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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210377926 A1 by Li et al. (hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive first control signaling that indicates a slot that is allocated for sub-band full-duplex communications, wherein the slot is scheduled to include one or more sub-band full-duplex symbols that each include a combination of uplink resources and downlink resources in respective frequency sub-bands (see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0178]-[0183]; a UE is configured with several SBFD slots, comprising UL and/or DL subbands such as slots 0-3 in the respective figures, via DCI grants);
receive second control signaling that schedules, within the slot or outside the slot, one or more occasions for communication of a specified signal (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants); and
regulate communications, during the slot, in accordance with a rule that pertains to scheduled occasions for specified signals that overlap a sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the UE of claim 1. In addition, Li teaches wherein, to receive the second control signaling, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a schedule for the one or more occasions, wherein the one or more occasions are scheduled outside of the slot in accordance with the rule, wherein the rule specifies that the UE is not expected to communicate the specified signal in the slot that is allocated for sub-band full-duplex communications, wherein the communications during the slot do not include the specified signal scheduled by the second control signaling (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the UE of claim 1. wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: communicate, in a first communication direction and in accordance with the rule, the specified signal during the one or more occasions that overlap with the slot such that the slot is treated as a downlink, uplink, or flexible slot based on the first communication direction (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the UE of claim 1. In addition, Li teaches wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: communicate, in a first communication direction and in accordance with the rule, the specified signal during the one or more occasions that overlap with the slot such that one or more symbols that conflict with the one or more occasions are treated as downlink, uplink, or flexible symbols based on the first communication direction such that one or more symbols of the slot that overlap with the one or more occasions are only available for communications in the first communication direction (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the UE of claim 1. In addition, Li teaches wherein the specified signal comprises a synchronization signal block, a control message in a control resource set, a random access message in a random access channel occasion, a common search space set message, tracking reference signal, or a sounding reference signal (see at least ¶ [0153]).
Regarding claim 28, Li teaches A method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving first control signaling that indicates a slot that is allocated for sub-band full-duplex communications, wherein the slot is scheduled to include one or more sub-band full-duplex symbols that each include a combination of uplink resources and downlink resources in respective frequency sub-bands (see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0178]-[0183]; a UE is configured with several SBFD slots, comprising UL and/or DL subbands such as slots 0-3 in the respective figures, via DCI grants);
receiving second control signaling that schedules, within the slot or outside the slot, one or more occasions for communication of a specified signal (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants); and
regulating communications, during the slot, in accordance with a rule that pertains to scheduled occasions for specified signals that overlap a sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants).
Regarding claim 29, Li teaches A user equipment (UE) for wireless communications for wireless communications, comprising:
means for receiving first control signaling that indicates a slot that is allocated for sub-band full-duplex communications, wherein the slot is scheduled to include one or more sub-band full-duplex symbols that each include a combination of uplink resources and downlink resources in respective frequency sub-bands(see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0178]-[0183]; a UE is configured with several SBFD slots, comprising UL and/or DL subbands such as slots 0-3 in the respective figures, via DCI grants) ;
means for receiving second control signaling that schedules, within the slot or outside the slot, one or more occasions for communication of a specified signal (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants); and
means for regulating communications, during the slot, in accordance with a rule that pertains to scheduled occasions for specified signals that overlap a sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants).
Regarding claim 30, Li teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to:
receive first control signaling that indicates a slot that is allocated for sub-band full-duplex communications, wherein the slot is scheduled to include one or more sub-band full-duplex symbols that each include a combination of uplink resources and downlink resources in respective frequency sub-bands (see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0178]-[0183]; a UE is configured with several SBFD slots, comprising UL and/or DL subbands such as slots 0-3 in the respective figures, via DCI grants);
receive second control signaling that schedules, within the slot or outside the slot, one or more occasions for communication of a specified signal (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants); and
regulate communications, during the slot, in accordance with a rule that pertains to scheduled occasions for specified signals that overlap a sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least Figs. 2, 4-6 and ¶ [0185]-[0205]; the UE is also configured with several SPS DL/PDSCH reception occasions within the above-mentioned SBFD resources, via DCI grants).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
12. Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, in view of INTEL - SEUNGHEE HAN ET AL: "On SBFD in NR systems" (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as Intel).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the UE of claim 1.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: refrain from communicating the specified signal during the one or more occasions in accordance with the rule that specifies that the UE is to drop occasions for communication of the specified signal that overlap with the sub-band full-duplex slot.
In the same field of endeavor, Intel teaches wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: refrain from communicating the specified signal during the one or more occasions in accordance with the rule that specifies that the UE is to drop occasions for communication of the specified signal that overlap with the sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least section 4, for collision resolution of SBFD resources with PDSCH/CORESET/PDCCH/SSB/PRACH signal resources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li with Intel in order to handle collisions.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the UE of claim 1.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine that at least a first portion of the one or more occasions overlaps with a second portion of either the uplink resources or the downlink resources that have a communication direction that is different from a communication direction of the one or more occasions; and refrain from communicating the specified signal during the first portion in accordance with the rule that specifies that the UE is to drop communication of the specified signal during resource blocks that conflict with resources of the sub-band full-duplex slot.
In the same field of endeavor, Intel teaches wherein, to regulate the communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine that at least a first portion of the one or more occasions overlaps with a second portion of either the uplink resources or the downlink resources that have a communication direction that is different from a communication direction of the one or more occasions; and refrain from communicating the specified signal during the first portion in accordance with the rule that specifies that the UE is to drop communication of the specified signal during resource blocks that conflict with resources of the sub-band full-duplex slot (see at least section 4, for collision resolution of SBFD resources with PDSCH/CORESET/PDCCH/SSB/PRACH signal resources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li with Intel in order to handle collisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 8-27 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.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465