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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been amended. No claims are canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 12 and 20 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-7, 12, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mahama et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0284510), hereinafter referred to as Mahama
Regarding claim 1, Mahama discloses a user equipment (UE) (UE; See Fig. 2, #250), comprising:
one or more antennas (antenna; See Fig. 2, #252); and
a processing system that includes one or more processors (controller/processor; See Fig. 2, #259), and one or more memories (memory; See Fig. 2, #260) that store code for the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the UE to:
receive a physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration for a random access procedure in subband full duplex (SBFD) symbols (the UE receives a configuration of physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions from a base station; See [0146]),
wherein the PRACH configuration is an SBFD-dedicated PRACH configuration for SBFD operation in a time division duplexing (TDD) band (A base station 702 operates according to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) with a subband full-duplexing (SBFD) feature. The UE 704 is SBFD-aware. A PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0065], [0069] and [0076]), and
wherein random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) within SBFD downlink symbols are valid (the UE determines whether a first PRACH occasion, in a first time unit of the set of time units, is valid in a time domain based on whether the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned; See [0147]); and
transmit signaling in accordance with the random access procedure based at least in part on the PRACH configuration (the UE transmits a random access preamble at the first PRACH occasion when the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain and is also valid in the frequency domain; See [0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Mahama further discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein ROs within SBFD flexible symbols are valid (a PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0076]) and ROs within uplink slots are not valid (if a PRACH occasion configured in a UL-only slot extends into the DL-SB of a subsequent partitioned slot, such as slot 721, 722, or 723, it would be considered invalid; See [0089]).
Regarding claim 7, Mahama further discloses the UE of claim 6, wherein:
ROs in TDD flexible symbols are valid (a PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0076]),
ROs in TDD uplink symbols are valid, or
ROs in uplink symbols and flexible symbols are valid.
Regarding claim 12, Mahama discloses a network node (Base station; See Fig. 2, #210), comprising:
one or more antennas (antenna; See Fig. 2, #220); and
a processing system that includes one or more processors (controller/processor; See Fig. 2, #275) and one or more memories (memory; See Fig. 2, #276) that store code for the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the network node to:
transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration for a random access procedure in subband full duplex (SBFD) symbols (the UE receives a configuration of physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions from a base station; See [0146]),
wherein the PRACH configuration is an SBFD-dedicated PRACH configuration for SBFD operation in a time division duplexing (TDD) band (A base station 702 operates according to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) with a subband full-duplexing (SBFD) feature. The UE 704 is SBFD-aware. A PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0065], [0069] and [0076]), and
wherein random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) within SBFD downlink symbols are valid (the UE determines whether a first PRACH occasion, in a first time unit of the set of time units, is valid in a time domain based on whether the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned; See [0147]); and
receive signaling in accordance with the random access procedure based at least in part on the PRACH configuration (the UE transmits a random access preamble at the first PRACH occasion when the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain and is also valid in the frequency domain; See [0150]).
Regarding claim 17, Mahama further discloses the network node of claim 12, wherein ROs within SBFD flexible symbols are valid (a PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0076]), and ROs within uplink slots are not valid (if a PRACH occasion configured in a UL-only slot extends into the DL-SB of a subsequent partitioned slot, such as slot 721, 722, or 723, it would be considered invalid; See [0089]).
Regarding claim 18, Mahama further discloses the network node of claim 17, wherein:
ROs in TDD flexible symbols are valid (a PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0076]),
ROs in TDD uplink symbols are valid (), or
ROs in uplink symbols and flexible symbols are valid.
Regarding claim 20, Mahama discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (UE; See Fig. 2, #250), comprising:
receiving a physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration for a random access procedure in subband full duplex (SBFD) symbols (the UE receives a configuration of physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions from a base station; See [0146]),
wherein the PRACH configuration is an SBFD-dedicated PRACH configuration for SBFD operation in a time division duplexing (TDD) band (A base station 702 operates according to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) with a subband full-duplexing (SBFD) feature. The UE 704 is SBFD-aware. A PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0065], [0069] and [0076]), and
wherein random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) within SBFD downlink symbols are valid (the UE determines whether a first PRACH occasion, in a first time unit of the set of time units, is valid in a time domain based on whether the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned. In certain configurations, to determine whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain, the UE determines the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned; See [0147]); and
transmitting signaling in accordance with the random access procedure based at least in part on the PRACH configuration (the UE transmits a random access preamble at the first PRACH occasion when the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain and is also valid in the frequency domain; See [0150]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sui et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0072551), hereinafter referred to as Sui.
Regarding claim 2, Mahama fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit capability signaling indicating that the UE is an SBFD-aware UE, wherein the PRACH configuration is received based at least in part on the capability signaling.
Sui teaches the concept of transmitting capability information and receiving a configuration based on the capability signaling (receiving at least one capability from the wireless device and selecting the configuration from the one or more configurations; See Fig. 10, #1020-#1030 and [0241]-[0262]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the UE of Mahama to include wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit capability signaling indicating that the UE is an SBFD-aware UE, wherein the PRACH configuration is received based at least in part on the capability signaling taught by Sui in order to optimize communication.
Regarding claim 13, Mahama fails to teach the network node of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the network node to: receive capability signaling indicating that a user equipment (UE) is an SBFD-aware UE, wherein the PRACH configuration is transmitted based at least in part on the capability signaling.
Sui teaches the concept of transmitting capability information and receiving a configuration based on the capability signaling (receiving at least one capability from the wireless device and selecting the configuration from the one or more configurations; See Fig. 10, #1020-#1030 and [0241]-[0262]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Mahama to include wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the network node to: receive capability signaling indicating that a user equipment (UE) is an SBFD-aware UE, wherein the PRACH configuration is transmitted based at least in part on the capability signaling taught by Sui in order to optimize communication.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Shim et al. (U.S. PGPub 2026/0046658), hereinafter referred to as Shim.
Regarding claim 3, Mahama further teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the PRACH configuration is an SBFD-specific PRACH configuration (A base station 702 operates according to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) with a subband full-duplexing (SBFD) feature. The UE 704 is SBFD-aware. A PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0065], [0069] and [0076]), but fails to teach the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table.
Shim teaches wherein the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table (The NR frequency band may be defined as two types of frequency ranges. The two types of frequency ranges may be FR1 and FR2. The numerical values of the frequency ranges may be changed. For example, the two types of frequency ranges may be configured as shown in Table 3 below. Among the frequency ranges used in the NR system, FR1 may represent “sub 6 GHz range” and FR2 may represent “above 6 GHz range” and may be called millimeter wave (mmW). As mentioned above, the numerical values of the frequency ranges of the NR system may be changed. For example, FR1 may include a band of 410 MHz to 7125 MHz as shown in Table 4 below. That is, FR1 may include a frequency band of 6 GHz (or 5850 MHz, 5900 MHz, 5925 MHz, etc.) or higher. For example, the frequency band of 6 GHz (or 5850 MHz, 5900 MHz, 5925 MHz, etc.) or higher included in FR1 may include an unlicensed band); See [0057]-[0058]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the UE of Mahama to include wherein the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table taught by Shim in order to minimize interference.
Regarding claim 14, Mahama further teaches the network node of claim 12, wherein the PRACH configuration is an SBFD-specific PRACH configuration (A base station 702 operates according to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) with a subband full-duplexing (SBFD) feature. The UE 704 is SBFD-aware. A PRACH occasion can be considered valid if it occurs within symbols defined as flexible and/or downlink by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; See [0065], [0069] and [0076]), but fails to teach the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table.
Shim teaches wherein the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table (The NR frequency band may be defined as two types of frequency ranges. The two types of frequency ranges may be FR1 and FR2. The numerical values of the frequency ranges may be changed. For example, the two types of frequency ranges may be configured as shown in Table 3 below. Among the frequency ranges used in the NR system, FR1 may represent “sub 6 GHz range” and FR2 may represent “above 6 GHz range” and may be called millimeter wave (mmW). As mentioned above, the numerical values of the frequency ranges of the NR system may be changed. For example, FR1 may include a band of 410 MHz to 7125 MHz as shown in Table 4 below. That is, FR1 may include a frequency band of 6 GHz (or 5850 MHz, 5900 MHz, 5925 MHz, etc.) or higher. For example, the frequency band of 6 GHz (or 5850 MHz, 5900 MHz, 5925 MHz, etc.) or higher included in FR1 may include an unlicensed band); See [0057]-[0058]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the network node of Mahama to include wherein the SBFD-specific PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a time division duplexing (TDD) frequency range 1/2 (FR1/2) random access table that includes one or more PRACH configurations to allow one or more subframe configurations specific in SBFD symbols, a random access table for SBFD that is separate from the TDD FR1/2 random access table and a frequency division duplexing (FDD) FR1/2 random access table, or the FDD FR1/2 random access table taught by Shim in order to minimize interference.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0254829), hereinafter referred to as Xiong.
Regarding claim 4, Mahama fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware UEs and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration, and the separate PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a separate cell-common PRACH configuration as compared to a legacy cell-common PRACH configuration, a single cell-common PRACH configuration having a modified structure to support more than one value for one or more parameters, and the single cell-common PRACH configuration includes more than one generic PRACH configuration parameter, or a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots, wherein power control parameters for a PRACH in SBFD symbols override power control parameters in the legacy PRACH configuration.
Xiong teaches wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware UEs and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters, association between SSB and PRACH occasions, number of FDM-ed RACH occasions, etc., may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols. In case when the PRACH parameters are not configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, the default parameters can be determined based on the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]), and a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters, association between SSB and PRACH occasions, number of FDM-ed RACH occasions, etc., may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols. In case when the PRACH parameters are not configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, the default parameters can be determined based on the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]), wherein power control parameters for a PRACH in SBFD symbols override power control parameters in the legacy PRACH configuration (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Seok to include wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware UEs and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration, and a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots taught by Xiong in order to accurately determine resource allocation.
Regarding claim 5, Mahama fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB).
Xiong teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB) (both PRACH occasions which overlap with one or more SBFD symbols and do not overlap with SBFD symbols may be configured via RMSI or SIB1 or via dedicated RRC signaling for a UE that supports SBFD operations; See [0113]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the UE of Mahama to include wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB) taught by Xiong in order to accurately determine resource allocation.
Regarding claim 15, Mahama fails to teach the network node of claim 12, wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware user equipments (UEs) and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration, and the separate PRACH configuration is based at least in part on: a separate cell-common PRACH configuration as compared to a legacy cell-common PRACH configuration, a single cell-common PRACH configuration having a modified structure to support more than one value for one or more parameters, and the single cell-common PRACH configuration includes more than one generic PRACH configuration parameter, or a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots, wherein power control parameters for a PRACH in SBFD symbols override power control parameters in the legacy PRACH configuration.
Xiong teaches wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware UEs and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters, association between SSB and PRACH occasions, number of FDM-ed RACH occasions, etc., may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols. In case when the PRACH parameters are not configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, the default parameters can be determined based on the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]), and a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters, association between SSB and PRACH occasions, number of FDM-ed RACH occasions, etc., may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols. In case when the PRACH parameters are not configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, the default parameters can be determined based on the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]), wherein power control parameters for a PRACH in SBFD symbols override power control parameters in the legacy PRACH configuration (separate PRACH parameters including power control parameters may be configured for the PRACH occasions overlapping with one or more SBFD symbols, which can be different from that for the configuration for PRACH occasions within non-SBFD symbols; See [0114]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the network node of Mahama to include wherein the PRACH configuration is a separate cell-specific PRACH configuration that is dedicated for SBFD-aware UEs and separate from a legacy cell-specific PRACH configuration, and a single cell-common PRACH configuration with an independent synchronization signal block (SSB) RO mapping for ROs that fall within SBFD slots taught by Xiong in order to accurately determine resource allocation.
Regarding claim 16, Mahama fails to teach the network node of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the network node to: transmit the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB).
Xiong teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB) (both PRACH occasions which overlap with one or more SBFD symbols and do not overlap with SBFD symbols may be configured via RMSI or SIB1 or via dedicated RRC signaling for a UE that supports SBFD operations; See [0113]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Mahama to include wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the network node to: transmit the PRACH configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or via a system information block (SIB) taught by Xiong in order to accurately determine resource allocation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0301505), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Mahama fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: identify legacy random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) that overlap in time with SBFD ROs, wherein the legacy ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of a legacy UE and the SBFD ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of an SBFD-aware UE, and the legacy ROs or the SBFD ROs are considered valid occasion based at least in part on the overlap.
Choi teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: identify legacy random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) that overlap in time with SBFD ROs, wherein the legacy ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of a legacy UE and the SBFD ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of an SBFD-aware UE, and the legacy ROs or the SBFD ROs are considered valid occasion based at least in part on the overlap (the UE may be configured with the time-frequency domain of the SBFD uplink resources, and according to the first and second methods (there is no difference between the first and second methods since SS/PBCH is not shown in FIG. 13), the UE may determine that RACH occasions overlapping with the SBFD uplink resources are valid. That is, because RACH occasions 1331 of the first and second slots in the TDD period may be valid because they are included in the SBFD uplink resources. However, RACH occasions 1332 of the third and fourth slots may not be valid because they are not included in the SBFD uplink resources; See [0297]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Mahama to include wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: identify legacy random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) that overlap in time with SBFD ROs, wherein the legacy ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of a legacy UE and the SBFD ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of an SBFD-aware UE, and the legacy ROs or the SBFD ROs are considered valid occasion based at least in part on the overlap taught by Choi in order to minimize interference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. (Int. Pub. No. WO 2024/038607 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mahama fails to teach the UE of claim 1, wherein SBFD ROs or SBFD slots converted from flexible slots are invalid.
Kurita teaches wherein SBFD random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) or SBFD slots converted from flexible slots are invalid (SBFD semi-static (and/or dynamic) UL and/or flexible slots／ The RO overlapping the symbol is regarded as the invalid RO; See [0079]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Mahama to include wherein SBFD random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) or SBFD slots converted from flexible slots are invalid taught by Kurita in order to optimize resource utilization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of Xiong et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0254829) teaches overlapping legacy ROs and SBFD ROs in Figs. 8-9. The prior art of Choi et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0301505) teaches overlapping ROs in [0011].
Claim 9 appears to be novel and inventive because prior art fails to show or teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: identify legacy random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) that overlap in time and not frequency with SBFD ROs, wherein the legacy ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of a legacy UE and the SBFD ROs are associated with a time domain pattern of an SBFD-aware UE, and both legacy ROs and SBFD ROs are considered valid RACH occasions; and refrain from dropping the legacy ROs and the SBFD ROs based at least in part on the overlap, drop the legacy ROs or the SBFD ROs based at least in part on the overlap, or apply a frequency offset to the SBFD ROs.
Claim 11 appears to be novel and inventive because prior art fails to show or teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive a single PRACH configuration compromising a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) in both SBFD and non-SBFD symbols, wherein the single PRACH configuration indicates one or more of: a beam failure recovery (BFR) RACH configuration, a system information request RACH configuration, or a UE dedicated PRACH configuration; or receive a first PRACH configuration comprising a set of RACH occasions in TDD symbols for the legacy random-access operation and a second PRACH configuration comprising a set of ROs in SBFD symbols for the SBFD random access operation, wherein each of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration indicate one or more of: a common RACH configuration, a BFR RACH configuration, a system information RACH configuration, or a dedicated RACH configuration.
Claim 19 appears to be novel and inventive for reasons similar to claim 11 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed May 14, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 12 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
After further search and consideration, the previously objected to language from claim 6 which was moved to claim 1 has been rejected with new art as indicated above
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents,
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L SHIVERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY SHIVERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights