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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 12/11/23
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Drawing
4. The drawings filed on 12/11/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Claims Objections
5. Claims 16-28 & 30 are objected to because of minor informalities:
6. Claim 16, in part, recites, “…RACH…in line 8. For clarity, it is suggested to fully describe an acronym when reciting for the first time in the claim.
7. Claim 30 is also objected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
8. Claims 17-28 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 7, 14-17, 21 & 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf et al. (hereinafter referred as Rudolf) US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0276438 A1, in view of Stephen et al. (hereinafter referred as Stephen) International Publication No. WO 2024/035329 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 29: Rudolf discloses an apparatus (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0048; a User Equipment (UE) 116) for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0048; a User Equipment (UE) 116 includes a memory 360); and
one or more processors (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0048; a User Equipment (UE) 116 includes a Processor 340), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
receive a sub-band configuration (See Para. 0052; receiving an UL DCI format from eNB scheduling its uplink PUSCH transmission in full duplex operation using an UL subband (SBFD)) indicating that a time resource (See Title & Para. 0058 & 0142; SBFD operation is done on the PUSCH transmission, where PUSCH’s UL signaling done in time unit and a frequency unit (bandwidth)) is configured to include an uplink sub-band and at least one of a downlink sub-band (See Para. 0142; SBFD = full duplex (bidirectional) using UL subband + DL subband)lo.
Rudolf discloses a UE can transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) (See Para. 0074) but does not explicitly discloses transmit a random access channel (RACH) message on a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band.
However, Stephen from the same field of endeavor discloses a UE configured transmit a random access channel (RACH) message on a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band (See Page 35; lines 14-23; The wireless device receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition, where the RO is positioned in at least one SBFD symbol of the plurality of SBFD symbols or in at least one UL-only symbol of the plurality of UL-only symbols. In one or more embodiments, the validity condition is a time and/or frequency domain condition usable for determining whether one or more ROs are valid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmit a random access channel (RACH) message on a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose an apparatus.
Furthermore, Stephen discloses an apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the RACH message on the RO, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the RACH message on the RO only if the RO is associated with the valid status (See Page 35; lines 14-23; The wireless device receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition, where the RO is positioned in at least one SBFD symbol of the plurality of SBFD symbols or in at least one UL-only symbol of the plurality of UL-only symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the RACH message on the RO, are configured to cause the UE to transmit the RACH message on the RO only if the RO is associated with the valid status as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose an apparatus.
Furthermore, Rudolf discloses an apparatus, wherein the time resource includes the uplink sub-band and the flexible sub-band (See Title & Para. 0058 & 0142; SBFD operation is done on the PUSCH transmission, where PUSCH’s UL signaling done in time unit and a frequency unit (bandwidth)), and wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band (See Stephen; Page 35; lines 14-23; The wireless device receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition, where the RO is positioned in at least one SBFD symbol of the plurality of SBFD symbols or in at least one UL-only symbol of the plurality of UL-only symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose an apparatus.
Furthermore, Rudolf discloses an apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the sub-band configuration, are configured to cause the UE to receive the sub-band configuration without receiving a cell-common time division duplexing configuration pertaining to the time resource (See Para. 0052; receiving an UL DCI format from eNB scheduling its uplink PUSCH transmission in full duplex operation using an UL subband (SBFD)).
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose an apparatus.
Furthermore, Stephen discloses an apparatus, wherein the RO is a first RO configured in the time resource and in the uplink sub-band, wherein a second RO is configured in the time resource and outside of the uplink sub-band, and wherein the second RO is not associated with the valid status (See Page 12; Frequency domain ROs are valid if they are completely contained within an UL subband. Frequency domain ROs that are not fully contained within an UL subband are considered invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RO is a first RO configured in the time resource and in the uplink sub-band, wherein a second RO is configured in the time resource and outside of the uplink sub-band, and wherein the second RO is not associated with the valid status as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose an apparatus.
Furthermore, Rudolf discloses an apparatus, wherein the sub-band configuration indicates another time resource that is configured to include the uplink sub-band and at least one of the downlink sub-band (See Para. 0142; SBFD = full duplex (bidirectional) using UL subband + DL subband), wherein the other time resource includes a plurality of ROs including a first RO and a second RO, wherein the first RO is configured outside the uplink sub-band, and wherein the plurality of ROs are not associated with the valid status (See Stephen; Page 12; Frequency domain ROs are valid if they are completely contained within an UL subband. Frequency domain ROs that are not fully contained within an UL subband are considered invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the other time resource includes a plurality of ROs including a first RO and a second RO, wherein the first RO is configured outside the uplink sub-band, and wherein the plurality of ROs are not associated with the valid status as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claims 16 & 30: Rudolf discloses an apparatus (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0039; a gNB 102) for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
one or more memories (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0039; a gNB 102 includes memory 230); and
one or more processors (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0039; a gNB 102 includes Controller/Processor), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the network node to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a sub-band configuration (See Para. 0052; receiving an UL DCI format from eNB scheduling its uplink PUSCH transmission in full duplex operation using an UL subband (SBFD)) indicating that a time resource (See Title & Para. 0058 & 0142; SBFD operation is done on the PUSCH transmission, where PUSCH’s UL signaling done in time unit and a frequency unit (bandwidth)) is configured to include an uplink sub-band and at least one of a downlink sub-band or a flexible sub-band (See Para. 0142; SBFD = full duplex (bidirectional) using UL subband + DL subband); and
Rudolf does not explicitly discloses configure a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band.
However, Stephen from the same field of endeavor discloses configure a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band (See Page 35; lines 14-23; the network node is configured to map a plurality of SSBs to a plurality of valid Ros that meet the validity condition. The wireless device is also configured receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configure a RACH occasion (RO), wherein the RO is associated with a valid status in association with whether the RO is configured in the uplink sub-band as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose a network node.
Furthermore, Rudolf discloses a network node, wherein the time resource includes the uplink sub-band and the flexible sub-band (See Title & Para. 0058 & 0142; SBFD operation is done on the PUSCH transmission, where PUSCH’s UL signaling done in time unit and a frequency unit (bandwidth)), and wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band (See Stephen; Page 35; lines 14-23; The wireless device receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition, where the RO is positioned in at least one SBFD symbol of the plurality of SBFD symbols or in at least one UL-only symbol of the plurality of UL-only symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose a network node.
Furthermore, Rudolf discloses a network node, wherein the time resource includes the uplink sub-band and the flexible sub-band (See Title & Para. 0058 & 0142; SBFD operation is done on the PUSCH transmission, where PUSCH’s UL signaling done in time unit and a frequency unit (bandwidth)), and wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band (See Stephen; Page 35; lines 14-23; The wireless device receive from a network node 16 physical random access channel (PRACH) signaling in a random access channel occasion, RO that meets a validity condition, where the RO is positioned in at least one SBFD symbol of the plurality of SBFD symbols or in at least one UL-only symbol of the plurality of UL-only symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RO is associated with the valid status due to the RO being configured in the uplink sub-band as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 28: The combination of Rudolf and Stephen disclose a network node.
Furthermore, Stephen discloses a network node, wherein the RO is a first RO configured in the time resource and in the uplink sub-band, wherein a second RO is configured in the time resource and outside of the uplink sub-band, and wherein the second RO is not associated with the valid status (See Page 12; Frequency domain ROs are valid if they are completely contained within an UL subband. Frequency domain ROs that are not fully contained within an UL subband are considered invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RO is a first RO configured in the time resource and in the uplink sub-band, wherein a second RO is configured in the time resource and outside of the uplink sub-band, and wherein the second RO is not associated with the valid status as taught by Stephen in the system of Rudolf to determine a validity of a random access channel, RACH, occasion, RO, based on whether a validity condition is met (See abstract; lines 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-6, 8-13, 18-20 & 22-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. LY et al. 2025/0240131 A1 (Title: Frequency hopping for repetitions of an uplink message transmission in a bandwidth….) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Zhang et al. 2025/0158791 A1 (Title: variable subband locations for subband full duplex configurations) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Choi et al. 2025/0133563 A1 (Title: Method and apparatus for transmitting uplink control information..) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469