DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 12, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou et al. (US 20240407010 A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 20260106705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gou et al. disclose an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: receive an indication that an occasion of a set of one or more occasions for a message occurs over a plurality of symbols (paragraph [0047] and claim 12; obtaining by the UE an occasion (RO) configuration for transmission. The RO spans the UL subband and flexible in the time domain. The RO may start from a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol configured with the UL subband and ending in a non-SBFD symbol), wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols (fig. 8A-C; RO spans a plurality of symbols from SBFD to non-SBFD); and communicate the message via the occasion in accordance with a set of rules and based at least in part on the occasion being across at least one full-duplex symbol of the set of full-duplex symbols and at least one non-full-duplex symbol of the set of non-full-duplex symbols (paragraph [0109]; RO spans the UL subband and symbols not allocated to the UL subband in the time domain) (paragraphs [0058-0059]; the validity of RO for transmission is determined based on a set of predetermined rules. The set of predetermined rules comprises one of the RO spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain, that the RO spans the UL subband and a flexible symbol in the time domain). However, Gou et al. may not explicitly suggest the plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot. Ko et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot (paragraph [0246]; transmission/reception occasion of a physical channel/signal can be mapped to SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot for a UE). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in Gou et al.’s method/system where a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot as suggested by Ko et al. The motivation would have been to reduce delay time and provide efficient resource utilization (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Gou et al. further suggest wherein the set of rules indicate that communication of the message via the occasion is allowed based at least in part on the message being a first type of message and the occasion comprising a multi-symbol resource having a transmission direction that conflicts with at least one subband of the at least one full-duplex symbol of the set of full-duplex symbols (paragraph [0059]; the set of predefined rules comprises that the RO is valid. The RO is configured in the UL subband in at least one downlink symbols, the base station configures/schedules uplink transmission in the UL subband, the base station configures/schedules a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) associated with the PRACH transmission in the UL subband) (fig. 8C; RO 835 spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain. RO comprises multi-symbol resource having UL subband (UL transmission) in DL symbols 841-844 (transmission direction conflicts with a least one subband (DL)).
Regarding claim 3, Gou et al. further suggest wherein the first type of message comprises a physical uplink shared channel, or a physical downlink shared channel, or one or more reference signals (paragraph [0062]; RO is configured for PUSCH associated with PRACH transmission in the UL subband).
Regarding claim 11, Gou et al. further suggest wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: determine that the message corresponds to a downlink transmission and the occasion comprises a multi-symbol resource having a transmission direction that corresponds to a transmission direction of a first subband of the at least one full-duplex symbol, wherein the message is non-overlapping with one or more other subbands of the at least one full-duplex symbol, and wherein communicating the message comprises receiving the downlink transmission via the first subband (paragraph [0131]; downlink reception is scheduled in the UL subband) (fig. 8A-C; RO (815, 825, 835) in the UL subband is not overlapping with other subbands (DL)).
Regarding claim 12, Gou et al. further suggest wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to: determine that the message corresponds to an uplink transmission and the occasion comprises a multi-symbol resource having a transmission direction that corresponds to a transmission direction of a first subband of the at least one full-duplex symbol, wherein the message is non-overlapping with one or more other subbands of the at least one full-duplex symbol, and wherein communicating the message comprises transmitting the uplink transmission via the first subband (paragraph [0061]; uplink transmission is scheduled in the UL subband, a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) associated with the PRACH transmission is scheduled in the UL subband) (fig. 8A-C; RO (815, 825, 835) in the UL subband is not overlapping with other subbands (DL)).
Regarding claim 28, Gou et al. disclose an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one processor; and memory coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), an indication that an occasion of a set of one or more occasions for a message occurs over a plurality of symbols (paragraph [0047] and claim 12; obtaining by the UE an occasion (RO) configuration for transmission. The RO spans the UL subband and flexible in the time domain. The RO may start from a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol configured with the UL subband and ending in a non-SBFD symbol), wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols (fig. 8A-C; RO spans a plurality of symbols from SBFD to non-SBFD); and communicate the message via the occasion in accordance with a set of rules and based at least in part on the occasion being across at least one full-duplex symbol of the set of full-duplex symbols and at least one non-full-duplex symbol of the set of non-full-duplex symbols (paragraph [0109]; RO spans the UL subband and symbols not allocated to the UL subband in the time domain) (paragraphs [0058-0059]; the validity of RO for transmission is determined based on a set of predetermined rules. The set of predetermined rules comprises one of the RO spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain, that the RO spans the UL subband and a flexible symbol in the time domain). However, Gou et al. may not explicitly suggest the plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot. Ko et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot (paragraph [0246]; transmission/reception occasion of a physical channel/signal can be mapped to SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot for a UE). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in Gou et al.’s method/system where a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot as suggested by Ko et al. The motivation would have been to reduce delay time and provide efficient resource utilization (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 29, Gou et al. disclose a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving an indication that an occasion of a set of one or more occasions for a message occurs over a plurality of symbols (paragraph [0047] and claim 12; obtaining by the UE an occasion (RO) configuration for transmission. The RO spans the UL subband and flexible in the time domain. The RO may start from a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol configured with the UL subband and ending in a non-SBFD symbol), wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols (fig. 8A-C; RO spans a plurality of symbols from SBFD to non-SBFD), and communicating the message via the occasion in accordance with a set of rules and based at least in part on the occasion being across at least one full-duplex symbol of the set of full-duplex symbols and at least one non-full-duplex symbol of the set of non-full-duplex symbols (paragraph [0109]; RO spans the UL subband and symbols not allocated to the UL subband in the time domain) (paragraphs [0058-0059]; the validity of RO for transmission is determined based on a set of predetermined rules. The set of predetermined rules comprises one of the RO spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain, that the RO spans the UL subband and a flexible symbol in the time domain). However, Gou et al. may not explicitly suggest the plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot. Ko et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot (paragraph [0246]; transmission/reception occasion of a physical channel/signal can be mapped to SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot for a UE). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in Gou et al.’s method/system where a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot as suggested by Ko et al. The motivation would have been to reduce delay time and provide efficient resource utilization (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 30, Gou et al. disclose a method for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), an indication that an occasion of a set of one or more occasions for a message occurs over a plurality of symbols (paragraph [0047] and claim 12; obtaining by the UE an occasion (RO) configuration for transmission. The RO spans the UL subband and flexible in the time domain. The RO may start from a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol configured with the UL subband and ending in a non-SBFD symbol), wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols (fig. 8A-C; RO spans a plurality of symbols from SBFD to non-SBFD); and communicating the message via the occasion in accordance with a set of rules and based at least in part on the occasion being across at least one full-duplex symbol of the set of full-duplex symbols and at least one non-full-duplex symbol of the set of non-full-duplex symbols (paragraph [0109]; RO spans the UL subband and symbols not allocated to the UL subband in the time domain) (paragraphs [0058-0059]; the validity of RO for transmission is determined based on a set of predetermined rules. The set of predetermined rules comprises one of the RO spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain, that the RO spans the UL subband and a flexible symbol in the time domain). However, Gou et al. may not explicitly suggest the plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot. Ko et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot (paragraph [0246]; transmission/reception occasion of a physical channel/signal can be mapped to SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot for a UE). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in Gou et al.’s method/system where a plurality of symbols is within a same slot, wherein the plurality of symbols comprises a set of full-duplex symbols and a set of non-full-duplex symbols within the same slot as suggested by Ko et al. The motivation would have been to reduce delay time and provide efficient resource utilization (paragraph [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 13-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 28-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG-CHUONG Q VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30-5:30 PM EST.).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AYAZ SHEIKH can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
HOANG-CHUONG Q. VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2476
/HOANG-CHUONG Q VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights