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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 6/25/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24-29, 41, 42, 44-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. “Damnjanovic” US 2013/0343239 in view of Kazmi et al. “Kazmi” US 2016/0029231.
Regarding claims 21 and 41 Damnjanovic teaches a method, applied to a time division duplex (TDD) system (Paragraphs 82-85 show TDD configurations), and medium (Paragraph 13) the method comprising:
sending a first downlink signal to at least one terminal device (UE 120 of Figure 1) through a downlink slot of a first frequency band in a time frame (Figure 5 shows a component carrier sending downlink subframes on one frequency channel (i.e. first frequency band); Paragraph 85), and
receiving a first uplink signal from the at least one terminal device through an uplink slot of a second frequency band (Figure 5 shows receiving uplink subframes on a second frequency channel (i.e. second band); Paragraph 85), and there is an association relationship between the first uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first frequency band and the second uplink-downlink slot configuration of the second frequency band (Figure 5 shows the DL and UL subframes of the first/second bands are opposite (i.e. association relationship between UL/DL). When there is a D subrame at time 0, there is a corresponding U subframe in time 0).
Damnjanovic does not expressly disclose that the UL/Dl configurations are different in time; however, Kazmi teaches the system determines a first UL/DL configuration (Step 302 of Figure 6A) and a second UL/DL configuration (304 of Figure 6A); Paragraph 123. Further, the first and second configurations are different where there is overlap in the time period; Paragraph 124. Thus one can see the first and second configurations are different in the same time period.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include having a first and second, different, UL/DL configurations in the same time period as taught by Kazmi.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can adapt the transmission/reception schedule if needed as taught by Kazmi; Paragraph 125.
Regarding claims 22 and 42, Damnjanovic teaches wherein the association relationship comprises:
the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first band is opposite to the uplink- downlink slot configuration of the second band in a manner that each uplink slot of the first band is a downlink slot in a corresponding slot in the second band, and each downlink slot of the first band is an uplink slot in a corresponding slot the second band (Figure 5 shows the DL and UL subframes of the first/second bands are opposite. For example, Figure 5 shows when there is a D subrame at time 0, there is a corresponding U subframe in time 0. Figures 10A and 10B show opposite UL/DL configurations)).
Damnjanovic does not expressly disclose that the UL/Dl configurations are opposite; however, Kazmi teaches the system determines a first UL/DL configuration (Step 302 of Figure 6A) and a second UL/DL configuration (304 of Figure 6A); Paragraph 123. Paragraph 121 further teaches the information can be opposite. Thus one can see the first and second configurations are different in the same time period.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include having a first and second, opposite, UL/DL configurations as taught by Kazmi.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can adapt the transmission/reception schedule if needed as taught by Kazmi; Paragraph 125.
Regarding claims 24 and 44, Damnjanovic teaches a first and second terminal device (see UEs 120 of Figure 1) and sending the first downlink signal to the first terminal device (UE 120 of Figure 1) through a downlink slot of a first band (Figure 5 shows a component carrier sending downlink subframes on one frequency channel (i.e. first band); Paragraph 85), and receiving the first uplink signal from the second terminal device through an uplink slot of a second band (Figure 5 shows receiving uplink subframes on a second frequency channel (i.e. second band); Paragraph 85), wherein there is an association relationship between an uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first band and an uplink-downlink slot configuration of the second band (Figure 5 shows the DL and UL subframes of the first/second bands are opposite (i.e. association relationship between UL/DL). When there is a D subrame at time 0, there is a corresponding U subframe in time 0).
Regarding claims 25 and 45, Damnjanovic teaches the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first band and the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the second band each comprise an indication of an allocation ratio of uplink slots to downlink slots in the respective band (Figure 5 shows the UL/DL slot configuration for two bands. The indication here is being viewed as one band is 10 DL subframes and the second band is 10UL subframes. Table 1 after paragraph 61 shows UL/DL configurations).
Regarding claims 26 and 46, Damnjanovic teaches determining the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first band and the uplink- downlink slot configuration of the second band in a preset manner (Table 1 shown after paragraph 61 shows UL/DL configurations. These configurations are viewed as preset).
Regarding claims 27 and 47, Damnjanovic teaches determining the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the first band based on band information of the first band, and determining the uplink-downlink slot configuration of the second band based on band information of the second band (Figure 5 shows the UL/DL slot configuration for two bands. The indication here is being viewed as one band is 10 DL subframes and the second band is 10UL subframes. Table 1 after paragraph 61 shows UL/DL configurations. As these configurations are associated with different frequency channels it is viewed as “Based on band information”. The Examiner suggests defining what the “band information is”. Since the system has UL/DL configurations tied to bands, this is viewed as “Based on band information”).
Regarding claims 28 and 48, Damnjanovic teaches the first band comprises one or more independent bands, and the second band comprises one or more independent bands (Paragraph 85 and Figure 5 show two different frequency channels/bands. As there are at least two bands, the first and second band are independent (i.e. not the same band)).
Regarding claims 29 and 49, Damnjanovic teaches the first band comprises one or more sub-bands of a broadband, and the second band comprises one or more sub-bands of a broadband (Paragraph 52 teaches broadband. Paragraph 85 teaches multiple different frequency channels (viewed as subbands of the broadband network)).
Regarding claims 50 and 51, Damnjanovic does not expressly disclose that the association relationship is functional and the second is based on the first; however, Kazmi teaches the system determines a first UL/DL configuration (Step 302 of Figure 6A) and a second UL/DL configuration (304 of Figure 6A); Paragraph 123. Further, the first and second configurations are different where there is overlap in the time period; Paragraph 124. This is viewed as a functional relationship as the second configuration is based on/opposite the first.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include the second configuration is based on the first as taught by Kazmi.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can adapt the transmission/reception schedule if needed as taught by Kazmi; Paragraph 125.
Claim(s) 23 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic in view of Kazmi and further in view of Noh et al. “Noh” US 2016/0345315.
Regarding claims 23 and 43, While Damnjanovic teaches utilizing opposite UL/DL in configurations as discussed with respect to claim 21, Damnjanovic does not expressly disclose receiving a second uplink signal from the terminal device through an uplink slot of the first band, and sending a second downlink signal to the terminal device through a downlink slot of the second band. Noh teaches a base station has two way communications with a plurality of UEs (see Figure 10). Further, there are multiple frame configurations for UL/DL signaling and the UEs simultaneously perform transmission; Paragraphs 13 and 98 (see Figure 10). Paragraph 108 further teaches that the full duplex system simultaneously supports transmission/reception using the same time/frequency resource. For instance the UL of UE a1 and DL of UE2 may occur at the same time at the base station. Therefore, one can see the base station can send a DL transmission in a first band and receive an UL transmission in that same band (same for the second band).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Damnjanovic to include simultaneously sending/receiving transmission using the same bands as taught by Noh.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can support full duplex communications for simultaneous transmission/reception as taught by Noh; Paragraph 108 and avoid interference; Paragraph 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-29 and 41-51 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights