DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
The examiner finds support under 35 USC 112(a) for the pending claims within Provisional Application No. 63/380,763 (filed 10/15/20222).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/17/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ 0104 contains a clear typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states in relevant part:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
…
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.
…
Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Independent claim 1 recites a method. In accordance with MPEP § 2111.04(II), conditional limitations within method claims will be treated as not being required to be performed under the BRI.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites, “determining, according to the TDD configurations, whether a collision exists between an uplink (UL) transmission on the first CC and a downlink (DL) reception on the second CC for each of the time slots and the symbols; and
selecting one of the UL transmission and the DL reception for one of more of the time slots and the symbols with the collision based on a plurality of priority rules.” The examiner notes that limitations rely on the phrase “whether” which reads as conditional. In other words, the determination step may conclude that a collision does not exist, which would conclude the operation of the claim. Therefore, the examiner considers the BRI of independent claim 1 to include a scenario where selecting limitation is not performed.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the same issue. Any limitations further defining the selecting step are considered to be optional under the BRI as well.
As per dependent claims 6, 8, and 13, the claims recite, “when” followed by a condition.
The BRI of the term “when” includes “if”, which is considered conditional. Therefore, the examiner considers the BRI of dependent claims 6, 8, and 13 to include the limitations not being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abdelghaffar et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0056283).
As per claim 1, Abdelghaffar et al. teach a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) [Abdelghaffar, see ¶ 0088, fig. 7, element 704], comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a plurality of time division duplexing (TDD) configurations of time slots and symbols for a plurality of component carriers (CCs) [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0091, “the UE 704 may receive a dedicated configuration or a common configuration to indicate a direction for communication on a carrier or cell in a symbol. For example, the UE 704 may receive first configuration information that conveys a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information element (IE) for a reference cell to indicate that a symbol has a first direction (e.g., an uplink symbol or a downlink symbol). In this case, a collision scenario may occur when the UE 704 also receives second configuration information to indicate that the symbol has a second direction (e.g., a downlink symbol or an uplink symbol) for another cell (other than the reference cell)”, The UE receives TDD configuration information (see fig. 7, step 708). The TDD configuration information includes time slots and component carrier symbols (see also ¶ 0094).], wherein the CCs include a first CC and a second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0081, “As shown, different sub-bands, within the single component carrier, may have a different pattern of symbols. Similarly, in example 605, SBFD communication may be configured across a plurality of carriers. For example, in intra-band CA, different carriers, within a CA bandwidth, may have different TDD UL/DL configurations. In this case, a first component carrier (CC1) and a third component carrier (CC3) may have a first symbol pattern (DL, UL, DL, DL, DL) and a second component carrier (CC2) may have a second symbol pattern (UL, UL, UL, UL, DL)”, The invention includes subband full duplex (see fig. 6, element 605), where the uplink and downlink slots are on adjacent component carriers (CCs). See also ¶ 0083.];
determining, according to the TDD configurations, whether a collision exists between an uplink (UL) transmission on the first CC and a downlink (DL) reception on the second CC for each of the time slots and the symbols [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0089, “the UE 704 may indicate that the UE 704 can apply the set of directional collision handling rules and, based at least in part on the UE 704 so indicating, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 in accordance with the set of directional collision handling rules. For example, when the UE 704 indicates support for the set of directional collision handling rules described herein, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 with a collision in a symbol that can be resolved using the set of directional collision handling rules”, If a UE is capable, the network entity configures it with collision handling rules. The collision handling rules handle a scenario where a UE detects a symbol assigned as an uplink on a first CC and a symbol assigned as a downlink on a second CC (see ¶ 0084). The UE handles a detected collision using the received configured rules (see also ¶ 0095).]; and
selecting one of the UL transmission and the DL reception for one of more of the time slots and the symbols with the collision based on a plurality of priority rules [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0100, “In this case, the UE 704 and the network entity 702 may prioritize the PUSCH over the PDSCH based at least in part on the PUSCH being scheduled for more repetitions (3) than the PDSCH (1)”, Paragraph [0100] describes a directional collision handling rule for a scenario with overlapping DCIs, where one has a PDSCH scheduled at the same time as a number of PUSCH repetitions (see fig. 8, element 815 – with PDSCH and PUSCH collision between CC0 and CC1). Using the directional collision handling rule, the UE selects the PUSCH.].
As per claim 2, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach further comprising: indicating support of half-duplex operation in TDD carrier aggregation with same subcarrier spacing (SCS), wherein numerologies are same over the first CC and the second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0084, “ In 3GPP Release 16, directional collision handling rules have been introduced to manage such collisions between a reference cell and another cell with half-duplex operation in TDD CA (e.g., with different TDD UL/DL configurations across different component carriers) with a common subcarrier spacing (SCS)”, SBFD configuration across CCs (see fig. 6, element 615, ¶ 0081) uses a common SCS between CCs, which implies the same numerology.].
As per claim 3, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach further comprising: enabling directional collision handling for a plurality of serving cells, including the first CC and the second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0089, “For example, the UE 704 may indicate that the UE 704 can apply the set of directional collision handling rules and, based at least in part on the UE 704 so indicating, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 in accordance with the set of directional collision handling rules”, A capable UE is enabled with directional collision handling rules (see also ¶s 0018, 0019, and 0087).].
As per claim 4, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the UE is configured to receive the TDD configurations by:
receiving, from the base station, a system information block (SIB) including a common TDD configuration for the CCs;
receiving, from the base station, a dedicated TDD configuration for at least one of the first CC and the second CC by Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling; or
receiving, from the base station, a Downlink Control Information (DCI) TDD configuration for at least one of the first CC and the second CC by dynamic slot-format indicator (SFI) signaling [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0068, “In FIGS. 4A and 4C, the wireless communications frame structure is TDD where D is DL, U is UL, and F is flexible for use between DL/UL. UEs may be configured with a slot format through a received slot format indicator (SFI) (dynamically through DL control information (DCI), or semi-statically/statically through RRC signaling)”, TDD configuration information may be conveyed via DCI by SFI.].
As per claim 5, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein each of the TDD configurations is a dedicated TDD configuration, a cell-specific TDD configuration [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0091, “the UE 704 may receive a dedicated configuration or a common configuration to indicate a direction for communication on a carrier or cell in a symbol. For example, the UE 704 may receive first configuration information that conveys a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information element (IE) for a reference cell to indicate that a symbol has a first direction (e.g., an uplink symbol or a downlink symbol). In this case, a collision scenario may occur when the UE 704 also receives second configuration information to indicate that the symbol has a second direction (e.g., a downlink symbol or an uplink symbol) for another cell (other than the reference cell)”, The UE receives TDD configuration information (see fig. 7, step 708). The TDD configuration information includes time slots and component carrier symbols (see also ¶ 0094). tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon is cell-specific and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated is dedicated.], or a dynamic TDD configuration indicated by a slot-format indicator (SFI) table.
As per claim 6, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the collision is determined to exist between the UL transmission and the DL reception when: a time overlap exists between the UL transmission and the DL reception [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0100, “In this case, the UE 704 and the network entity 702 may prioritize the PUSCH over the PDSCH based at least in part on the PUSCH being scheduled for more repetitions (3) than the PDSCH (1)”, Paragraph [0100] describes a directional collision handling rule for a scenario with overlapping DCIs, where one has a PDSCH scheduled at the same time as a number of PUSCH repetitions (see fig. 8, element 815 – with PDSCH and PUSCH collision between CC0 and CC1). Using the directional collision handling rule, the UE selects the PUSCH. This show time overlap.]; or a requirement of a transmission-reception or reception-transmission turn around time between the UL transmission and the DL reception is not met.
As per claim 15, Abdelghaffar et al. teach an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) [Abdelghaffar, see ¶ 0088, fig. 7, element 704], comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory [Abdelghaffar, see ¶ 0144, fig. 13, elements 1320, 1330] and configured to:
receive, from a base station, a plurality of time division duplexing (TDD) configurations of time slots and symbols for a plurality of component carriers (CCs), wherein the CCs include a first CC and a second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0091, “the UE 704 may receive a dedicated configuration or a common configuration to indicate a direction for communication on a carrier or cell in a symbol. For example, the UE 704 may receive first configuration information that conveys a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information element (IE) for a reference cell to indicate that a symbol has a first direction (e.g., an uplink symbol or a downlink symbol). In this case, a collision scenario may occur when the UE 704 also receives second configuration information to indicate that the symbol has a second direction (e.g., a downlink symbol or an uplink symbol) for another cell (other than the reference cell)”, The UE receives TDD configuration information (see fig. 7, step 708). The TDD configuration information includes time slots and component carrier symbols (see also ¶ 0094).];
determine, according to the TDD configurations, whether a collision exists between an uplink (UL) transmission on the first CC and a downlink (DL) reception on the second CC for each of the time slots and the symbols [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0089, “the UE 704 may indicate that the UE 704 can apply the set of directional collision handling rules and, based at least in part on the UE 704 so indicating, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 in accordance with the set of directional collision handling rules. For example, when the UE 704 indicates support for the set of directional collision handling rules described herein, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 with a collision in a symbol that can be resolved using the set of directional collision handling rules”, If a UE is capable, the network entity configures it with collision handling rules. The collision handling rules handle a scenario where a UE detects a symbol assigned as an uplink on a first CC and a symbol assigned as a downlink on a second CC (see ¶ 0084). The UE handles a detected collision using the received configured rules (see also ¶ 0095).]; and
select one of the UL transmission and the DL reception for one of more of the time slots and the symbols with the collision based on a plurality of priority rules [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0100, “In this case, the UE 704 and the network entity 702 may prioritize the PUSCH over the PDSCH based at least in part on the PUSCH being scheduled for more repetitions (3) than the PDSCH (1)”, Paragraph [0100] describes a directional collision handling rule for a scenario with overlapping DCIs, where one has a PDSCH scheduled at the same time as a number of PUSCH repetitions (see fig. 8, element 815 – with PDSCH and PUSCH collision between CC0 and CC1). Using the directional collision handling rule, the UE selects the PUSCH.].
As per claim 16, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the apparatus of claim 15. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: indicate support of half-duplex operation in TDD carrier aggregation with same subcarrier spacing (SCS), wherein numerologies are same over the first CC and the second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0089, “For example, the UE 704 may indicate that the UE 704 can apply the set of directional collision handling rules and, based at least in part on the UE 704 so indicating, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 in accordance with the set of directional collision handling rules”, A capable UE is enabled with directional collision handling rules (see also ¶s 0018, 0019, and 0087).].
As per claim 17, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the apparatus of claim 15. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: enable directional collision handling for a plurality of serving cells, including the first CC and the second CC [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0089, “For example, the UE 704 may indicate that the UE 704 can apply the set of directional collision handling rules and, based at least in part on the UE 704 so indicating, the network entity 702 may configure the UE 704 in accordance with the set of directional collision handling rules”, A capable UE is enabled with directional collision handling rules (see also ¶s 0018, 0019, and 0087).].
As per claim 18, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the apparatus of claim 15. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the TDD configurations by: receiving, from the base station, a system information block (SIB) including a common TDD configuration for the CCs; receiving, from the base station, a dedicated TDD configuration for at least one of the first CC and the second CC by Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling; or receiving, from the base station, a Downlink Control Information (DCI) TDD configuration for at least one of the first CC and the second CC by dynamic slot-format indicator (SFI) signaling [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0068, “In FIGS. 4A and 4C, the wireless communications frame structure is TDD where D is DL, U is UL, and F is flexible for use between DL/UL. UEs may be configured with a slot format through a received slot format indicator (SFI) (dynamically through DL control information (DCI), or semi-statically/statically through RRC signaling)”, TDD configuration information may be conveyed via DCI by SFI.].
As per claim 19, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the apparatus of claim 15. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein each of the TDD configurations is a dedicated TDD configuration, a cell-specific TDD configuration [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0091, “the UE 704 may receive a dedicated configuration or a common configuration to indicate a direction for communication on a carrier or cell in a symbol. For example, the UE 704 may receive first configuration information that conveys a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information element (IE) for a reference cell to indicate that a symbol has a first direction (e.g., an uplink symbol or a downlink symbol). In this case, a collision scenario may occur when the UE 704 also receives second configuration information to indicate that the symbol has a second direction (e.g., a downlink symbol or an uplink symbol) for another cell (other than the reference cell)”, The UE receives TDD configuration information (see fig. 7, step 708). The TDD configuration information includes time slots and component carrier symbols (see also ¶ 0094). tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon is cell-specific and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated is dedicated.], or a dynamic TDD configuration indicated by a slot-format indicator (SFI) table.
As per claim 20, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the apparatus of claim 15. Abdelghaffar et al. also teach wherein the collision is determined to exist between the UL transmission and the DL reception when: a time overlap exists between the UL transmission and the DL reception [Abdelghaffar, ¶ 0100, “In this case, the UE 704 and the network entity 702 may prioritize the PUSCH over the PDSCH based at least in part on the PUSCH being scheduled for more repetitions (3) than the PDSCH (1)”, Paragraph [0100] describes a directional collision handling rule for a scenario with overlapping DCIs, where one has a PDSCH scheduled at the same time as a number of PUSCH repetitions (see fig. 8, element 815 – with PDSCH and PUSCH collision between CC0 and CC1). Using the directional collision handling rule, the UE selects the PUSCH. This show time overlap.]; or a requirement of a transmission-reception or reception-transmission turn around time between the UL transmission and the DL reception is not met.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0056283) in view of Sony (R1-2209099, NPL V cited on pg. 2 of PTO-892).
As per claim 7, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a cell-specific semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, prioritizing one of the UL transmission and the DL reception according to a UE implementation rule.
However, in an analogous art, Sony teaches wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a cell-specific semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, prioritizing one of the UL transmission and the DL reception according to a UE implementation rule [Sony, section 2.7, pg. 11, ¶ 1, “One way to resolve DL & UL collisions is to prioritise messages that are dynamically scheduled over semi-statically configured messages that occur periodically. The gNB is aware of the semi-statically configured resources or monitoring occasions such as PDCCH Search Spaces, SPS and CG-PUSCH and so if a gNB deliberately schedules a dynamic transmission in the opposite link direction to overlap them, then that is the gNB scheduler intention and therefore the UE should prioritise the dynamically scheduled messages”, The UE will prioritize SBFD slots (see fig. 7) for dynamic messages over semi-statically configured messages.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the directional collision techniques of Sony into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling (see Sony) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 8, the BRI of the claim includes the limitation not being performed (see “Claim Interpretation” section). Therefore, the claim is rejected over Abdelghaffar et al. in view of Sony.
As per claim 9, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic UL transmission.
However, in an analogous art, Sony teaches wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic UL transmission [Sony, section 2.7, pg. 11, ¶ 1, “One way to resolve DL & UL collisions is to prioritise messages that are dynamically scheduled over semi-statically configured messages that occur periodically. The gNB is aware of the semi-statically configured resources or monitoring occasions such as PDCCH Search Spaces, SPS and CG-PUSCH and so if a gNB deliberately schedules a dynamic transmission in the opposite link direction to overlap them, then that is the gNB scheduler intention and therefore the UE should prioritise the dynamically scheduled messages”, The UE will prioritize SBFD slots (see fig. 7) for dynamic messages over semi-statically configured messages.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the directional collision techniques of Sony into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling (see Sony) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 10, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a dedicated semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic UL transmission; and in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic DL reception.
However, in an analogous art, Sony teaches wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a dedicated semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic UL transmission [Sony, section 2.7, pg. 11, ¶ 1, “One way to resolve DL & UL collisions is to prioritise messages that are dynamically scheduled over semi-statically configured messages that occur periodically. The gNB is aware of the semi-statically configured resources or monitoring occasions such as PDCCH Search Spaces, SPS and CG-PUSCH and so if a gNB deliberately schedules a dynamic transmission in the opposite link direction to overlap them, then that is the gNB scheduler intention and therefore the UE should prioritise the dynamically scheduled messages”, The UE will prioritize SBFD slots (see fig. 7) for dynamic messages over semi-statically configured messages.]; and in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, prioritizing the dynamic DL reception [Sony, section 2.7, pg. 11, ¶ 1, “One way to resolve DL & UL collisions is to prioritise messages that are dynamically scheduled over semi-statically configured messages that occur periodically. The gNB is aware of the semi-statically configured resources or monitoring occasions such as PDCCH Search Spaces, SPS and CG-PUSCH and so if a gNB deliberately schedules a dynamic transmission in the opposite link direction to overlap them, then that is the gNB scheduler intention and therefore the UE should prioritise the dynamically scheduled messages”, The UE will prioritize SBFD slots (see fig. 7) for dynamic messages over semi-statically configured messages.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the directional collision techniques of Sony into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling (see Sony) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0056283) in view of Awadin et al. (US Patent No. 12,500,728).
As per claim 11, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, and one of the dynamic UL transmission and the dynamic DL reception has a higher priority than the other thereof, prioritizing the one of the dynamic UL transmission and the dynamic DL reception having the higher priority.
However, in an analogous art, Awadin et al. teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dynamic UL transmission and the DL reception being a dynamic DL reception, and one of the dynamic UL transmission and the dynamic DL reception has a higher priority than the other thereof, prioritizing the one of the dynamic UL transmission and the dynamic DL reception having the higher priority [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the conflicting transmission handling techniques of Awadin et al. into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling in conflicting transmissions (see Awadin) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 12, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a cell-specific semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dedicated or cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing one of the UL transmission and the DL reception according to a UE implementation rule.
However, in an analogous art, Awadin et al. teach [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the conflicting transmission handling techniques of Awadin et al. into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling in conflicting transmissions (see Awadin) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 13, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a cell-specific semi-static DL reception, when the dedicated semi-static UL transmission does not have a higher priority than the cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the cell-specific semi-static DL reception and canceling the dedicated semi-static UL transmission; and when the dedicated semi-static UL transmission has a higher priority than the cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dedicated semi-static UL transmission having the higher priority
However, in an analogous art, Awadin et al. teach in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a cell-specific semi-static DL reception, when the dedicated semi-static UL transmission does not have a higher priority than the cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the cell-specific semi-static DL reception and canceling the dedicated semi-static UL transmission [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59). When the DL transmission is prioritized, the UL transmission is cancelled.]; and when the dedicated semi-static UL transmission has a higher priority than the cell-specific semi-static DL reception, prioritizing the dedicated semi-static UL transmission having the higher priority [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the conflicting transmission handling techniques of Awadin et al. into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling in conflicting transmissions (see Awadin) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 14, Abdelghaffar et al. teach the method of claim 1. Abdelghaffar et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dedicated semi-static DL reception, and one of the dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the dedicated semi-static DL reception has a higher priority than the other thereof, prioritizing the one of the dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the dedicated semi-static DL reception having the higher priority.
However, in an analogous art, Awadin et al. teach wherein the prioritization rules include: in response to the UL transmission being a dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the DL reception being a dedicated semi-static DL reception [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59).], and one of the dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the dedicated semi-static DL reception has a higher priority than the other thereof, prioritizing the one of the dedicated semi-static UL transmission and the dedicated semi-static DL reception having the higher priority [Awadin, col. 9, lines 29-41, “Alternatively, the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions. For example, if the UL transmission within a UL subband (irrespective of whether the UL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a DL reception within a DL BWP, the UE may transmit the UL and cancel DL reception. Similarly, if the DL reception within a DL subband (irrespective of whether the DL subband is dynamically scheduled or configured by higher layer signaling) has higher priority than a UL transmission within a UL BWP, the UE may receive the DL and cancel UL transmission according to a particular timeline/capability as described herein”, When comparing between UL and DL that are both dynamic (or both semi-static) different priority rules may be employed to emphasize one over the other (see also col. 9, lines 42-59).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the conflicting transmission handling techniques of Awadin et al. into Abdelghaffar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because modifying prioritization rules for directional collision handling (see Abdelghaffar) with additional situations for prioritization handling in conflicting transmissions (see Awadin) would improve SBFD communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference, Liu et al. (US PG Pub 2025/0184107), teaches determining collision of SBFD symbols (see at least fig. 3).
The reference, Park et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0372661), teaches determining SBFD operations for mixed UL/DL (see at least fig. 6).
The reference, Khan Beigi et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0107525), teaches SBFD with configured DL (see at least fig. 5).
The reference, Shi et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0098724), teaches resolving a collision of signals overlapped in the time domain (see at least fig. 4).
The reference, Nemeth et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0097866), teaches handling UL-DL scheduling collisions (see at least fig. 3).
The reference, Hao et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0089960), teaches handling UL-DL scheduling collisions (see at least fig. 3).
The reference, Abdelghaffar et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0064796), teaches conflicting symbols overlapping in time (see at least figs. 7 and 8).
The reference, TCL (R1-2208403, see PTO-892), teaches subband location indication (see at least sections 2.2 and 2.3).
The reference, vivo (R1-2208641, see PTO-892), teaches SBFD resource configuration (see at least section 2.3) and collision handling (see at least section 3.1).
The reference, Spreadtrum (R1-2208552, see PTO-892), teaches SBFD resource configuration (see at least section 2.1.1).
The reference, New H3C (R1- 2208527, see PTO-892), teaches SBFD resource configuration (see at least section 2.1).
The reference, Intel (R1-2209052, see PTO-892), teaches UE collision handling (see at least section 4).
The reference, Nokia (R1-2210042, see PTO-892), teaches signalling SBFD configurations (see at least section 2.3.4).
The reference, Wilus (R1- 2210138, see PTO-892), teaches signalling SBFD collision handling (see at least section 2.3).
The reference, 3GPP TS 28.213 (see PTO-892), teaches slot configuration including directional collision handling (see section 11.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul H. Masur whose telephone number is (571)270-7297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 4:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/Paul H. Masur/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2417