DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-5, 7-12, 14-20, received 02 March 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 is as follows:
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 .
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.
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 1-5, 7, 8-12, 14, 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20240056280 A1, hereafter referred to as Zhang) in view of Park (US 20220167404 A1, hereafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method of operating a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving first information for an uplink (UL) frequency-domain subband corresponding to a subband full-duplex (SBFD) symbol (Zhang [0106, 0114] teaches a network entity transmitting downlink control information conveying information of DL subbands and UL subbands in order to support SBFD communications in the cell);
receiving second information for a downlink (DL) frequency-domain subband corresponding to the SBFD symbol (Zhang [0106, 0114] teaches a network entity transmitting downlink control information conveying information of DL subbands and UL subbands in order to support SBFD communications in the cell);
determining a frequency-domain subband corresponding to the SBFD symbol based on the frequency-domain subband and the DL frequency- domain subband (Zhang [0114-0115] teaches the UE determining the guard band RBs as being the RBs between the configured DL and UL subbands);
receiving a DL signal in the DL frequency-domain subband corresponding to the SBFD symbol or transmitting a UL signal in the UL frequency-domain subband corresponding to the SBFD symbol (Zhang [0105] teaches performing SBFD communications in one or more symbols or slots based on the signaled configuration), wherein a frequency-domain resource of the frequency-domain subband is not available for receptions or transmissions on the SBFD symbol (Zhang [0099] teaches the guard bands separate the UL and DL subbands).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the UL frequency-domain subband and the DL frequency-domain subband are provided for a reference subcarrier spacing (SCS).
Park, in an analogous art teaches wherein the UL frequency-domain subband and the DL frequency-domain subband are provided for a reference subcarrier spacing (SCS) (Zhang [0266, 0125, 0129, 0170] teaches the subbands, configured in DL and UL BWPs [0125, 0170], are configured based on frequency resource allocation information and a subcarrier spacing value configured for each BWP.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhang in view of Park in order to configure the UL frequency domain subband and the DL frequency domain subband, as taught by Zhang, be provide for a reference SCS, as taught by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to prevent a reduction in data transmission while satisfying the data transmission QoS using the unlicensed band (Park [0166]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Zhang-Park teaches the method
wherein both of the UL frequency- domain subband and the DL frequency-domain subband are configured based on a common resource block (CRB) grid (Park [0245-0246] teaches the subband is configured based on a CRB wherein the number of CRBs constituting each subband is determined by the SCS).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Zhang-Park teaches the method wherein:
frequency-domain subband is determined further based on a reference bandwidth and a frequency-domain limit (FDL) value (Zhang [0120, 0156] teaches determining the guard band RBs based on configuration signaling indicating a starting RB index and an allocation bandwidth), and the FDL value is associated with a minimum or maximum frequency-domain allocation value for the reference bandwidth (Zhang [0120, 0156] teaches a starting RB index and optional ending index for the guard band).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Zhang-Park teaches the method
further comprising:
Regarding claim 5, Zhang-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Zhang-Park teaches the method wherein a minimum size of the UL frequency-domain subband is indicated as a frequency-domain adjustment value (Zhang [0114 and 0115] teaches conveying configurations of UL and DL subbands including starting index and ending index or number of RBs or listing RB indices for the RB sets included in the subband), and each of the first information and the second information indicates a resource indicator value (RIV) (Zhang [0116] teaches the RBs or RB sets are indicated by including a RIV).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Zhang-Park teaches the method wherein: the frequency-domain subband is determined further based on a carrier bandwidth (Park [0144-0145] teaches the guard band is determined based on the SCS information of a SCS-specific carrier bandwidth and size of the SCS specific carrier bandwidth [0189]), and the carrier bandwidth corresponds to one of multiple configured DL BWPs or UL BWPs (Park [0157] teaches the plurality of subbands are configured for the SCS-specific carrier bandwidth) or is provided as a virtual BWP.
Regarding claims 8-12 and 14, the claims do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-5 and 7.
Therefore, claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1-5 and 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitations from the perspective of the transmitter or base station rather than the receiver or UE as recited in claim 1.
Zhang-Park teaches the limitations, of claim 1, from the perspective of the transmitter or base station (Zhang [0006]). It would have been obvious to modify Zhang in view of Park in order to achieve the system as recited in claim 15 according to the reason and motivation recited for claim 1. The additional limitations of claim 15 do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 2-5 and 7.
Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 2-5 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rastergardoost et al (US 20230189232 A1);
Park (US 20250055663 A1);
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
