DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 3-6 recite the claim limitation “during a downlink (DL) time division duplex (TDD) slot of a subframe, receiving a first DL signal having a bandwidth that spans a slot frequency band, the slot frequency band being a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary”. However the “slot frequency band” which refers to the TDD slot of the subframe in which the downlink signal is received having a bandwidth that spans the slot frequency band which refers to DL TDD slot 1 in Fig. 1B & Para [0030] of the applicants specification US (2024/0163805), is not a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary. Therefore it is unclear in light of the applicants specification with respect to Fig. 1B & Para [0030] how the “slot frequency band” which refers to the DL TDD slot of the subframe is a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary as the DL TDD slot 1 in Fig. 1B of the applicants specification is not defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary.
Instead according to the applicants specification, the slot frequency band being a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary refers to the slot frequency band defined for the SBFD slots 2 and 3 (i.e., SBFD slots) in the applicants specification (Fig. 1B & Para’s [0030] & [0056-0058]).
The examiner suggests the claimed limitation in claim 1 of “the slot frequency band being a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary” to be a slot frequency band that is tied to or corresponds to the sub-band-full-duplex (SBFD) slots of the subframe in order for the claim limitation of “during a downlink (DL) time division duplex (TDD) slot of a subframe, receiving a first DL signal having a bandwidth that spans a slot frequency band, the slot frequency band being a contiguous range of frequencies defined by a lower frequency boundary and an upper frequency boundary” to be clear and consistent with the applicants disclosure. Independent claims 10 and 19 which recite similar features as claim 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons explained for independent claim 1. The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based at least on their dependence to independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
Regarding Claim 2, lines 2-3 recite the claim limitation of “the second contiguous sub-band comprises a lower sub-band in the slot frequency band”. However it is unclear how “the second contiguous sub-band comprises a lower sub-band in the slot frequency band” when claim 1 in lines 6-8 recites that “wherein at least one of the lower frequency boundary or the upper frequency boundary defines a boundary of a second contiguous sub-band of the slot frequency band”. Therefore if the upper frequency boundary in claim 1 is interpreted or selected to define the boundary of the second contiguous sub-band of the slot frequency band (i.e., see Fig.1 B of the applicants specification upper frequency boundaries of the SBFD slots), then it is unclear in claim 2 how the second contiguous sub-band will comprise a lower sub-band in the slot frequency band when the second contiguous sub-band in claim 1 is defined in the upper frequency boundary. Dependent claim 11 which recites the same claim features as claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons explained for claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights