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 Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Liu et al. (US 2025/0175314 A1), the applicants allege that the disclosure of Liu does not disclose:
“identifying a configuration of one or more fixed component carriers that are reserved for uplink transmissions by the UE………….
transmit, via the one or more fixed component carriers and while simultaneously receiving least a portion of the one or more downlink messages, one or more uplink messages based at least in part on operating using the full-duplex communication mode”
The office respectfully disagrees with this assertion. With regard to Liu the disclosure of Liu teaches the utilization of one or more Component Carriers (CC) for full duplex communication. The disclosure teaches a pair wherein the pairs are utilized for performing full duplex communications on the downlink and uplink, see fig.9 element S903. For example, par.[0183 – 0184] teaches the configuration of CC pairs, wherein the CC pairs are preconfigured for simultaneous downlink and uplink transmission, (i.e. full duplexing). That is, a first CC is configured for downlink and the other is configured for uplink. In addition, the UE may be configured with multiple pairs of UL/DL component carriers, see “The indication information indicates one or more CC pairs in the first CC group”. That is, the UE may be configured with a group of CC pairs wherein each pair in the group has at least one uplink CC.
As to the alleged deficiency regarding the CCs are not fixed as discussed in the applicants arguments dated 01/30/2026, pg.11. the office disagrees. In fig.9 S903 the UE receives from the network a configuration as it pertains to a group of pairs of component carriers. A CC in the pair is configured for uplink and the other is configured for downlink simultaneously so as to provide for full duplexing. As the CC pairs are preconfigured and transmitted to the UE the CC are fixed ahead of the transmission performance which the CCs are configured for. The disclosure of Liu also recites, in part:
“Optionally, the one or more CC pairs indicated by the indication information may be a part or all CC pairs that are in the first CC group and that support the terminal device in the simultaneously transmitting and receiving. For example, it is assumed that the CC pair that is in the first CC group and that supports the terminal device in the simultaneously transmitting and receiving includes a CC pair 1: a CC #1 and a CC #2, and a CC pair 2: the CC #1 and a CC #3.”
The above description further supports the fixed CC, as each pair supports simultaneous downlink and uplink transmission, the CCs in the pairing may be repeated, as shown above. For example, in pair 1, CC #1 and CC #2 are configured for a downlink and uplink simultaneous transmission. In the second CC pair, the CC #1 can be paired with CC #3 to perform simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission. If any CC in the pair of CCs are configured to perform uplink and downlink, then there would be no need to assign a fixed CC #1 to both pairs. Furthermore, the disclosure of Liu teaches away from the applicants alleged “For example, as described by Liu, the terminal is capable of transmitting and receiving over either CC in the CC pair”. This is not discussed in the specification of Liu, in contrast Liu recites, in part:
“The simultaneously transmitting and receiving on the CC pair means sending a signal on one CC in the CC pair while receiving a signal on the other CC in the CC pair.”.
As can be seen the CC pair comprises a preconfigured/fixed uplink CC and preconfigured fixed downlink CC. The alleged interchangeability of a CC pair that is preconfigured for uplink/downlink, wherein the CC may be used for either is not supported by the disclosure as discussed above. Thus, the disclosure of Liu substantially teaches the amended claims, and the claims stand rejected in view of Liu.
With regard to the rejection of the independent claims in view of Fakoorian et al. (US 2021/0329646 A1), the rejection is overcome by the applicants amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 23, 33-34, and 40-41, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2025/0175314 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 23, 34, and 41, Liu discloses:
a user equipment (UE) (fig.1 depicts a plurality of wireless stations (i.e. terminal devices) communicating with a base station) for wireless communications (fig.1 depicts the wireless stations operating in a wireless communications network, communicating wirelessly with a base station), comprising:
one or more memories (fig. 19 element 1903 depicts a memory in the user equipment) storing processor-executable code (fig.19 depicts code/instructions stored on the memory); and
one or more processors (fig.19 element 1901 depicts the one or more processors) coupled with the one or more memories (fig.19 depicts the memory and processors being communicatively coupled via a bus) and individually or collectively operable to cause the UE to perform a method for:
identifying a configuration of one or more fixed component carriers that are reserved for uplink transmissions by the UE (fig.9 the UE may indicate its ability to perform full-duplexing S901, on a one or more component carriers or BWP, par.[0162]. In response, the network transmits, to the UE, a configuration of one or more Component Carrier (CC) pairs or BWP pairs which may be used for simultaneous uplink and downlink communications. The CC comprising a one or more uplink and downlink subbands, par.[0022 – 0023], and fig.3a depicts FDD or Full-Duplexing over different subbands within a component carrier, par.[0182 – 0184]), wherein the uplink transmissions are associated with the UE operating using a full-duplex communication mode (fig.3a depicts a component carrier with a plurality of subbands, and the subbands are configured for either uplink and or downlink simultaneously, par.[0126] which describes the Subband Full Duplex SBFD); and
transmit, via the one or more fixed component carriers or the one or more fixed subbands within the component carrier and while simultaneously receiving at least a portion of one or more downlink messages, one or more uplink messages based at least in part on operating using the full-duplex communication mode and in accordance with the configuration (fig.9 element S903 as discussed above, wherein the UE receives the BWP/CC configuration from the network after having indicated that it is capable of performing full-duplex operation. Based on receiving the configuration, the UE is able to perform full-duplex on the indicated resources, par.[0183 – 0184]).
