DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
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 1-18 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the request for continued examination filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant Argues:
On pages 6-8 of the remarks applicant argues ACIR does not disclose or teach (a) "scheduling circuitry configured to determine a
subset of downlink resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum distribution of power
across the downlink resource blocks" as recited by claim 1"
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Regarding (a) "scheduling circuitry configured to determine a subset of downlink
resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on
the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum
distribution of power across the downlink resource blocks", R1-2203732 discloses in Fig. 3 and section 2.4 “Adjacent Channel Interference”, the DL subbands f2-f3; f3-f4, f4-f5, f5-f6 or RBs. The UE measure ACI in each DL subband and report to the gNB. The ACIs represent the subband/RBs qualities. Furthermore, is ACI is associated with SNR/power. The gNB schedules resource block in the DL subband to the UE (see section 2.4). Therefore, it is clearly disclosed that the gNB schedule RBs on the downlink to the UE. Furthermore, the gNB schedules resource block in the DL subband to the UE based on the ACI i.e. SNR (or INR) in each DL subband. The ACI indicates the quality of the subbands and the ACI being SNR also represents the power distribution in the subbands as shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Therefore, R1-2203732 does disclose "scheduling circuitry configured to determine a subset of downlink resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum distribution of power across the downlink resource blocks" as recited by claim 1"
Applicant Argues:
On pages 8-9 of the remarks applicant argues the Office appears to combine the incompatible embodiments of Full Duplex and Half Duplex Time Division Duplexing
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
The proposals in Figures 3 and 4 of R1-2203732 are indeed directed toward a HD-TDD as one can clearly see in section 2.4 and the Figures 3-4 show frequency band f0-f1 as uplink and frequency band f2-f6 as downlink band. Therefore, the entire bandwidth of f0-f6 represents a HD-TDD system.
Applicant Argues:
On pages 9-10 of the remarks applicant argues ACIR does not disclose or teach "power control circuitry configured to allocate a budget of the power, to be used during a downlink transmission, to the subset of downlink resource blocks according to the spectrum distribution of the power, wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks". " Modulation and Coding Scheme ("MCS") does not disclose power
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
In the new 103 rejection, Examiner showed how the combination of R1-2203732 and Homchaudhuri discloses the allocation of power budget. See rejection below.
Applicant Argues:
On pages 9-10 of the remarks applicant argues ACIR does not disclose or teach "power control circuitry configured to allocate a budget of the power, to be used during a downlink transmission, to the subset of downlink resource blocks according to the spectrum distribution of the power, wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks". "Uplink is not downlink”
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
In section 2,4 and Fig. 4, R1-2203732 disclose the gNB schedules resource block in the DL/downlink subband to the UE based on the ACI i.e. SNR (or INR) in each DL subband, Figure 4 shows the uplink in the frequency band f0-f1 an downlink in the frequency band f2-f6 and th gNB performs resource allocation the DL subband f2-f6.
Applicant Argues:
On pages 9-10 of the remarks applicant argues " An indication of non-uniform power of uplink transmissions does not change based
on where the indication is located the quoted text also states, at the end: The gNB can indicate, e.g. in the UL Grant or DL Grant, whether to use non- uniform transmit power or not since there may not be any DL traffic in an adjacent DL subband'. (emphasis added) This quote discusses potential locations of an indication of a base station's decision to use non-uniform power. That indication can be found in the UL Grant or the DL Grant. Merely because a DL grant can contain an indication of uplink power allocation does not somehow change the uplink allocation of non-uniform power into a downlink allocation of non- uniform power. " The previous traversal about non-uniform distribution amongst downlink resource blocks has not been satisfied.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
R1-2203732: section 2.4; Observation 2 Fig. 4; DL subband /RB with different ACI and different MCS, i.e. different power distribution (see Homchaudhuri below) and that the ACI level is non-uniform across a DL subband, a PDSCH occupying RBs with different levels of ACI may underutilize the frequency resources
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 8 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations “means for receiving” and “means for allocating” in claim 18 in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e; R1-2203732 (“Adjacent Channel Interference in non-overlapping subband Full Duplex TDD operations”) (hereinafter R1-2203732) in view of Homchaudhuri et al (US 2015/0346807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, R1-2203732 teaches an apparatus (R1-2203732; Fig. 1, gNB1) comprising:
communication circuitry configured to receive information indicative of quality of a wireless downlink connection (R1-2203732: section 2.4, Observation 1: gNB receives ACI measured in DL subband f2-f6; the ACI causing CLI);
scheduling circuitry configured to determine a subset of downlink resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum distribution of power across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4; DL subband /resource blocks with different ACI; gNB performs scheduling based on the ACI in each subband; also the ACI measured as SNR in each subband shows the power distributed across the subband; see Figs. 3 and 4 where the ACI/(power, since ACI=SNR)); and
power control circuitry configured to allocate a budget of the power, to be used during a downlink transmission, to the subset of downlink resource blocks according to the spectrum distribution of the power, wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Observation 2 Fig. 4; DL subband /RB with different ACI and different MCS, i.e. different power distribution (see Homchaudhuri below); non-uniform power distribution).
R1-2203732 does not explicitly disclose that the MCS allocation is related to a power allocation.
Homchaudhuri teaches that MCS allocation is related to a power allocation (Homchaudhuri: Fig. 7A; [0077], power determined based om MCS; see also [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of R1-2203732 wherein the MCS allocation is related a power allocation as disclosed by Homchaudhuri to provide a system for adaptive control of RF low power modes in a multi-rate wireless communication (Homchaudhuri: Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, R1-2203732 teaches a method comprising:
receiving information indicative of quality of a wireless downlink connection (R1-2203732: section 2.4, Observation 1: gNB receives ACI measured in DL subband f2-f6; the ACI causing CLI);
determining a subset of downlink resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum distribution of power across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4; DL subband /RB with different ACI and different MCS, i.e. different power distribution); and
allocating a budget of the power, to be used during a downlink transmission, to the subset of downlink resource blocks according to the spectrum distribution of the power, wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4; DL subband /resource blocks with different ACI; gNB performs scheduling based on the ACI in each subband; also the ACI measured as SNR in each subband shows the power distributed across the subband; see Figs. 3 and 4 where the ACI/(power, since ACI=SNR)).
R1-2203732 does not explicitly disclose that the MCS allocation is related to a power allocation.
Homchaudhuri teaches that MCS allocation is related to a power allocation (Homchaudhuri: Fig. 7A; [0077], power determined based om MCS; see also [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of R1-2203732 wherein the MCS allocation is related a power allocation as disclosed by Homchaudhuri to provide a system for adaptive control of RF low power modes in a multi-rate wireless communication (Homchaudhuri: Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, R1-2203732 teaches an apparatus comprising:
means for receiving information indicative of quality of a wireless downlink connection (R1-2203732: section 2.4, Observation 1: gNB receives ACI measured in DL subband f2-f6; the ACI causing CLI);
means for determining a subset of downlink resource blocks allocated to the wireless downlink connection based on the quality of the wireless downlink connection and a spectrum distribution of power across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4; DL subband /RB with different ACI and different MCS, i.e. different power distribution); and
means for allocating a budget of the power, to be used during a downlink transmission, to the subset of downlink resource blocks according to the spectrum distribution of the power, wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4; DL subband /resource blocks with different ACI; gNB performs scheduling based on the ACI in each subband; also the ACI measured as SNR in each subband shows the power distributed across the subband; see Figs. 3 and 4 where the ACI/(power, since ACI=SNR)).
R1-2203732 does not explicitly disclose that the MCS allocation is related to a power allocation.
Homchaudhuri teaches that MCS allocation is related to a power allocation (Homchaudhuri: Fig. 7A; [0077], power determined based om MCS; see also [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of R1-2203732 wherein the MCS allocation is related a power allocation as disclosed by Homchaudhuri to provide a system for adaptive control of RF low power modes in a multi-rate wireless communication (Homchaudhuri: Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, R1-2203732 teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry comprises: ordering circuitry configured to generate a downlink resource block ordering by ordering the downlink resource blocks according to the quality information; and the subset of downlink resource blocks are contiguous in the downlink resource block ordering (R1-2203732: section 2.4; Fig. 4 and; DL subband/RB are ordered and contiguous).
Regarding claim 11, R1-2203732 teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry and the power control circuitry are configured to determine the subset of downlink resource blocks and to allocate the budget of the power to the subset of downlink resource blocks to one item of user equipment from a plurality of items of user equipment at a time (R1-2203732: Fig. 1 and 3; section 2.4, Observation 1: DL subband ACI measured and resources allocation to UEs).
Regarding claim 12, R1-2203732 teaches wherein the downlink resource blocks are provided in respect of a single same configuration of a beam of the communication circuitry (R1-2203732: Fig. 3; section 2.4, Observation 1: uniform beam configuration at the base station).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e; R1-2203732 (“Adjacent Channel Interference in non-overlapping subband Full Duplex TDD operations”) (hereinafter R1-2203732) in view of Atungsiri (US 2023/0056886 A1).
Regarding claim 3, R1-2203732 does not explicitly disclose wherein the information indicative of a quality of a wireless downlink connection is based on a Channel State Information value for the wireless downlink connection.
Atungsiri teaches wherein the information indicative of a quality of a wireless downlink connection is based on a Channel State Information value for the wireless downlink connection (Atungsiri: [0065], [0123] CQI reported to the BS)
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of R1-2203732 wherein the information indicative of a quality of a wireless downlink connection is based on a Channel State Information value for the wireless downlink connection as disclosed by Atungsiri to provide a system for resource allocation (Atungsiri: Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches wherein the information indicative of a quality of a wireless downlink connection is a quantized indicator of signal quality (Atungsiri: Figs. 12-13; [0118]).
Regarding claim 6, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches wherein the scheduling circuitry comprises: SNR estimation circuitry configured to generate an estimated signal-to-noise-ratio assuming that the power budget was distributed to each candidate subset of downlink resource blocks (Atungsiri: Fig. 12-12; [0089], [0118]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 9, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches throughput estimation circuitry configured to estimate a throughput for each candidate subset of downlink resource blocks (Atungsiri: [0059]-[0065] throughput estimation).
Regarding claim 10, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches wherein the subset of downlink resource blocks is selected as the candidate subset of downlink resource blocks having a highest throughput (Atungsiri: [0065] maximized throughput).
Regarding claim 14, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches wherein the information indicative of quality of a wireless downlink connection is received from an item of user equipment (Atungsiri: [0065], [0123] CQI reported to the BS by the UE).
Regarding claim 15, R1-2203732 in view of Atungsiri teaches wherein the wireless downlink connection is a wireless downlink of the item of user equipment (Atungsiri: Fig. 4; [0065], [0123] CQI reported to the BS).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e; R1-2203732 (“Adjacent Channel Interference in non-overlapping subband Full Duplex TDD operations”) (hereinafter R1-2203732) in view of Kazmi et al (US 2010/0317385 A1).
Regarding claim 13, R1-220372 does not explicitly disclose wherein the power budget is fixed according to a regulatory restriction.
Kazmi teaches wherein the power budget is fixed according to a regulatory restriction (Kazmi: [0097]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of R1-2203732 wherein the power budget is fixed according to a regulatory restriction as disclosed by Atungsiri to provide a system for resource allocation (Atungsiri: Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, R1-220372 in view of teaches wherein the spectrum distribution of the power is non-uniform across the downlink resource blocks such that at least some of the downlink resource blocks are allocated no power and at least some other of the downlink resource blocks are allocated non-zero power (Kazmi: Figs. 4-5; [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm.
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, Avellino Joseph can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights