DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 03/20/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1, 14, 24, and 28 were amended, and claims 9, 19, 25, and 29 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-24, 26-28, and 30-34 remain pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
On pages 13-14 of their remarks, the Applicant argues against the pending rejection based on Fodor in view of Papasakellariou and Xiong, writing that “PAPASAKELLARIOU fails to disclose, at least, ‘switch from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode based at least in part on transmitting... the indication that the PUSCH occasion will not be used for uplink transmission” (Applicant Remarks, p. 14).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to this contested limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, this argument is still worth addressing because a similar one could be made against the newly cited art, Bae et al. Although it is true that Bae does not mention “switch[ing] from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode”, this is not what Bae is cited to teach. Rather, as noted in the rejection below, Bae teaches “switch ... based at least in part on transmitting ... the indication that the PUSCH occasion will not be used for uplink transmission”. In other words, Bae describes reallocating unused PUSCH resources to another transmission (see, for example, Bae 0260). Fodor, on the other hand, teaches “switch[ing] from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode”, and it is the combination of both Fodor and Bae together that renders obvious “switch[ing] from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode based at least in part on transmitting ... the indication that the PUSCH occasion will not be used for uplink transmission”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Later, on page 15 of their remarks, the Applicant asserts that it was “agreed upon during the interview [on 03/05/2026]” that “frequency ‘f2’ in the time slot ‘212’, as illustrated in Figure 11 of FODOR, does not disclose ‘the PUSCH occasion that at least partially overlaps with the resources associated with the downlink communication.
However, the Examiner respectfully replies that he never agreed to this during the interview in question. Rather, as recorded in the interview summary, the Examiner agreed that “Fodor does not describe a resource that is used for both uplink and downlink communication in full duplex mode which switches to being used only for downlink” (Examiner Interview Summary dated 03/05/2026). The newly amended claims do not include this language – they instead specify only that “resources associated with the PUSCH occasion ... at least partially overlap with the resources associated with the downlink communication”. Frequency “f2” in Fig. 11 of Fodor does anticipate precisely this limitation because, in timeslot 211 in Fig. 11, it initially carries a “UL RS” (an example of PUSCH traffic) before switching to carry “DL data” in timeslot 212. Thus, initial allocation of full duplex PUSCH resources overlaps with the ensuing half duplex downlink communications, rendering the new limitation of amended Claim 1 obvious. Other references included in the basis for rejection Claim 1 such as Xiong establish the PUSCH’s role as a “shared control channel carrying both signaling and user data” which includes reference signals (Xiong, 0010). Thus, the obviousness rejection based on Fodor in view of Bae and Xiong remains proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-28, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fodor et al. (US 2019/0052450 A1, hereinafter “Fodor”) in view of Bae et al. (US 2026/0046067 A1, hereinafter “Bae”) and further in view of Xiong et al. (US 2024/0322947 A1, hereinafter “Xiong”).
As to Claims 1, 14, 24, and 28:
Fodor describes a method for a UE or a base station to switch from operating in full duplex mode to half duplex mode or vice versa.
Specifically, Fodor teaches:
A memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory
Fodor describes a “terminal 130-1” that includes “a processor 1301 and a memory 130” (Fodor, 0139).
Transmit an indication that a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasion that at least partially overlaps with resources associated with a downlink communication will not be used for uplink transmission
Fig. 11 in Fodor shows a UE and eNB “switching from a first resource mapping” for full duplex communication to “a second resource mapping” for half duplex. Fodor further explains that the “channels” for communication “may include ... a Physical UL Shared Channel (PUSCH)” and “the eNB 112 may switch based on the indication of a recommendation of a candidate resource mapping 500 [in Fig. 5], 501-504 received from the at least one terminal 130-1, 130-2” (Fodor, 0008, 0009, 0057, 0162).
Here, the “UL data” and “DL data” in Fig. 11 which initially share frequency “f1” in timeslot 211 maps to “at least partially overlaps with resources associated with a downlink communication”, and
the fact that UE 130-1 in Fig. 11 uses frequency “f2” to transmit downlink data and not uplink data in time slot 212 maps to “resources associated with a downlink communication will not be used for uplink transmission”.
Switch from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode based at least in part on transmitting ... the indication
Fodor teaches that “the eNB 112 may switch based on the indication of a recommendation of a candidate resource mapping 500, 501-504 received from the at least one terminal 130-1” (Fodor, 0162). Also, Fig. 11 shows a UE switching between full duplex and half duplex mode.
Receive the downlink communication, over resources associated with the PUSCH occasion that at least partially overlaps with the resources associated with the downlink communication, while operating in the HD mode
Fodor teaches that the communication channels pictured in Fig. 11 “may include ... a Physical UL Shared Channel (PUSCH) corresponding to a UL payload channel” (Fodor, 0057). Also, Fig. 11 shows a UE switching between full duplex and half duplex mode.
Here, “DL data” received on frequency “f2” in timeslot “212” in Fig. 11 maps to “receive the downlink communication”,
“f2” in Fig. 11, which is initially associated with “UL RS” (i.e. “the PUSCH occasion”) in timeslot 211 before switching to transmit “downlink data” in timeslot 212, corresponds to “resources associated with the PUSCH occasion that at least partially overlaps with the resources associated with the downlink communication”, and
“HD” mode in timeslot “212” maps to “while operating in the HD mode”.
Fodor does not explicitly disclose:
Switch ... based at least in part on transmitting ... the indication that the PUSCH occasion will not be used for uplink transmission
However, Bae does describe a method for a UE to reallocate unused resources that a configured grant initially designated for a PUSCH.
Specifically, Bae teaches:
Switch ... based at least in part on transmitting ... the indication that the PUSCH occasion will not be used for uplink transmission
Bae states that “[a] UE may indicate whether to use a CG PUSCH occasion group to be used [sic] for a certain period of time T” and “a BS that receives this information may reallocate the CG PUSCH resources that are notified as being unused” (Bae, 0260).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bae’s practice of reassigning unused PUSCH resources into Fodor’s method for opportunistically switching from full duplex to half duplex mode. If the uplink resources in Bae’s full duplex scheme are unused, the downlink transmissions will benefit from reassigning unused PUSCH resources as described in Bae.
The combination of Fodor and Bae also does not explicitly disclose:
Switch from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode ... at least a time threshold prior to at least one of the PUSCH occasion or the downlink communication
However, Xiong does describe methods to send PUSCH repetitions in half duplex and full duplex systems.
Specifically, Xiong teaches:
Switch from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode ... at least a time threshold prior to at least one of the PUSCH occasion or the downlink communication
Xiong teaches that “a HD-FDD UE is not expected to transmit in the uplink earlier than
N
R
X
-
T
X
Tc after the end of the last received downlink symbol in the same cell” and that “when the gap between the end of last received downlink symbol and the start of transmission of PUSCH repetition is less than
N
R
X
-
T
X
Tc, UE considers the slot as unavailable for mapping a PUSCH repetition” (Xiong, 0024).
Here, a “HD-FDD UE” that “is not expected to transmit in the uplink” maps to “switch from operating in a full duplex (FD) mode to operating in a half duplex (HD) mode”, and
“
N
R
X
-
T
X
” maps to “at least a time threshold prior”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xiong’s transmission gap which helps prevent collisions into Fodor’s method for switching from full duplex to half duplex mode. The transmission gap helps preserve the integrity of communications during the switch between duplex modes taught in Fodor.
Claim 14 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 1 from the perspective of a network node.
Claim 24 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 28 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 14 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 4:
Fodor teaches:
Identify that the downlink communication is to be received while operating in the HD mode based at least in part on transmitting the indication
Fodor states that “the at least one terminal 130-1, 130-2 may decide to switch the current resource mapping 500, 501-504 based on one or more criteria and may transmit corresponding information about the newly applicable resource mapping 500, 501-504 to the eNB 112” (Fodor, 0162).
Fodor does not explicitly disclose:
The downlink communication is associated with a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) downlink communication
However, Bae does teach:
The downlink communication is associated with a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) downlink communication
Bae describes “dynamically allocate[ing] DL resources to the UE through PDCCH(s)” and adds that “[t]he BS may allocate the DL resources to the UE using SPS” (Bae, 0138).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the semi-persistent scheduling described in Bae into the duplex communication taught in Fodor. Semi-persistent scheduling is a common transmission format that can benefit from efficient resource duplexing.
As to Claim 5:
Fodor teaches:
The downlink communication is associated with a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication
Fodor states that “[t]he channels may include a Physical DL Control Channel (PDCCH) corresponding to a DL control channel” (Fodor, 0057)
Identify that the PDCCH communication is to be received while operating in the HD mode based at least in part on transmitting the indication
Fodor teaches that “[t]he channels may include a Physical DL Control Channel (PDCCH) corresponding to a DL control channel” and “the eNB 112 may switch based on the indication of a recommendation of a candidate resource mapping 500, 501-504 received from the at least one terminal 130-1” (Fodor, 0057, 0162). Also, Fig. 11 shows a UE switching between full duplex and half duplex mode.
As to Claims 7 and 18:
From the list of:
Receive the downlink communication using a bandwidth part associated with the HD mode,
Receive the downlink communication using a timing advance value associated with the HD mode,
Receive the downlink communication using a subcarrier spacing associated with the HD mode,
Receive the downlink communication using a polarization mode associated with the HD mode,
Identify channel state information without measuring self-interference, or
Receive the downlink communication using an entire bandwidth associated with a subband FD operation
Fodor at least teaches:
Identify channel state information without measuring self-interference
Fodor states that “at a step 2002 [in Fig. 13], the eNB checks a ratio between self-interference 251 and a signal (Signal-Interference to-signal Ratio, SITS).... In a first option, again, one or more threshold comparisons can be executed where the SITS and/or the path loss is compared with a respective threshold or respective thresholds. In a second option, signal measurements, such as CSI, e.g., CQI, as reported by the at least one terminal 130-1, 130-2 may be taken into account” (Fodor, 0102, 0158, 0159).
Here, the “second option” maps to “without measuring self-interference” because the “first option” is the one that accounts for “self-interference”).
Receive the downlink communication using an entire bandwidth associated with a subband FD operation
Fig. 11 in Fodor shows an example of switching from full duplex to half duplex operation.
Here, “DL data” on frequency “f2” maps to “receive the downlink communication using an entire bandwidth”, and
“UL RS” on frequency “f2” maps to “an entire bandwidth associated with a subband FD operation” because “f2” is the subband used for sending uplink reference signals in full duplex operation.
Claim 18 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 7 from the perspective of the network node.
As to Claims 10, 20, 26:
The combination of Fodor and Bae does not explicitly disclose:
The time threshold is associated with at least one of:
A quantity of milliseconds,
A quantity of slots, or
A quantity of symbols
However, Xiong does teach:
The time threshold is associated with ... a quantity of milliseconds
Xiong teaches that “Tc may be defined as a time unit
T
c
=
1
(
∆
f
m
a
x
*
N
f
)
, where
∆
f
m
a
x
may be 480 x
10
3
Hz” (Xiong, 0025).
Here, “480 x
10
3
Hz” maps to “a quantity of milliseconds” because frequency measurements in Hz are the inverse of time measurements in seconds.
The time threshold is associated with ... a quantity of slots
Xiong teaches that “given that a HD-FDD UE is not expected to transmit in the uplink earlier than
N
R
x
-
T
X
Tc after the end of the last received downlink symbol in the same cell, this may indicate that this collision handling rule may be used in the second step of counting based on available slot for PUSCH repetition type A” (Xiong, 0024).
Here, “counting based on available slot” maps to “a quantity of slots”.
The time threshold is associated with ... a quantity of symbols
Xiong teaches that “given that a HD-FDD UE is not expected to transmit in the uplink earlier than
N
R
x
-
T
X
Tc after the end of the last received downlink symbol in the same cell, this may indicate that this collision handling rule may be used in the second step of counting based on available slot for PUSCH repetition type A” (Xiong, 0024).
Here, “after the end of the last received downlink symbol” maps to “a quantity of symbols”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xiong’s practice of measuring time using seconds, slots, and symbols into Fodor’s method for switching between full and half duplex communications. Each of these are viable units for measuring time in these contexts.
Claim 20 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 10 from the perspective of the network node.
Claim 26 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 10 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 11, 21, 27, and 30:
The combination of Fodor and Bae does not explicitly disclose:
The time threshold is associated with a gap between an end of an indication and a start of the PUSCH occasion
However, Xiong does teach:
The time threshold is associated with a gap between an end of an indication and a start of the PUSCH occasion
Xiong states that “when the gap between the end of last received downlink symbol and the start of transmission of PUSCH repetition is less than
N
R
x
-
T
X
Tc, UE considers the slot as unavailable for mapping a PUSCH repetition” (Xiong, 0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xiong’s transmission gap which helps prevent collisions into Fodor’s method for switching from full duplex to half duplex mode. The transmission gap helps preserve the integrity of communications during the switch between duplex modes taught in Fodor.
Claim 21 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 11 from the perspective of a network node.
Claim 27 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 11 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 30 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 21 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 13 and 23:
Fodor does not explicitly disclose:
The PUSCH occasion is associated with at least one of:
A configured grant period associated with one or more PUSCH occasions,
A pre-configured dynamic grant scheduled PUSCH, or
Multiple PUSCHs scheduled by a single physical downlink control channel communication
However, Bae does teach:
The PUSCH occasion is associated with ... a configured grant period associated with one or more PUSCH occasions
Bae describes “performing physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission including a transport block based on the configured grant” (Bae, 0011).
The PUSCH occasion is associated with ... a pre-configured dynamic grant scheduled PUSCH
Under the heading of “Dynamic Grant/Assignment”, Bae teaches that “[t]he PDCCH may be used to schedule ... UL transmission on the PUSCH” (Bae, 0140)
The PUSCH occasion is associated with ... multiple PUSCHs scheduled by a single physical downlink control channel communication
Bae teaches that “[i]n NR, one or more SPS PDSCHs or CG PUSCHs may be configured for the UE for periodic transmission and reception or for low latency and PDCCH overhead” (Bae, 0185).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the methods described in Bae to schedule the PUSCH in Fodor’s method. Each scheduling scheme has its own pros and cons that make each of them best in different scenarios.
Claim 23 encompasses the same new limitations as claim 13 from the perspective of the network node.
As to Claims 15 and 31:
Fodor teaches:
Adjust a transmit power associated with the downlink communication based at least in part on receiving the indication
Fodor teaches that “[t]he various resource mappings 501-504 can also be associated with further properties of communication on the radio link 111” and that “[s]uch further properties of the communication include, e.g., the transmit power” (Fodor, 0097).
Claim 31 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 15 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 2-3, 16, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fodor (US 2019/0052450 A1) in view of Bae (US 2026/0046067 A1) and Xiong (US 2024/0322947 A1) and further in view of Löhr et al. (US 2024/0188074 A1, hereinafter “Löhr”).
As to Claims 2, 16, 32, and 33:
Fodor teaches:
Switching from operating in the FD mode to operating in the HD mode
Also, Fig. 11 in Fodor shows a UE switching between full duplex and half duplex mode.
The combination of Fodor, Bae, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose:
Receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling the downlink communication
The DCI includes a duplex mode indicator
The duplex mode indicator indicates the HD mode
Operating in the HD mode is further based at least in part on the duplex mode indicator
However, Löhr does disclose a method for determining uplink transmission parameters based on a duplex mode.
Specifically, Löhr teaches:
Receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling the downlink communication
Löhr describes “receiving the uplink resource allocation includes receiving DCI scheduling the PUSCH transmission” and “determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of the duplex mode” (Löhr, 0144).
The DCI includes a duplex mode indicator
Löhr describes “determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of the duplex mode” (Löhr, 0144).
The duplex mode indicator indicates the HD mode
Löhr describes “determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of the duplex mode” (Löhr, 0144), and Fig. 3 in Löhr shows examples of duplexing modes.
Operating in the HD mode is further based at least in part on the duplex mode indicator
Löhr describes “determining the duplex mode corresponding to the uplink resource allocation includes receiving, in the DCI, an indication of the duplex mode” (Löhr, 0144), and Fig. 3 in Löhr shows examples of duplexing modes.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the DCI including a duplex indicator described in Löhr into Fodor’s method for switching from full duplex to half duplex mode. The duplex mode indicator is a quick and efficient way to indicate a change in duplex operation.
Claim 16 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 2 from the perspective of the network node.
Claim 32 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 16 in the form of a method claim
Claim 33 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 3 and 34:
Fodor teaches:
The UE identifies that the downlink communication is to be received while operating in the HD mode based at least in part on transmitting the indication
Fodor describes “at least one terminal 130-1, 130-2” that “may decide to switch the current resource mapping 500, 501-504 based on one or more criteria and may transmit corresponding information about the newly applicable resource mapping 500, 501-504 to the eNB 112” (Fodor, 0162). Also, Fig. 11 shows a UE switching between full duplex and half duplex mode.
The combination of Fodor, Bae, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose:
Receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling the downlink communication
The DCI does not include a duplex mode indicator
However, Löhr does teach:
Receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling the downlink communication
Fodor describes “receiving the uplink resource allocation includes receiving DCI scheduling the PUSCH transmission” (Löhr, 0144).
The DCI does not include a duplex mode indicator
Although Löhr describes “transmitting an indication of the duplex mode in the DCI”, Löhr also states that “[o]ne skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of the specific details” (Löhr, 0027, 0168).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain Fodor’s practice of selecting the duplex mode based on criteria other than the duplex mode indicator field if it is not present in the DCI. Without the duplex mode indicator field, some other criteria to determine whether to switch is obviously necessary.
Claim 34 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fodor (US 2019/0052450 A1) in view of Bae (US 2026/0046067 A1) and Xiong (US 2024/0322947) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2023/0224837 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
As to Claims 6 and 17:
Fodor teaches:
Monitor control signaling ... based at least in part on receiving the indication
Fodor teaches that “the eNB 112 may select the initial resource mapping 500, 501-504 based on the indication our [sic] recommendation received from the at least one terminal 130-1” (Fodor, 0057, 0154).
The combination of Fodor, Bae, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose:
Receive a configuration of at least one of a first control resource set (CORESET) or a first search space (SS) set associated with the HD mode
At least one of a second CORESET or a second SS set associated with the FD mode
Monitor control signaling using the at least one of the first CORESET or the first SS set
However, Choi does describe a method for configuring CORESETs for reduced capability user equipment.
Specifically, Choi teaches:
Receive a configuration of at least one of a first control resource set (CORESET) or a first search space (SS) set associated with the HD mode
Choi states that “the RedCap UE receives, from a base station ... full-duplex communication or half-duplex communication information ... CORESET #0 information for the RedCap UE” (Choi, 0254).
Here, “CORESET #0” for “half-duplex communication” corresponds to “a first control resource set (CORESET)” from the list of “at least one of a first control resource set (CORESET) or a first search space (SS) set”.
At least one of a second CORESET or a second SS set associated with the FD mode
Choi states that “the RedCap UE receives, from a base station ... full-duplex communication or half-duplex communication information ... CORESET #0 information for the RedCap UE” (Choi, 0254).
Here, “CORESET #0” for “full-duplex communication” corresponds to “a second CORESET or a second SS set associated with the FD mode”.
Monitor control signaling using the at least one of the first CORESET or the first SS set
Choi teaches that “a UE may receive, from the MIB of a PBCH, a configuration of a CORESET for a DL control channel through which DCI for scheduling an SIB is able to be transmitted” (Choi, 0224).
Here, “a CORESET for a DL control channel” maps to “the first CORESET” from the list of “at least one of the first CORESET or the first SS set”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a UE to search for downlink control signaling using a CORESET associated with either half-duplex or full-duplex communication, as described in Choi. CORESETs are a commonly used method to configure resources for downlink control signaling, so it makes sense to use them to configure duplex communication.
Claim 17 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 6 from the perspective of the network node.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fodor (US 2019/0052450 A1) in view of Bae (US 2026/0046067 A1) and Xiong (US 2024/0322947 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0167902 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
As to Claim 8:
The combination of Fodor, Bae, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose:
Perform a cross-link interference measurement using at least a latest spatial quasi co-location associated with a serving cell downlink reception in the HD mode
However, Li does describe a method for performing CLI in a duplex system.
Specifically, Li teaches:
Perform a cross-link interference measurement using at least a latest spatial quasi co-location associated with a serving cell downlink reception in the HD mode
Li teaches that “interference is referred to as inter-cell UE-to-UE cross-link interference (CLI). Specifically, CLI in a dynamic TDD system is full-band ... [T]he terminal determines spatial relation information for the first CLI measurement resource according to at least one of the following rules: (1) quasi co-location type D (QCL-D) of the first CLI measurement resource is the same as QCL-D of a last received physical downlink shared channel (last received PDSCH)” (Li, 0079).
Here, “the first CLI measurement” maps to “perform a cross-link interference measurement”,
“QCL-D of a last received physical downlink shared channel” maps to “a latest spatial quasi co-location”,
“inter-cell” maps to “associated with a serving cell”,
“PDSCH” maps to “downlink reception”, and
“TDD system” maps to “in the HD mode” because TDD is a form of HD.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li’s practice of performing cross-link interference measurements into Fodor’s method for switching between full duplex and half duplex operation. Half duplex operation is preferable to full duplex operation if a device is experiencing significant interference from another UE, so it is logical to use interference from another device as criteria for deciding whether to switch to half duplex mode.
Claim(s) 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fodor (US 2019/0052450 A1) in view of Bae (US 2026/0046067 A1) and Xiong (US 2024/0322947 A1) and further in view of Lutchoomun et al. (US 2025/0159674 A1, hereinafter “Lutchoomun”).
As to Claims 12 and 22:
The combination of Fodor and Bae does not explicitly disclose:
The time threshold is associated with a gap between an end of the indication and a start of the downlink communication
However, Lutchoomun does teach:
The time threshold is associated with a gap between an end of the indication and a start of the downlink communication
Fig. 4A in Lutchoomun “further depicts an example diagram of a timeline 402 depicting receipt of data and CG configuration at the anchor UE and receipt of data and CG configuration at the collaborative UE ... [T]he anchor UE may be preconfigured with or may receive configuration information that includes one or more time threshold(s) T1, T2” (Lutchoomun, 0214).
Here, “time threshold(s)” map to “the time threshold”, and
the gap between “receipt of data and CG configuration” maps to “a gap between an end of the indication and a start of the downlink configuration”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the delay between receiving an indication of reconfiguration and a transmission using the reconfigured transmission settings described in Lutchoomun into Fodor’s method for switching between full-duplex and half-duplex communications. Switching the system between duplex modes cannot occur instantaneously, so it makes sense to dedicate several slots or symbols as a delay to account for the time needed to change over.
Claim 22 encompasses the same new limitations as Claim 12 from the perspective of the network node.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights