VRBs of interleaving unit 962 can be mapped to PRBs in PRG 914 (i.e., as the second group)).
Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose that the mapping of a respective VRB to a respective disjoint BWP segment is with interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is above a size threshold and without interleaving if the respective disjoint BWP segment is not above the size threshold.
Referring to the invention of Yang, Yang teaches in example scenarios that a block interleaver can interleave VRB to PRB over a BWP having 24 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 and cannot interleave VRB to PRB when the BWP has 21 PRBs with a bundle size of 2 (Yang: Fig. 3, ¶ 85; wherein referring to part (A) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300A, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 can properly handle VRB-PRB interleaving over a BWP having twenty-four PRBs with a PRB-VRB bundle size of two. Referring to part (B) of FIG. 3, in scenario 300B, current block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 would not be able to handle interleaving (i.e., will not perform interleaving) when there are twenty-one PRBs in the BWP with a VRB-PRB bundles size of two. Therefore, the size threshold could be above 21 (e.g., 22 or 23) and the VRB to BWP mapping will be interleaved if above the size threshold and not interleaved if below the size threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block interleaver as defined in TS 38.214 and as taught by Yang into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to correctly handle VRB-PRB interleaving in the case where the PRB-VRB bundle size divides the number of PRBs in a BWP in the frequency domain (Yang: ¶ 84).
Claims 11, 23, 35, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al., and Burke et al., as applied to claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 above, and further in view of Seo et al. [US 20130343363 A1] hereinafter Seo.
Regarding claim 11, Nam in view of Burke teaches the method of claim 9.
Although Nam teaches (Nam: ¶ 118; wherein allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and 4) perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping), Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment.
Referring to the invention of Seo, Seo teaches wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment (Seo: ¶ 25, ¶ 35, ¶ 39-40; wherein mapping consecutively allocated virtual resource blocks to the physical resource blocks, the method including: interleaving, using a block interleaver, indexes of the virtual resource blocks determined from a resource indication value (RIV) indicating a start index number of the virtual resource blocks and a length of the virtual resource blocks; and sequentially mapping the interleaved indexes to indexes of the physical resource blocks on a first slot of one subframe, the subframe including the first slot).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block RIV teachings as taught by Seo into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to efficiently implement a scheduling information transfer method (Seo: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 23, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 21.
Although Nam teaches (Nam: ¶ 118; wherein allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and 4) perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping), Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment.
Referring to the invention of Seo, Seo teaches wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment (Seo: ¶ 25, ¶ 35, ¶ 39-40; wherein mapping consecutively allocated virtual resource blocks to the physical resource blocks, the method including: interleaving, using a block interleaver, indexes of the virtual resource blocks determined from a resource indication value (RIV) indicating a start index number of the virtual resource blocks and a length of the virtual resource blocks; and sequentially mapping the interleaved indexes to indexes of the physical resource blocks on a first slot of one subframe, the subframe including the first slot).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block RIV teachings as taught by Seo into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to efficiently implement a scheduling information transfer method (Seo: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 35, Nam in view of Burke teaches the wireless node of claim 33.
Although Nam teaches (Nam: ¶ 118; wherein allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and 4) perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping), Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment.
Referring to the invention of Seo, Seo teaches wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment (Seo: ¶ 25, ¶ 35, ¶ 39-40; wherein mapping consecutively allocated virtual resource blocks to the physical resource blocks, the method including: interleaving, using a block interleaver, indexes of the virtual resource blocks determined from a resource indication value (RIV) indicating a start index number of the virtual resource blocks and a length of the virtual resource blocks; and sequentially mapping the interleaved indexes to indexes of the physical resource blocks on a first slot of one subframe, the subframe including the first slot).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block RIV teachings as taught by Seo into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to efficiently implement a scheduling information transfer method (Seo: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 47, Nam in view of Burke teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 45.
Although Nam teaches (Nam: ¶ 118; wherein allocate data resources (e.g., for PDSCH and/or PUSCH) in VRBs using a contiguous RB allocation based on starting and/or ending VRB indices or a starting RB and a length of an allocation, while avoiding reserved resources while assigning data (e.g., rate matching); and 4) perform interleaving for VRB-to-PRB mapping), Nam in view of Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment.
Referring to the invention of Seo, Seo teaches wherein the DL data in the first and second disjoint BWP segments is scheduled via a single resource indicator value (RIV) with a startpoint and length indicator that encompasses the intervening BWP segment (Seo: ¶ 25, ¶ 35, ¶ 39-40; wherein mapping consecutively allocated virtual resource blocks to the physical resource blocks, the method including: interleaving, using a block interleaver, indexes of the virtual resource blocks determined from a resource indication value (RIV) indicating a start index number of the virtual resource blocks and a length of the virtual resource blocks; and sequentially mapping the interleaved indexes to indexes of the physical resource blocks on a first slot of one subframe, the subframe including the first slot).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the block RIV teachings as taught by Seo into the VRB to PRB mapping teachings of the combined invention of Nam and Burke in order to efficiently implement a scheduling information transfer method (Seo: ¶ 61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. [US 20200374851 A1]: Frequency Domain Resource Allocation Method and Apparatus.
Jiao et al. [US 20190372714 A1]: Wireless Communications Apparatus and Wireless Communication Method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
