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 01/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Action on 10/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the claims filed on 01/23/2026 and 02/09/2026 comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and have been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-30, as amended, are pending, Claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 16, 20, 23, and 25 are cancelled. Objections to Claims 10, 12, and 29 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 02/09/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) agree that Jan, WIPO Publication No. WO 2023245608 (hereinafter Jan) teaches “SBFD IE that configures UL sub-bands in DL slots assigned by the TDD-UL-DL configuration” and that "the UL subbands in the DL slots assigned in the TDD-UL-DL configuration are visible to the SBFD capable UE” but argue that “Jan does not disclose the UE transmits the UL transmission in the UL sub-bands of the DL slot assigned by the TDD-UL-DL” – See Resp., at page 13 (emphasis added). Examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons:
First, the claim language requires the UE, i.e., the first network entity, to “communicate, with the second network entity via the time interval in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme” (emphasis added), therefore a legacy UE would not recognize the opportunity to transmit UL in the UL sub-bands of a DL slot, hence will detect a conflict and act in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme by transmitting UL in a UL slot during the time interval shown in Figs. 14-15 of Jan but not transmitting UL in the sub-bands of a DL slot, as explained in the previous Office action, at page 8 (concluding that “the legacy UE will skip the UL transmission in slots n+1. . .n+3”). At the same time, a SBFD capable UE will not detect a conflict, hence it is not required to communicate in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme.
Second, regarding the SBFD capable UE, the argument that “Jan does not disclose the UE transmits the UL transmission” is unpersuasive in view of Jan disclosure and MPEP § 2114(I) (citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stating that “[f]eatures of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally”). Here, Jan discloses that “the present disclosure support full duplex operation . . . to enhance the UL coverage, reduce the transmission latency, and increase the system capacity” – See [¶0038], therefore a clear and unambiguous feature of Jan’s SBFD capable UE is UL transmission in UL sub-bands of a DL slot. Furthermore, Jan’s SBFD capable UE is structurally capable of this function because (1) as shown in Fig. 1, “[t]he transceiver 13 or 23 is operatively coupled with the processor 11 or 21, and the transceiver 13 or 23 transmits and/or receives a radio signal” – See [¶0039]; (2) “RRC signaling can be used to configure the UL sub-bands in DL slots or DL sub-bands in UL slots” using “explicit configuration IEs,” – See [¶0061], whereby TDD configuration IEs are applied by the network to the UE for the very purpose of UL (and DL) transmissions; and (3) “[f]or the SBFD capable UE the UL subbands in the DL slots assigned in the TDD-UL-DL configuration are visible to the SBFD capable UE,” as Applicant already acknowledged – See Resp., at page 13. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that Jan’s SBFD capable UE performs UL transmissions as required by the claim language because the UL transmission is an inherent characteristic of the SBFD capable UE as explained above.
Finally, the argument that “Jan is silent regarding the opposite transmission directions” does not contain the substance required to meet the burden of persuasion to “prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971); see also MPEP § 2114(I).
In sum, Applicant arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument is also moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendments.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-30, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Jan, WIPO Publication No. WO 2023245608 (hereinafter Jan) in view of Awadin et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0163936 (hereinafter Awadin).
Regarding Claim 1, Jan teaches, in Fig. 1, a first network entity for wireless communication, comprising: at least one communication interface; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one communication interface (“The one or more UEs 10 may include a memory 12, a transceiver 13, and a processor 11 coupled to the memory 12 and the transceiver 13” wherein “transceiver 13 . . . is operatively coupled with the processor 11 . . ., and the transceiver 13 . . , transmits and/or receives a radio signal,” i.e., constitutes a communication interface – See [¶0039]), wherein the first network entity is configured to:
receive control information including an indication that a time interval is associated with subband full duplex communications for a second network entity wherein the control information further includes an indication of a first set of frequency resources for the time interval associated with a first communication direction and a second set of frequency resources for the time interval associated with a second communication direction, and wherein the control information includes an indication that the time interval is associated with the first communication direction for the first network entity (“the present disclosure support full duplex operation (i.e., simultaneous UL/DL transmission) at gNB side to enhance the UL coverage,” i.e., the second network entity – See [¶0038], the base station “processor 21 is configured to perform an SBFD operation using a configuration of the SBFD operation or an indication to the user equipment (UE),” whereby the UE, i.e., the first network entity, is “SBFD capable UE [or] a legacy UE” and the time interval is a number of TTI/slots, e.g., slots: n+1, . . . n+3 – See [¶0041] and Fig. 3 “where the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon determines a cell specific UL/DL TDD configuration” as being 3 slots for DL1, i.e., the first direction, for the time interval – See [¶0046], and further indication of sub-bands through the control information such as “RRC signaling can be used to configure the UL sub-bands in DL slots or DL sub-bands in UL slots,” using “explicit configuration IEs for UL sub-bands in DL slots/symbols. . . included in the existing TDD-UL-DL configuration IE of the current specification such as TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon or TDD-UL- DL-ConfigDedicated” – See [¶0061], wherein indication of a first and second set of frequency resources when “assigned to a sub-band . . . consider RB as the granularity” and “the number of RBs for a sub-band depends on the sub-carrier spacing of different numerology as given in [38.211] , and the number of RBs for a sub-band can be considered as a configurable parameter, which can be adjusted according to the actual bandwidth requirements of a sub-band” – See [¶0051], and 12 subcarriers per RB as known in the art2, furthermore, “[t]he bandwidth of a sub-band depends on several physical resources parameters of the current NR specification, such as the channel bandwidth of a TDD band for each sub carrier spacing (SCS) in which sub-bands are defined, number of sub-bands in a TDD band, bandwidth of Guard bands defines for a sub-band, and the number of guard bands” – See [¶0052] and examples of UL sub-band pattern in DL slots/symbols semi-static configuration are shown in Table 1 – See [¶¶0065-67]);
receive first scheduling information for a first transmission between the first network entity and the second network entity in the time interval and the second set of frequency resources for the time interval wherein the first scheduling information includes an indication that the first transmission is associated with the second communication direction (“For dynamic indication of UL sub-band in DL slots/symbols, the SFI can be transmitted in the nth DL slot/symbols as shown in FIG. 13” – See [¶0071] and Fig. 13 showing a scheduling DCI in slot n, wherein the scheduled first transmission may be for the second direction, UL, in slots n+1 to n+3 configured for DL, e.g., by using the legacy TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon configuration as known in the art, and the DCI containing “the SFI for UL sub-bands in DL slots can include the following fields comprising number of DL slots, number of DL symbols, starting of DL slot, starting of UL PRB, number of UL PRB, and guard band” – See [¶0070]); and
based on the time interval being associated with the first communication direction and the first transmission being associated with the second communication direction (when dynamic “configuration of the SBFD operation includes an uplink (UL) sub-band in downlink (DL)” slots n+1 to n+3 – See [¶0042] and Fig. 13, indicating that a semi-persistent TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon configuration may conflict with DCI scheduled UL sub-band in DL slots n+1 to n+3, as shown in Fig. 14),
communicate, with the second network entity via the time interval in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme (“[s]ince legacy UE and SBFD capable UE may exist in the same cell where the SBFD configuration can be used . . . the following approaches of handling both types of UEs” – See [¶0072]), the first transmission via the time interval and the second set of frequency resources (when the DCI with the SFI for UL sub-bands in DL is used, “legacy UE does not expect any opposite transmission direction e.g., UL, in the frequency resources which is assigned for DL transmission to the legacy UE” hence “the visibility of time/frequency resources or the RBs assigned for DL operation to the legacy UE is shown in FIG. 17. The slot visibility to the legacy UE is shown in FIG. 18” – See [¶0074] and the “gNB may not use the DL sub-bands resources to perform UL operation for the legacy UE” – See [¶0073]; and when the same DCI is “used to dynamically indicate the sub-bands frequency resources to the SBFD capable UE” – See [¶0077], then the second set of frequency resources is “visible to the SBFD capable UE as shown in FIG. 15. The visibility of the UL- DL slots to the SBFD capable UE is shown in FIG. 16” – See [¶0077] supporting “full duplex operation (i.e., simultaneous UL/DL transmission) at gNB side to enhance the UL coverage” – See [¶0078]; therefore, for the time interval n+1 to n+3 the conflict resolution scheme depends on the type of UE, legacy vs. SBFD capable UE, when the UE communicates with the gNB; other schemes are taught in Awadin infra).
Because Jan does not explicitly teach how the UE is actually transmitting an UL message in the UL sub-band of the DL slots comprised in the time interval in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme, Awadin, also teaching “UL/DL subband(s) within the DL/UL portions, respectively, in TDD operation mode” – See [¶0075], explicitly discloses that “for a UL sub band within a DL BWP or a carrier, the UE transmits the indicated UL transmission (e.g., configured by higher layer signaling, indicated by DCI, RAR UL grant, fallbackRAR UL grant, successRAR, etc.) and does not receive the DL which overlaps with any symbols used for the UL transmission within the UL subband” – See [¶0077], e.g., when, like in Jan, the “UE may be configured to receive a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) PDSCH, and a periodic CSI-RS in the legacy DL BWP and to receive a dynamic UL transmission such as a PUSCH, an SRS, or a PUCCH that fully or partially overlap in the time domain,” like in slots n+1 to n+3 in Jan, “the UE transmits the dynamic UL transmission and cancels the DL reception,” hence behaving like the SBFD capable UE in Jan, and when “a DL signal configured by the higher layer is a synchronization signal block (SSB) which may require special treatment because the UE may need the SSB for synchronization or assessing the link quality . . . the UE may not expect a collision to occur between dynamic UL transmission in the UL subband and such important RSs in the legacy DL BWP,” hence behaving like a legacy UE in Jan – See [¶0079].
Thus, Jan and Awadin each discloses UL sub-bands dynamically configured with UL transmissions in a time interval semi-persistently configured for DL transmissions. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the UE transmitting, according to a conflict resolution scheme depending on the importance of the scheduled transmission, UL messages based on a dynamic schedule for a time interval comprising active DL BWP configuration could have been combined with the SBFD vs. legacy UE operations in Jan because both provide for time and frequency allocation of subbands within a TDD carrier using semi-static configuration conflicting with a dynamic indication of a subband location and link direction of the subband in a slot based time interval. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing improvements to Jan methods and apparatus with the prioritization/dropping/cancelation rules taught in Awadin.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jan further teaches the first network entity of claim 1, wherein the time interval comprises a flexible time interval type based on the first transmission being associated with the second communication direction in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme (“Sub-band can be allocated as UL sub-band in DL or flexible slots” where “one of the subbands in DL, UL or flexible slot can be consider in opposite transmission direction” – See [¶0053]), and
wherein the communication of the first transmission via the time interval and the second set of frequency resources is based on the time interval comprising the flexible time interval type (“the flexible symbols can be used as DL, UL, or a guard period for DL-UL switching” – See [¶0002]; so “[s]ub-band can be allocated as UL sub-band in . . . flexible slots” – See [¶0053] and Fig. 3, wherein one of slots n+1. . .n+3 may be a flexible slot).
Awadin, like Jan, teaches dynamic slot format configuration using “[t]he slot format indicator (SFI)-index field in DCI 2_0 [which] points to one of the slot format combinations, slotFormatCombinations” and “slotFormats provide the slot format of consecutive slots by using a series of specified slot formats in Table 11.1.1-1 in 3GPP technical specification (TS) 38.213” – See [¶0019], whereby “[t]he provided indication applies starting from the slot in which the UE receives DCI 2_0 for duration and depends on the number of slots included in the indicated combination” – See [¶0020] and if “the UE receives any dynamic reception corresponding with any F symbol indicated by DCI 2_0, the UE transmits any dynamic transmission corresponding with any F symbol indicated by DCI 2_0” – See [¶0025]; see also § 11.1, 3GPP TS 38.213 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP 38.213) stating, at page 181-182: “A slot configuration period and a number of downlink symbols, uplink symbols, and flexible symbols in each slot of the slot configuration period are determined from tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated and are common to each configured BWP” and “[f]or a set of symbols of a slot that are indicated to a UE as flexible by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated if provided, the UE does not expect to receive both dedicated higher layer parameters configuring transmission from the UE in the set of symbols of the slot and dedicated higher layer parameters configuring reception by the UE in the set of symbols of the slot”); therefore even legacy UE will transmit UL in a DL slot with flexible symbols when configured with uplink grant, in accord with Awadin:[¶0028] (“dynamic UL or DCI 2_0 indicating U or F (flexible) overrides the RRC configured DL when they occur over flexible symbols”);
Awadin also teaches the communication of the first transmission via the time interval and the second set of frequency resources is based on the time interval comprising the flexible time interval type (“a full duplex UE may simultaneously have an active DL BWP and an active UL subband” – See [¶0111] and “[t]o define the UL/DL subband region in time domain, one or more of the following solutions may be applied,” e.g., “Slot format-based indication” wherein in DL slots, “[t]he symbols inferred as . . . UL may be originally configured/indicated as a flexible symbols” and “the UE can infer whether these symbols may be considered as the DL or UL . . . based on the scheduled/configured DL/UL channels (PDSCH/ PUSCH/PRACH, etc.) and DL/UL signaling (CSI-RS, SRS, SSB, etc.)” – See also [¶¶0114-16] and as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1, supra; alternatively, “[n]ew states may be provided that correspond to the UL/DL sub band in addition to downlink (D), uplink (U) and flexible (F)” so that “Based on the provided configurations, such as tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and/or tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated and/or DCI format 2_0 providing the slot format, a UE can determine at which symbol/slot/subframe/frame the UL/DL subband should start or end” – See [¶0117])
Therefore, Amended Claim 3 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jan further teaches the first network entity of claim 1, wherein to receive the first scheduling information, the first network entity is configured to receive downlink control information including the first scheduling information (“For dynamic configuration/indication of SBFD, slot format indicator (SFI) of the current specification can be used which is carried by DCI format 2_0 with CRC scrambled by SFI-RNTI” with “new fields to be included in the SFI,” e.g., “the SFI for UL sub-bands in DL slots can include the following fields comprising number of DL slots, number of DL symbols, starting of DL slot, starting of UL PRB, number of UL PRB, and guard band” – See [¶0070], because “the granularity of a sub-band is a resource block (RB) based granularity” – See [¶0043]), and
wherein to communicate with the second network entity via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, the first transmission via the time interval and the second set of frequency resources based on the downlink control information including the first scheduling information (“For dynamic indication of UL sub-band in DL slots/symbols, the SFI can be transmitted in the nth DL slot/symbols as shown in FIG. 13” wherein “the slot n, n+ 1 and n+2 is configured as DL slots, in order to consider the other slots an SFI can be transmitted in slot n as shown in the FIG. 13, which inform the UE about the sub-band” – See [¶0071], hence, “the SBFD capable UE [uses] the UL sub-bands or frequency resources in the DL slot[s]” n+1 . . . n+3 – See [¶0073] and Fig. 15, while legacy UEs behave as explained in § 11.1 of 3GPP TS 38.213:181-182, supra).
Awadin further teaches, in Fig. 12, an example of the actual UL transmission scheduled by a DCI showing the UE communicating in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, the first transmission via the time interval and the second set of frequency resources based on the downlink control information including the first scheduling information (“The frequency indicator can be interpreted relative to the UL/DL subband and may include the frequency domain resource assignment FDRA field of the scheduling DCI” – See [¶0303] and Fig. 12, showing the DCI in slot 0 scheduling one UL transmission in a UL sub-band in the following 3 SL slots, whereby “PUSCH #1 1203 is fully confined within symbols that are indicated to be used as the UL subband 1202” – See [¶0308]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 4 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 5, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jan teaches the first network entity of claim 1 (e.g., “the slot n, n+ 1 and n+2 is configured as DL slots, in order to consider the other slots an SFI can be transmitted in slot n as shown in the FIG. 13, which inform the UE about the sub-band”– See [¶0071] wherein “for a UL sub band within a DL BWP or a carrier, the UE transmits the indicated UL transmission (e.g., configured by higher layer signaling, indicated by DCI . . .)” as taught by Awadin: [¶0077] and explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1) the first network entity is configured to allow the “gNB to use the nth slot for control related functions of dynamic changing in sub-bands allocation through slot format indication (SFI) carrying by DCI format 2_0” – See [¶0044] and Fig. 13, e.g.,
receive second scheduling information for a second transmission between the first network entity and the second network entity in the time interval and the first set of frequency resources for the time interval wherein the second scheduling information includes an indication that the second transmission is associated with the first communication direction (“allow gNB to flexibly define the number of sub-bands” whereby “[t]he frequency location of an UL sub-band in DL slots/symbols can be allocated in the edge RBs or the outer carrier of a TDD band,” e.g., “consider only two sub-bands in a TDD band. For instance, sub-band #1 or sub-band #2 can be allocated as UL sub-band in DL slots/symbols starting from DL slot/symbol n+1 as shown in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7” – See [¶0056], hence a second DCI may schedule from the first set of frequency resources for the time interval, a transmission in a second sub-band, e.g., sub-band #2 in Figs. 6 and 7, associated with the first communication direction, overlapping with the first scheduled UL transmission).
However, Jan teaching the DCI format 2_0 to dynamically change the subband resource allocations, does not explicitly teach the actual UL/DL transmission on those resources. Awadin teaches wherein, to communicate with the second network entity via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme (when “a UE is dynamically instructed to receive the PDSCH or CSI-RS on a set of symbols,” e.g., by the second scheduling information scheduling a DL transmission in Jan supra, “the UE does not expect to receive dynamic indication of Set 2 802 indicating any of these symbols to be the UL sub band 803,” e.g., by the first scheduling information scheduling a UL transmission in Jan supra, “when any RB/RE of PDSCH or CSI-RS overlaps with the UL subband 803” – See [¶0202], “[o]therwise, the UE cancels the reception of the PDSCH or CSI-RS when collision occurs” – See [¶0201] and Fig. 8 showing the UE receiving two sets of scheduling information; i.e., the at least one processor of the UE is configured to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme). Because the methods of configuring the time interval and schedule the transmissions are the same in Jan and Awadin, they are combinable through techniques known in the art, therefore, Amended Claim 5 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Awadin further teaches the first network entity of claim 5,
wherein the first transmission comprises a first semi-statically scheduled transmission (“if a UE is configured by a higher layer to transmit a PUCCH, PUSCH, SRS or PRACH in the set of symbols of the slot” – See [¶0203], e.g., “the UE may be configured to statically or semi-statically transmit a UL in the UL subband such as configured UL grant type 1 by RRC” – See [¶0080]), wherein the second transmission comprises a second semi-statically scheduled transmission (and “the UE may be configured to receive a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) PDSCH, and a periodic CSI-RS in the legacy DL BWP” – See [¶0079]), and
wherein, to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, the first transmission, wherein the first transmission is associated with a higher priority level than the second transmission based on the first transmission comprising the first semi-statically scheduled transmission and the second transmission comprising the second semi-statically scheduled transmission (“As another possibility to handle the configurations conflict (indicating a set of symbols/slots as the DL based on the legacy DL BWP and the UL based on UL subband, for example) between the indications of Set 1 801 and Set 2 802 is to define the UE behavior and apply the indication from one of the sets” – See [¶0211], e.g., “The indication by Set 2 802 for subband configurations,” i.e., transmission of a scheduled PUSCH in the UL subband, “may take precedent over the configurations provided by Set 1 801 when a conflict in the transmission direction occurs,” i.e., transmission of a scheduled PDSCH in the legacy DL BWP/slots of the time interval– See [¶0212]; otherwise said, the first semi-statically scheduled transmission being scheduled in a subband has higher priority).
Therefore, Amended Claim 7 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claims 8, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Awadin further teaches the first network entity of claim 5, wherein the first transmission comprises a first semi-statically scheduled transmission, wherein the second transmission comprises a second semi-statically scheduled transmission, as explained above, and
wherein, to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme the first transmission based on the second communication direction being associated with a higher priority than the first communication direction, the first transmission comprising the first semistatically scheduled transmission, and the second transmission comprising the second semistatically scheduled transmission (when “the UE's behavior may depend on the indicated/configured priority of the conflicting transmissions . . . if the UL transmission within a UL sub band (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” – See [¶0083] and “prioritization/dropping/cancelation rules may be applied, even if there is no conflict between active DL reception and UL transmission which may be beneficial when the subband is shared by multiple UEs,” e.g., “if a set of symbols/slots is indicated as the DL on a legacy DL BWP and some are indicated as the UL subband, the UE may cancel the DL reception configured by higher layer signaling in any of these symbols/slots even if no conflict exists with UL transmission in the UL subband” – See [¶0085], i.e., second communication direction, the UL transmission, is associated with a higher priority).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 10, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Awadin further teaches the first network entity of claim 5, wherein, to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, a dynamically scheduled transmission based on the first transmission comprising the dynamically scheduled transmission and the second transmission comprising a semi-statically scheduled transmission (“If a collision occurs between RRC downlink transmission and dynamic UL transmission, legacy behavior can be applied in terms of canceling the downlink reception” – See [¶0220], i.e., the first UL transmission dynamically scheduled has priority over the second transmission scheduled semi-statically, e.g., by RRC grant).
Therefore, Amended Claim 10 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 12, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Awadin further teaches the first network entity of claim 5, wherein the first transmission comprises a first dynamically scheduled transmission, wherein the second transmission comprises a second dynamically scheduled transmission, and wherein, to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, one of the first transmission or the second transmission based on a timing order in which the first scheduling information and the second scheduling information was received (first, “if a UE is dynamically instructed to transmit a PUCCH, PUSCH, SRS or PRACH on a set of symbols, the UE does not expect to receive dynamic indication of [PDSCH] indicating any of these symbols to be the DL subband 804 when any RB/RE of PDSCH or CSI-RS overlaps with the UL subband” – See [¶0204] and Figs. 12 and 14 showing each 2 scheduling DCIs arriving on a timing order in slot 0; second, “[w]hen a UE switches from a UL/DL to a DL/UL, respectively . . . there is a gap in which the UE cannot transmit or receive” and “is currently specified” – See [¶0331] and “[t]he UE may indicate to the gNB, such as via its capability signaling” – See [¶0335] and Fig. 13; therefore if the second arriving DCI schedules any RB/RE in the opposite direction of the RB/REs scheduled by the first arriving DCI without leaving enough symbols/RBs/REs for the switching gap, then the UE may ignore the second arriving DCI; see also Jan:[¶0002] (teaching “a guard period for DL-UL switching”); in another case, because the second scheduling information may be an effective cancellation of the UL subbband to schedule legacy DL instead, i.e., “after the UE receives the dynamic UL grant, e.g., the scheduling DCI the UE receives an indication of cancelling the UL sub band before receiving the scheduled UL grant” then “the UE may cancel the transmission of the UL grant if the UL subband cancellation is received early enough relative to the dynamic grant itself. A particular timeline may be predefined in the specification” e.g., “at least n symbols should separate the last symbol carrying the UL subband cancelation indication to the first symbol of the dynamic grant . . . the UE may provide the gNB with the value of n as part of its capability signaling” and the timeline is “similar to the cancellation timeline/capability in case of a conflict between an RRC UL transmission and dynamic DL reception for either full or partial cancellation” – See [¶0260]), the first transmission comprising the first dynamically scheduled transmission, and the second transmission comprising the second dynamically scheduled transmission, as explained above only DCI scheduling is used in these scenarios3.
Therefore, Amended Claim 12 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 13, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Awadin further teaches the first network entity of claim 5, wherein the first transmission comprises a first dynamically scheduled transmission, and wherein the second transmission comprises a second dynamically scheduled transmission – See, e.g., [¶0204] and Figs. 12 and 14
wherein the first scheduling information includes an indication of a first time domain resource allocation associated with the first transmission , wherein the second scheduling information includes an indication of a second time domain resource allocation associated with the second transmission (for each scheduling DCI4, “a fixed size of the FDRA field, enables the UE to first interpret the TDRA field to determine whether the grant is confined within a subband or a legacy BWP and then determine how to interpret the FDRA field” – See [¶0312]);
wherein, to communicate one of the first transmission or the second transmission via the time interval, the first network entity is configured to:
communicate, in accordance with the conflict resolution scheme, one of the first transmission or the second transmission based on the first time domain resource allocation and the second time domain resource allocation, the first transmission comprising the first dynamically scheduled transmission, and the second transmission comprising the second dynamically scheduled transmission (because the received DCIs schedule transmissions in opposite directions, and “[s]witching a bandwidth part (BWP) requires some time to enable adjustment of the UE's transmission/reception (Tx/Rx) chain based on the new active BWP. If the switching occurs due to the reception of a PDCCH with a BWP switching command,” i.e., comprising the second dynamically scheduled transmission, “the UE is not required to transmit/receive from the end of the 3rd symbol of a slot where the PDCCH is received to the beginning of the slot indicated by a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) field,” i.e., the second time domain resource allocation – See [¶0031], i.e., the UE may cancel the first transmission if its TDRA falls within this range because the UE will first interpret the TDRA field in each DCI, as explained above)
Therefore, Amended Claim 13 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Claim 14, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jan further teaches the first network entity of claim 1, wherein to receive the scheduling information, the first network entity is configured to receive radio resource control signaling including the scheduling information (“the semi-static configuration RRC signaling comprises TDD-UL-DLConfigCommon or TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated, where the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon determines a cell specific UL/DL TDD configuration, and the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated determines a UE-specific UL/DL TDD configuration” – See [¶0046]).
Therefore, Claim 14 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Amended Claim 15, Jan teaches, in Fig. 1, a first network entity for wireless communication, e.g., Base Station 20, comprising: at least one communication interface; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one communication interface (“The base station 20 may include a memory 22, a transceiver 23, and a processor 21 coupled to the memory 22 and the transceiver 23. The processor 11 or 21 may be configured to implement proposed functions, procedures and/or methods described” – See [¶0039]), wherein the first network entity is configured to:
transmit control information including an indication that a time interval is associated with subband full duplex communications for the first network entity (“the allocation of the time/frequency resources to the UL/DL sub-bands comprises a time/frequency location of UL sub-bands in DL slots/symbols” – See [¶0044], i.e., a control information allocating SBFD resources, whereby “the semi-static configuration RRC signaling comprises TDD-UL-DLConfigCommon or TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated, where the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon determines a cell specific UL/DL TDD configuration, and the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated determines a UE-specific UL/DL TDD configuration” – See [¶0046], i.e., the UE receives the semi-static configuration in RRC_CONNECT state)
wherein the control information has the same limitations as recited in Amended Claim 1 with the same language;
transmit first scheduling information for a first transmission between the first network entity and the second network entity in the time interval and the second set of frequency resources for the time interval, wherein the scheduling information includes an indication that the first transmission is associated with the second communication direction (“for a semi-static configuration/indication of the SBFD operation, a semi-static configuration RRC signaling is used to configure the UL sub-bands in DL slots/symbols or DL sub-bands in UL slots/symbols” – See [¶0045], i.e., the base station transmits to the UE “RRC signaling compris[ing] TDD-UL-DLConfigCommon or TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated, where the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon determines a cell specific UL/DL TDD configuration, and the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated determines a UE-specific UL/DL TDD configuration” – See [¶0046]); and
communicate with the second network entity via the time interval in accordance with a conflict resolution scheme based on the time interval being associated with the first communication direction and the first transmission being associated with the second communication direction, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1, supra, where the same limitation is recited with the same language.
Therefore, Claim Amended 15 is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Claims 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-28, as amended, all dependent from Amended Claim 15, they merely recite the same limitations as required in Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 12-14, respectively, as amended, using the same language, only from the point of view of the transmitter of Amended Claim 15, and no other limitations. Because each of the Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 12-15, as amended, is obvious over Jan in view of Awadin, Claims 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-28, as amended, are also obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Regarding Claims 29-30, they merely recite the steps performed by the first network unit of Amended Claims 1 and 15, respectively, with the same language and no other limitations. Because Amended Claims 1 and 15 are obvious over Jan in view of Awadin, Claims 29-30 are obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
In sum, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-30, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Jan in view of Awadin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tiirola et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0053677 disclosing flexible indication of UL/DL transmission timing;
You et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0323936 discloses a UE obtaining at least one of first time resource information indicating a first time resource on which the base station operates in half duplex (HD) and second time resource information indicating a second time resource on which the base station operates in full duplex (FD) from the base station;
Chatterjee et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0014995 discloses generation Node B (gNB) configured for Sub-Band Full Duplex (SBFD) communication in a fifth-generation new radio (5G NR) network may communicate with two or more User Equipment (UEs) during SBFD symbols;
Yoshimura et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0064717 discloses a wireless terminal selective receptivity information that indicates whether the wireless terminal has a capability to configure the receiver circuitry for controlling in which of the subbands the receiver circuitry receives transmissions. The transmitter circuitry is configured to transmit the wireless terminal selective receptivity information to the serving cell;
Rudolf et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0292294 discloses uplink transmission in full-duplex systems;
Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0007641 discloses sub band duplex (SD) operation method of a terminal and base station;
Gao et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0344728, teaches semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) transmission, not performing the transmission related to the downlink SPS transmission on the preset transmission resource; and/or, when a transmission direction of a preset transmission resource indicated by the SFI meets transmission requirement of downlink SPS transmission, performing the transmission related to the downlink SPS transmission on the preset transmission resource. The preset transmission resource is a resource for performing transmission related to the downlink SPS transmission;
3GPP TS 38.211 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical channels and modulation (Release 17)” ;
3GPP TS 38.213 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 17)”;
3GPP 38.214 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 17),”;
3GPP TS 38.331 V17.1.0 (2022-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 17)”;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #110, Agenda Item: 9.3.2, R1-2208122, Title: “Summary #5 of subband non-overlapping full duplex” Source: Moderator (CATT), August 2022;
Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e v0.3.0, § 9.3, “Study on evolution of NR duplex operation,” May 2022, and the Tdocs cited therein;
Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #110 v0.2.0, § 9.3, “Study on evolution of NR duplex operation,” published September 12, 2022, and the Tdocs cited therein.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 As further explained in Awadin infra, “[i]n legacy new radio (NR) technology, a slot format indication is provided in a three-step approach” – See [¶0003] whereby “Step 1 is a cell specific indication in which a next generation NodeB (e.g., a gNB) provides all user equipments (UEs) in a cell with slot configurations by TDD-ULDL-
ConfigCommon in either a sy¶stem information block 1 (SIB1) for a primary cell (PCell) or ServingCellConfigCommon for a secondary cell (SCell),” i.e., control information comes through RRC signaling – See [¶0004].
2 Section 4, 3GPP TS 38.211:11-17 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical channels and modulation (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.211) (“Downlink, uplink, and sidelink transmissions are organized into frames [of] 10 ms duration, each consisting of ten subframe” with (usually) 14 symbols, “OFDM symbols in a slot in a downlink or uplink frame can be classified as 'downlink', 'flexible', or 'uplink'. Signaling of slot formats is described in clause 11.1 of [5, TS 38.213]” and the “resource block is defined as
N
sc
RB
=
12
consecutive subcarriers in the frequency domain”), i.e., in SBFD operations there are at least one DL and at least one UL sub-band in a symbol;
3 See, e.g., 3GPP 38.214 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 17),” (hereinafter TS 38.214) specifies in § 6.4, at pages 200-201, the UE PUSCH preparation procedure requiring a processing time after the end of the reception of the last symbol of the PDCCH carrying the DCI scheduling the PUSCH, showing the number N2 of symbols in Tables 6.4-1, 6.4-2, and “[i]f uplink switching gap is triggered as defined in clause 6.1.6,
PNG
media_image1.png
20
23
media_image1.png
Greyscale
equals to the switching gap duration,” and that if not enough time is left, “the UE may ignore the scheduling DCI.” Similarly, §5.5, at page 135-136 specifies the minimum number of PDCCH symbols after the end of the PDCCH scheduling the PDSCH.
4 See, e.g., § 7, 3GPP TS 38.212 V17.3.0 (2022-09), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.212) specifying DCI formats in Table 7.3.1-1, at page 113, and, for DCIs scheduling resources for PUSCH/PDSCH transmissions, a Time domain resource assignment (TDRA) on a number of bits as defined in § 6.1.2.1 or § 5.1.2.1 of 3GPP TS 38.214, respectively.