CTNF 18/329,393 CTNF 100034 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18, and 29-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 7, 18-19, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Moderator (CATT), "Moderator summary on Timing advance management for LTM: Round 4," 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #112bis-e, e-Meeting, April 17th- April 26th, 2023. (R1-2304135) https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_112b-e/Docs, hereinafter, "CATT") in view of RUDOLF et al. (US 20230328656 A1, hereinafter, "RUDOLF") . Regarding claim 1, CATT teaches determine a limit on a number of switching points between one or more first symbols configured for sub-band full duplex (SBFD) communications and one or more second symbols configured for non-SBFD communications, within a period of time; CATT writes, “One motivation for allowing that a slot can consist of both SBFD and non -SBFD symbols is for compatibility with symbol-level TDD UL/DL configuration. Frequent switching between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols is not expected considering that it may increase the implementation complexity and interruptions of transmissions/receptions during transition. Further study whether limitation(s) on the maximum number of switching points between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot, a TDD UL/DL pattern period, and/or semi-static SBFD configuration period (if different from TDD UL/DL pattern period) are needed Further study scenarios a guard period between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols is required/not required and the length of the guard period if required (2.1. April. 18th (Tue), Proposal 1-2a, Proposed Agreement). Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). determine a configuration for the SBFD communications based on the limit; CATT writes, “Intel thinks that if a UL transmission or a DL reception is only within single symbol type (SBFD or non -SBFD symbol), the complexity of symbol-level SBFD configuration is similar to the case of slot -level SBFD configuration. Xiaomi doesn’t see additional difficulties in terms of implementation complexity from both gNB side and UE side. Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). and perform the SBFD communications, in accordance with the configuration. CATT writes, “Intel thinks that if a UL transmission or a DL reception is only within single symbol type (SBFD or non -SBFD symbol), the complexity of symbol-level SBFD configuration is similar to the case of slot -level SBFD configuration. Xiaomi doesn’t see additional difficulties in terms of implementation complexity from both gNB side and UE side. Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). CATT fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: ”, “ one or more memories comprising instructions; ”, and “ and one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: ” RUDOLF teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 0054; figure 3, UE: 116) , comprising: one or more memories comprising instructions (paragraph 0054; figure 3, memory: 360, operating system: 361, applications: 362) ; and one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions (paragraph 0057; figure 3, processor: 340) to cause the apparatus to: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include detail described by RUDOLF that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to transmission and reception power in full-duplex systems.” RUDOLF provides the motivation for modification stating, “Full-duplex (FD) communications offer a potential for increased spectral efficiency, improved capacity, and reduced latency in wireless networks. When using FD communications, UL and DL signals are simultaneously received and transmitted on fully or partially overlapping, or adjacent, frequency resources, thereby improving spectral efficiency and reducing latency in user and/or control planes” (paragraph 0116). Regarding claim 2, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, Additionally, RUDOLF teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of the limit to a network entity. RUDOLF writes, “The processor 340 can include one or more processors or other processing devices and execute the OS 361 stored in the memory 360 in order to control the overall operation of the UE 116. For example, the processor 340 could control the reception of DL channel signals and the transmission of UL channel signals by the transceiver(s) 310 in accordance with well-known principles. In some embodiments, the processor 340 includes at least one microprocessor or microcontroller” (paragraph 0057). RUDOLF continues, “The processor 340 is also capable of executing other processes and programs resident in the memory 360, such as processes for supporting reception power in full-duplex systems. The processor 340 can move data into or out of the memory 360 as required by an executing process. In some embodiments, the processor 340 is configured to execute the applications 362 based on the OS 361 or in response to signals received from gNBs or an operator” (paragraph 0058). RUDOLF adds, “A UE transmits data information or UCI through a respective physical UL shared channel (PUSCH) or a physical UL control channel (PUCCH)” (paragraph 0077). RUDOLF concludes, “UCI includes hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information, indicating correct or incorrect detection of data transport blocks (TBs) in a PDSCH, scheduling request (SR) indicating whether a UE has data in a buffer, and CSI reports enabling a gNB to select appropriate parameters for PDSCH or PDCCH transmissions to a UE” (paragraph 0078). RUDOLF mentions the UE includes a processor that is capable of executing processes and programs. RUDOLF explains that the UE may send indications to the gNB regarding parameters. Regarding claim 3, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 2, Additionally, RUDOLF teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive the configuration from the network entity. RUDOLF writes, “The processor 340 can include one or more processors or other processing devices and execute the OS 361 stored in the memory 360 in order to control the overall operation of the UE 116. For example, the processor 340 could control the reception of DL channel signals and the transmission of UL channel signals by the transceiver(s) 310 in accordance with well-known principles. In some embodiments, the processor 340 includes at least one microprocessor or microcontroller” (paragraph 0057). RUDOLF continues, “The processor 340 is also capable of executing other processes and programs resident in the memory 360, such as processes for supporting reception power in full-duplex systems. The processor 340 can move data into or out of the memory 360 as required by an executing process. In some embodiments, the processor 340 is configured to execute the applications 362 based on the OS 361 or in response to signals received from gNBs or an operator” (paragraph 0058). Regarding claim 7, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, Additionally, RUDOLF teaches wherein the period of time is associated with: a slot; a time division duplex (TDD) uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) pattern period; or a semi-static SBFD configuration period. RUDOLF writes, “FIG. 6 illustrates an example UL-DL frame configuration in a TDD communications system 600 according to embodiments of the disclosure. The embodiment of the UL-DL frame configuration in a TDD communications system 600 illustrated in FIG. 6 is for illustration only. FIG. 6 does not limit the scope of this disclosure to any particular implementation of the UL-DL frame configuration in a TDD communications system 600” (paragraph 0110; figure 6). Regarding claim 18, CATT teaches determine a limit on a number of switching points between one or more first symbols configured for sub-band full duplex (SBFD) communications and one or more second symbols configured for non-SBFD communications, within a period of time; CATT writes, “One motivation for allowing that a slot can consist of both SBFD and non -SBFD symbols is for compatibility with symbol-level TDD UL/DL configuration. Frequent switching between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols is not expected considering that it may increase the implementation complexity and interruptions of transmissions/receptions during transition. Further study whether limitation(s) on the maximum number of switching points between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot, a TDD UL/DL pattern period, and/or semi-static SBFD configuration period (if different from TDD UL/DL pattern period) are needed Further study scenarios a guard period between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols is required/not required and the length of the guard period if required (2.1. April. 18th (Tue), Proposal 1-2a, Proposed Agreement). Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). determine a configuration for the SBFD communications based on the limit; CATT writes, “Intel thinks that if a UL transmission or a DL reception is only within single symbol type (SBFD or non -SBFD symbol), the complexity of symbol-level SBFD configuration is similar to the case of slot -level SBFD configuration. Xiaomi doesn’t see additional difficulties in terms of implementation complexity from both gNB side and UE side. Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). and perform the SBFD communications, in accordance with the configuration. CATT writes, “Intel thinks that if a UL transmission or a DL reception is only within single symbol type (SBFD or non -SBFD symbol), the complexity of symbol-level SBFD configuration is similar to the case of slot -level SBFD configuration. Xiaomi doesn’t see additional difficulties in terms of implementation complexity from both gNB side and UE side. Ericsson thinks that additional guard symbols will need to be added for transitions between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbols to allow the hardware reconfigurations to activate/deactivate and stabilize in practice. Large numbers of such SBFD/non-SBFD symbol transitions will incur significant radio resource losses from the required guard symbols and proposed to study the number of transitions between SBFD symbols and non -SBFD symbols to be supported in a TDD UL/DL cycle” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). CATT fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: ”, “ one or more memories comprising instructions; ”, “ and one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: ”, and “ and transmit a configuration for the SBFD communications based on the determination. ” RUDOLF teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity (paragraph 0045; figure 2, gNB: 102) , comprising: one or more memories comprising instructions (paragraph 0045; figure 2, memory: 230) ; and one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions (paragraph 0045; figure 2, processor: 225) to cause the apparatus to: and transmit a configuration for the SBFD communications based on the determination. RUDOLF writes, “A gNB transmits data information or DCI through respective physical DL shared channels (PDSCHs) or physical DL control channels (PDCCHs)” (paragraph 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include detail described by RUDOLF that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to transmission and reception power in full-duplex systems.” RUDOLF provides the motivation for modification stating, “Full-duplex (FD) communications offer a potential for increased spectral efficiency, improved capacity, and reduced latency in wireless networks. When using FD communications, UL and DL signals are simultaneously received and transmitted on fully or partially overlapping, or adjacent, frequency resources, thereby improving spectral efficiency and reducing latency in user and/or control planes” (paragraph 0116). Claim 19 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 7 that has already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 7. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7. Claims 29 and 30 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 and 18 that have already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1 and 18. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 18 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-16, 21-22, and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim s 1 and 18 above, and further in view of LI et al. (US 20200314891 A1, hereinafter, "LI") . Regarding claim 10, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ a value of the limit is less than or equal to the number of switching points; ” and “ and the number of switching points is configured by a network entity or based on a rule. ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches a value of the limit is less than or equal to the number of switching points; LI writes, “In one instance, the maximum number of switching points can be predefined in the spec as a fixed number, such as N (N>=1) within a COT duration” (paragraph 0458). and the number of switching points is configured by a network entity or based on a rule. LI writes, “In one instance, the maximum number of switching points can be predefined in the spec as a fixed number, such as N (N>=1) within a COT duration” (paragraph 0458). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Regarding claim 11, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein a value of the limit is equal to one. ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches wherein a value of the limit is equal to one. LI writes, “In one instance, the maximum number of switching points can be predefined in the spec as a fixed number, such as N (N>=1) within a COT duration” (paragraph 0458). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Regarding claim 12, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein a value of the limit is equal to two. ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches wherein a value of the limit is equal to two. LI writes, “In one instance, the maximum number of switching points can be predefined in the spec as a fixed number, such as N (N>=1) within a COT duration” (paragraph 0458). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Regarding claim 13, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein one or more values of the limit are based on one or more values of a subcarrier spacing (SCS). ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches wherein one or more values of the limit are based on one or more values of a subcarrier spacing (SCS). LI writes, “In another instance, if the COT duration is M NR-U slots of a given subcarrier spacing (e.g., 15 kHz SCS for sub-7 GHz NR-U), the maximum allowed number of switching points can be 2*M−1, which can be at least applied to the scenario where a UE responds HARQ-ACK feedback to the corresponding DL transmissions once every NR-U slot duration of the given subcarrier spacing” (paragraph 0460). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Regarding claim 14, CATT, RUDOLF, and LI teach the apparatus of claim 13, wherein: Additionally, LI teaches a first value of the limit is for a first value of the SCS and a second value of the limit is for a second value of the SCS; LI writes, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM symbols for 60kHz SCS and at least 3 OFDM symbols for 120 kHz SCS. the first value of the limit is different than the second value of the limit; LI writes, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM symbols for 60kHz SCS and at least 3 OFDM symbols for 120 kHz SCS. and the first value of the SCS is different than the second value of the SCS. LI writes, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM symbols for 60kHz SCS and at least 3 OFDM symbols for 120 kHz SCS. Regarding claim 15, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein one or more values of the limit are based on one or more values of a frequency range (FR). ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches wherein one or more values of the limit are based on one or more values of a frequency range (FR). LI writes, “In another instance, if the COT duration is M NR-U slots of a given subcarrier spacing (e.g., 15 kHz SCS for sub-7 GHz NR-U), the maximum allowed number of switching points can be 2*M−1, which can be at least applied to the scenario where a UE responds HARQ-ACK feedback to the corresponding DL transmissions once every NR-U slot duration of the given subcarrier spacing” (paragraph 0460). LI indicates the limit is based on the frequency range being below 7GHz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Regarding claim 16, CATT, RUDOLF, and LI teach the apparatus of claim 15, wherein: Additionally, LI teaches a first value of the limit is for a first FR and a second value of the limit is for a second FR; LI writes, “In one embodiment, denote by GP the total allocated guard period duration for one DL to UL switch and corresponding UL to DL switch, then GP is an integer number of NR-U OFDM symbols” (paragraph 0469). LI continues, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI adds, “In one sub-example, for sub-7 GHz NR-U with 15 kHz SCS, GP can be of 1 OFDM symbol length…” (paragraph 0485). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM and 3 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range above 7GHz and 1 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range below 7GHz. the first value of the limit is different than the second value of the limit; LI writes, “In one embodiment, denote by GP the total allocated guard period duration for one DL to UL switch and corresponding UL to DL switch, then GP is an integer number of NR-U OFDM symbols” (paragraph 0469). LI continues, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI adds, “In one sub-example, for sub-7 GHz NR-U with 15 kHz SCS, GP can be of 1 OFDM symbol length…” (paragraph 0485). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM and 3 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range above 7GHz and 1 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range below 7GHz. and the first FR is different than the second FR. LI writes, “In one embodiment, denote by GP the total allocated guard period duration for one DL to UL switch and corresponding UL to DL switch, then GP is an integer number of NR-U OFDM symbols” (paragraph 0469). LI continues, “This indicates the corresponding GP needs to be at least 2 OFDM symbols and 3 OFDM symbols respectively for above-7 GHz NR-U with 60 kHz SCS and 120 kHz SCS respectively” (paragraph 0496). LI adds, “In one sub-example, for sub-7 GHz NR-U with 15 kHz SCS, GP can be of 1 OFDM symbol length…” (paragraph 0485). LI indicates at least 2 OFDM and 3 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range above 7GHz and 1 OFDM symbol length for a frequency range below 7GHz. Regarding claim 24, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 18, wherein: Additionally, CATT teaches and the number of switching points is configured by a network entity or based on a rule. CATT writes, “In terms of implementation complexity, vivo thinks that it may not introduce much complexity at gNB side when switching between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbol is also allowed within a slot, since such switching is under gNB’s control. For SBFD aware UEs, if there is much complexity, the maximum number of allowed switching points between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot at UE side can be further studied similar to that for FG5-1 'a t most one switch point per slot for actual DL/UL' and FG 5 -1b 'More than one DL/UL switch point in a slot'” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). However, in analogous art, LI teaches a value of the limit is less than or equal to the number of switching points; LI writes, “In one instance, the maximum number of switching points can be predefined in the spec as a fixed number, such as N (N>=1) within a COT duration” (paragraph 0458). LI indicates the maximum number of switching points, or limit, can be predefined in the specs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302). Claims 21-22 and 25-28 are apparatus claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 10-11 and 13-16 that have already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 10-11 and 13-16. Claims 21-22 and 25-28 are rejected under the same rational as claims 10-11 and 13-16 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of KIM (US 20240056927 A1, hereinafter, "KIM") . Regarding claim 4, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: Additionally, CATT teaches and the number of switching points is configured by the network entity or based on a rule. CATT writes, “In terms of implementation complexity, vivo thinks that it may not introduce much complexity at gNB side when switching between SBFD symbols and non-SBFD symbol is also allowed within a slot, since such switching is under gNB’s control. For SBFD aware UEs, if there is much complexity, the maximum number of allowed switching points between SBFD and non-SBFD symbols within a slot at UE side can be further studied similar to that for FG5-1 'at most one switch point per slot for actual DL/UL' and FG 5 -1b 'More than one DL/UL switch point in a slot'”. Intel thinks that if a UL transmission or a DL reception is only within single symbol type (SBFD or non -SBFD symbol), the complexity of symbol-level SBFD configuration is similar to the case of slot -level SBFD configuration” (3.1.1. SBFD operation, Implementation complexity). CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of invalid configuration when a value of the limit is more than the number of switching points; ” However, in analogous art, KIM teaches the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of invalid configuration when a value of the limit is more than the number of switching points; KIM writes, “When the terminal receives the terminal capability information request message, the terminal may configure and generate a terminal capability information message, and report the same to the base station (operation 1e-27). The terminal capability information message may include information about the types of handover methods supported by the terminal. For example, the terminal may report information about a terminal capability to the base station via an indicator, the information indicating whether or not the terminal supports an efficient handover method (i.e., dual active protocol stack (DAPS)) proposed in the disclosure” (paragraph 0148). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by KIM that “relates to operations of a terminal and a base station in a mobile communication system, and relates to errors that may occur when performing an efficient handover method (for example, a dual active protocol stack (DAPS) handover method) which causes no suspension of data transmission or reception during handover, and a method and a device which can solve the errors in a next-generation mobile communication system.” KIM provides the motivation for modification stating, “The disclosure proposes a DAPS handover method as an efficient handover method which prevents a data interruption time due to handover from occurring when the handover is performed in the next-generation mobile communication system, thereby supporting a service without data interruption. In addition, methods of analyzing problems which may occur when the DAPS handover method is performed, and solving the problems are proposed” (paragraph 0021) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim s 1 and 18 above, and further in view of AWADIN et al. (US 20230163937 A1, hereinafter, "AWADIN") . Regarding claim 6, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein the one or more first symbols support subband frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions. ” However, in analogous art, AWADIN teaches wherein the one or more first symbols support subband frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions. AWADIN writes, “Pattern1, which provides the number of consecutive DL slots in the beginning of DL-UL pattern period, the number of DL symbols in the beginning of the slot following the last full DL slot, the number of consecutive UL slots at the end DL-UL pattern period, and the number of the UL symbols at the end of the slot preceding the first full UL slot. The remaining symbols are considered as flexible” (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by AWADIN that “relates generally to wireless communication systems, and more particularly, to a subband operation for cross division duplex (XDD) technology to enhance coverage in wireless communication systems.” AWADIN provides the motivation for modification stating, “An aspect of the present disclosure is to provide procedures to define the UL/DL subband as a region of a continuous number of resource blocks (RBs)” (paragraph 0040). AWADIN also notes, "Another aspect of the present disclosure is to provide procedures to define the UL/DL subband in the frequency domain, based on an offset relative to the associated BWP or Point A, an indication of the subband width as the number of RBs, and to change the provided subband configurations semi-statically or dynamically" (paragraph 0041). Regarding claim 23, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 18, wherein: CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ the one or more first symbols support subband frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions; ”, “ and the one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: transmit a DL transmission in a DL subband to a user equipment (UE) or receiving an UL transmission in a UL subband from the UE in a same symbol of the one or more first symbols, ”, and “ and receive the UL transmission in the UL subband from another UE or transmitting the DL transmission in the DL subband to the another UE in the same symbol of the one or more first symbols. ” However, in analogous art, AWADIN teaches the one or more first symbols support subband frequency duplexing for simultaneous uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions; AWADIN writes, “Pattern1, which provides the number of consecutive DL slots in the beginning of DL-UL pattern period, the number of DL symbols in the beginning of the slot following the last full DL slot, the number of consecutive UL slots at the end DL-UL pattern period, and the number of the UL symbols at the end of the slot preceding the first full UL slot. The remaining symbols are considered as flexible” (paragraph 0007). and the one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: transmit a DL transmission in a DL subband to a user equipment (UE) or receiving an UL transmission in a UL subband from the UE in a same symbol of the one or more first symbols, AWADIN writes, “Pattern1, which provides the number of consecutive DL slots in the beginning of DL-UL pattern period, the number of DL symbols in the beginning of the slot following the last full DL slot, the number of consecutive UL slots at the end DL-UL pattern period, and the number of the UL symbols at the end of the slot preceding the first full UL slot. The remaining symbols are considered as flexible” (paragraph 0007). and receive the UL transmission in the UL subband from another UE or transmitting the DL transmission in the DL subband to the another UE in the same symbol of the one or more first symbols. AWADIN writes, “Even if a particular UE has no UL transmission or DL reception in the UL or DL subband, other UEs may have such UL transmission or DL reception. In this case, if the UE is configured by higher layer signaling to transmit or receive on a regular (i.e., legacy) DL BWP or UL BWP, and that transmission or reception partially or fully overlaps in the frequency domain and/or time domain with the configured UL or DL subband...” (paragraph 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by AWADIN that “relates generally to wireless communication systems, and more particularly, to a subband operation for cross division duplex (XDD) technology to enhance coverage in wireless communication systems.” AWADIN provides the motivation for modification stating, “An aspect of the present disclosure is to provide procedures to define the UL/DL subband as a region of a continuous number of resource blocks (RBs)” (paragraph 0040). AWADIN also notes, "Another aspect of the present disclosure is to provide procedures to define the UL/DL subband in the frequency domain, based on an offset relative to the associated BWP or Point A, an indication of the subband width as the number of RBs, and to change the provided subband configurations semi-statically or dynamically" (paragraph 0041) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of XU (US 20250097913 A1, hereinafter, "XU") . Regarding claim 8, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 7, CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein the TDD UL and DL pattern period is different than the semi-static SBFD configuration period. ” However, in analogous art, XU teaches wherein the TDD UL and DL pattern period is different than the semi-static SBFD configuration period. XU writes, “In addition, the semi-static configuration is adopted for the time domain position of the SBFD, but a dynamic configuration is already supported by the TDD frame structure. The configured results from the two configurations may be different, resulting in a conflict between the configured results, for example, a slot/symbol configured with the SBFD is dynamically indicated as an uplink slot/symbol simultaneously” (paragraph 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by XU that “relate to the technical field of mobile communications, and in particular provide a wireless communication method and apparatus, a device, and a storage medium.” XU provides the motivation for modification stating, “...different transmission directions can be supported for different frequency domain resources within one time unit, so that configuration of the frequency domain resources in different transmission directions can be implemented in one time unit. Moreover, one time unit can include, in frequency domain, frequency domain resources with different transmission directions, and thus the reception and transmission of data can be performed simultaneously in one time unit, thereby improving resource utilization” (paragraph 0010) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KANG et al. (US 20230052430 A1, hereinafter, "KANG") . Regarding claim 17, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit reference capability indicating a reference value corresponding to the limit per frequency range (FR); ” and “ and one or more values of the limit for one or more values of a subcarrier spacing (SCS) are based on the reference value. ” However, in analogous art, KANG teaches the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit reference capability indicating a reference value corresponding to the limit per frequency range (FR); KANG writes, “For example, when a capability value reported by a terminal exceeds a reference threshold, the reference threshold may be applied as the predetermined threshold. Alternatively, when a capability value reported by a terminal is equal to or less than a reference threshold, the capability value may be applied as the predetermined threshold. Candidates of the reference threshold may be configured/defined differently based on one or more of SCS, a FR (or a frequency position, or a center frequency position), terminal capability, or a CP related configuration (e.g., a CP length/type)” (paragraph 0364). and one or more values of the limit for one or more values of a subcarrier spacing (SCS) are based on the reference value. KANG writes, “For example, when a capability value reported by a terminal exceeds a reference threshold, the reference threshold may be applied as the predetermined threshold. Alternatively, when a capability value reported by a terminal is equal to or less than a reference threshold, the capability value may be applied as the predetermined threshold. Candidates of the reference threshold may be configured/defined differently based on one or more of SCS, a FR (or a frequency position, or a center frequency position), terminal capability, or a CP related configuration (e.g., a CP length/type)” (paragraph 0364). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by KANG that “relates to a wireless communication system, and in more detail, relates to a method and an apparatus of transmitting and receiving a signal based on a spatial parameter in a wireless communication system.” KANG provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to the present disclosure, a method and an apparatus of determining a spatial parameter based on beam switching timing of a terminal and performing uplink signal transmission or downlink signal reception based on a determined spatial parameter may be provided” (paragraph 0010) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT and RUDOLF as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of KAZMI et al. (US 20120264449 A1, hereinafter, "KAZMI") . Regarding claim 20, CATT and RUDOLF teach the apparatus of claim 18, wherein: Additionally, RUDOLF teaches the one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive capability information from a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 0045; figure 2, processor: 225) ; CATT and RUDOLF fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ and the capability information comprises the limit on the number of switching points. ” However, in analogous art, KAZMI teaches and the capability information comprises the limit on the number of switching points. KAZMI writes, “The UE capability information received by a node (e.g., eNode-B) may also be forwarded to other nodes (e.g., positioning node, core network node, SON node, O&M node, etc). Any of the nodes can act as the configuring node to adjust parameters associated with the switching point configuration and/or inter-group offset” (paragraph 0112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT and RUDOLF to include aspects described by KAZMI that “relates to wireless communications networks where measurements are performed according to certain patterns with a certain configured activity rate or following a certain configured transmission pattern of the measured signals. The addressed problem may arise with inter-frequency positioning measurements performed on signals transmitted with certain periodicity or in heterogeneous networks with restricted measurements based on measurement patterns.” KAZMI provides the motivation for modification stating, “A non-exhaustive list of advantages of one or more aspects of the present disclosure include: Maintaining network flexibility in configuring measurements and ensuring the UE complexity at a desired level by controlling the switching point; and Methods for optimizing switching point and thus UE complexity are provided; Network awareness of the UE capability related to handling group measurements” (paragraph 0162-0165) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT, RUDOLF, and XU as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of LI . Regarding claim 9, CATT, RUDOLF, and XU teach the apparatus of claim 8, CATT, RUDOLF, and XU fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of a maximum value or a minimum value of at least one of: the limit on the number of switching points between the one or more first symbols and the one or more second symbols within the semi-static SBFD configuration period or the limit on the number of switching points between the one or more first symbols and the one or more second symbols within the TDD pattern period. ” However, in analogous art, LI teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to transmit an indication of a maximum value or a minimum value of at least one of: the limit on the number of switching points between the one or more first symbols and the one or more second symbols within the semi-static SBFD configuration period or the limit on the number of switching points between the one or more first symbols and the one or more second symbols within the TDD pattern period. LI writes, “Frame based equipment, or FBE, is a channel access mechanism wherein the transmit/receive structure has a periodic timing with a periodicity named the fixed frame period (FFP); and that the initiating device may perform listen-before-talk (LBT) during an observation slot before starting transmissions on an operating channel at the start of a FFP” (paragraph 0161). LI continues, “In one sub- example, the value of FFP can be configured and indicated to the UE through downlink control information (DCI), which can indicate the chosen FFP value from the set of predefined FFP values. In one embodiment, when an FBE operation mode is supported, a channel occupancy time (COT) can be configurable or determined from configurations for other related system information” (paragraphs 0181-0182). LI adds, “In one example, the maximum allowed number of DL/UL switching points within the COT, including both DL to UL switching point(s) and UL to DL switching point(s) can be either predefined in the spec or configurable; wherein the spec can specify the total number of DL to UL switching point(s) and UL to DL switching point(s), or specify the number of DL to UL switching point(s) and the number for UL to DL switching point(s) separately, or specify either one of the number of DL to UL switching point(s) or the number for UL to DL switching point(s)” (paragraph 0457). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT, RUDOLF, and XU to include aspects described by LI that “relates generally to wireless communication systems and, more specifically, to a frame based equipment operation of an NR unlicensed.” LI provides the motivation for modification stating, “The approaches in this embodiment are beneficial in improving channel access for asynchronous FBE NR-U networks, but these approaches are not restricted to be only applied to asynchronous FBE NR-U network(s) and can be applied to any FBE NR-U network” (paragraph 0302) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT, RUDOLF, and KIM as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of PARK et al. (US 20250203588 A1, hereinafter, "PARK") . Regarding claim 5, CATT, RUDOLF, and KIM teach the apparatus of claim 4, CATT, RUDOLF, and KIM fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “ wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to drop the configuration when the configuration is invalid. ” However, in analogous art, PARK teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to drop the configuration when the configuration is invalid. PARK writes, “The WTRU may apply a dynamic UL PC and/or a dynamic MCS adjustment for XDD, or a Tx behavior change (e.g., Tx dropping, skipping, stopping, cancelling, and/or deferring or a Tx with modified parameter(s)), for example, if one or more of the following conditions is met: if a frequency gap between a first configured and/or indicated RBs (e.g., for UL Tx) and a second configured and/or indicated RBs (e.g., for DL Rx) on a (e.g., same) symbol/slot is below a first threshold...” (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of CATT, RUDOLF, and KIM to include aspects described by PARK “regarding power control and link adaptation for cross-division duplex (XDD). Systems, methods, and instrumentalities are described herein regarding subband non-overlapping full duplex (SBFD) operations based on transmit parameter adjustment(s).” PARK provides the motivation for modification stating, “In examples, New Radio (NR) duplex operation (e.g., NR-Duplex, XDD, etc.) may improve conventional TDD operation by enhancing UL coverage, improving capacity, reducing latency, and so forth” (paragraph 0143). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT. 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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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. /Christopher A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 5/31/2026 /KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 2 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 3 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 4 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 5 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 6 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 7 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 8 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 9 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 10 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 11 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 12 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 13 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 14 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 15 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 16 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 17 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 18 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 19 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 20 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 21 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 22 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 23 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 24 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 25 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 26 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/329,393 Page 27 Art Unit: 2475
Prosecution Insights