Regarding claims 13, 33, and 40, Liu discloses:
select a first fixed component carrier from the one or more fixed component carriers based at least in part on one or more capabilities of the UE, wherein transmitting the one or more uplink messages comprises transmitting the one or more uplink messages via the first fixed component carrier (fig.9 and element S903 describes the UE receiving the resource allocation information comprising the pair of component carriers used for uplink and downlink transmission. Par.[0007] describes the pair as a component carrier for uplink transmission, and a component carrier for downlink transmission).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 24-25, 27, 35-36, and 38, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 7, 23, 34, and 41, in view of Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 24, and 35, Liu discloses a guard band and the one or more other component carriers, are associated with receiving the at least the portion of the one or more downlink messages during a same time interval as transmitting the one or more uplink messages (see rejection for claim 7 above) but may not disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
identify a guard band configuration that indicates a size of a first guard band between each of the one or more fixed component carriers and one or more other component carriers.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Abdelghaffar discloses:
identify a guard band configuration that indicates a size of a first guard band between each of the one or more fixed component carriers and one or more other component carriers (par.[0006] teaches reception of a guard-band configuration, the size based on the frequency ranges, par.[0071] teaches different GB sizes. Wherein the guard band are between BWP, Component Carriers, or subbands within a component carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Liu for resource configuration for full duplexing, with the disclosure of Abdelghaffar which discloses guard band configurations. The motivation/suggestion would have been to configure full duplex operations at the UE without significant resource utilization and overhead.
Regarding claims 9, 25, and 36, Abdelghaffar discloses:
wherein the guard band configuration is based at least in part on one or more preconfigured guard band configurations (par.[0028] describes the guard band configuration being from a set of guard band configurations. The guard band configuration are therefore preconfigured into a set of configurations).
Regarding claim 11, 27, and 38, Liu discloses:
refrain from transmitting uplink messages via the one or more other component carriers based at least in part on the one or more fixed component carriers and the size of the first guard band; and
refrain from receiving downlink messages via the one or more fixed component carriers based at least in part on the one or more fixed component carriers and the size of the first guard band (with regard to a guard band, the guard band is used to reduce interference, and a UE is configured not to transmit signaling during the guard interval. Thus, the time-frequency resources utilized for configuring a guard band would prevent the UE from transmitting/receiving on that resources during the switching, par.[0125] fig.4 see guard band distance, the distance, or size of the guard band prevents use of UL or DL during that distance).
Claim(s) 15 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 7, 23, 34, and 41, in view of Nemeth et al. (US 2024/0137896 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 28, the disclosure of Liu teaches full duplexing using component carriers or bandwidth parts or subbands within a component carrier, but may not disclose:
wherein the one or more fixed component carriers are each defined by a preconfigured central frequency and a preconfigured bandwidth.
However, it is known that a component carrier has a center frequency and a preconfigured bandwidth. For example, the disclosure of Nemeth, which is analogous art, teaches:
wherein the one or more fixed component carriers are each defined by a preconfigured central frequency and a preconfigured bandwidth (par.[0070] fig.8a and 8b depict a Component Carrier, comprising a plurality of subbands. It is noted that a component carrier may have a plurality of BWP, which are further comprised of subbands, or the BWP are subbands of the component carrier. Additionally, the component carrier comprises a center/central frequency, and component carrier spans a particular fixed or preconfigured bandwith.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to provide a method for full duplexing as discussed in Liu with the component carriers as discussed in Nemeth. The motivation/suggestion would have been that it is known a signal has a center frequency and occupies a certain bandwidth around the center frequency in order to be acquired by a reception device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 26, and 37, is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang et al. (US 2021/0320779 A1) “Methods and Apparatus for Subband Full-Duplex”
Abotabl et al. (US 2021/0352667 A1) “Frequency Domain Resource Allocation Techniques for Full Duplex Communications”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411