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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 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 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.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolf (US Pub. 2024/0155583) in view of Teyeb et al (US Pub. 2023/0232294).
Regarding claim 1, Rudolf discloses a first network entity comprising one or more memories storing processor-executable code and one or more processors configured to execute the code to perform wireless communication operations. (¶[0040, 0042])
Rudolf discloses “output … duplex information for one or more cells associated with the first network entity, wherein the duplex information comprises information related to a subband full-duplex mode, a subband half-duplex mode, a full-duplex mode, or any combination thereof”, as Rudolf teaches providing duplex configuration information for cells including full-duplex and half-duplex operation. (¶[0110, 0121-0124])
Rudolf further discloses “communicate, via a cell of the one or more cells, with a user equipment (UE) in accordance with the duplex information”, as Rudolf teaches communicating with a UE based on the duplex configuration. (¶[0124])
Rudolf does not specifically disclose “output, to a central unit (CU) or a distributed unit (DU), duplex information for one or more cells associated with the first network entity.”
Teyeb et al. from an analogous art discloses a split gNB architecture including a central unit (CU) and a distributed unit (DU), and further discloses signaling procedures between the CU and DU over an F1 interface, including bearer context setup messaging exchanged between the CU and DU ¶[0163]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rudolf to output the duplex information to a CU or a DU as taught by Teyeb et al. in order to enable coordination of duplex configurations across network entities in a split radio access network architecture, since signaling between CU and DU is required for operation and coordination of cells.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 18, and 29, Rudolf in view of Teyeb further discloses signaling SBFD duplex information directly from the network to the UE but does not disclose inter-node signaling, such as outputting the duplex information to a second or third network entity, receiving, from a second or third network entity, a message comprising at least a subset of the duplex information, or forwarding such information among network entities. Rudolf ¶[0110]–[0111] describe direct UE-facing signaling without intermediate nodes.
In the NR architecture, however, configuration information (including duplex-mode parameters) is routinely exchanged between network entities such as the CU and DU and may be forwarded through additional nodes before reaching its final destination. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement Rudolf’s SBFD configuration signaling using conventional CU→DU→UE or multi-node forwarding paths to support the claimed inter-node signaling.
Regarding claim 3, Rudolf further discloses “the duplex information comprises a plurality of duplex configurations”. Rudolf ¶[0121] discloses multiple UL/DL subband configurations (“DU”, “UD”, “DUD”). Rudolf ¶[0124] further describes full-duplex, SBFD UL, SBFD DL, and SBFD flexible subband configurations.
Rudolf further discloses “output a control message to activate one of the plurality of duplex configurations”. Rudolf ¶[0110] states: “The UE can be configured with SBFD subband configurations via higher layer/RRC signaling,” and ¶[0111] states: “The network may provide the SBFD configuration to the UE…”. These passages describe outputting configuration information that activates a particular SBFD configuration at the UE.
Rudolf further discloses “to communicate with the UE in accordance with the activated one of the plurality of duplex configurations.” Rudolf ¶[0124] states: “support simultaneous DL transmission to a UE… and UL reception from a UE… on an SBFD slot or symbol,” demonstrating communication according to the activated SBFD configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Rudolf further discloses “the duplex information indicates an active duplex mode for a first cell of the one or more cells”. Rudolf ¶[0124] describes the gNB operating in “full-duplex operation… on an SBFD slot or symbol,” which is an active duplex mode for the cell.
Rudolf further discloses “the active duplex mode comprising one or more of one of the subband full-duplex mode, the subband half-duplex mode, or the full-duplex mode.” Rudolf ¶[0121]–[0122] describe SBFD slots/symbols (subband full-duplex). Rudolf ¶[0125] explains full-duplex and half-duplex UE operation on the same NR carrier. These paragraphs collectively disclose SBFD, SBHD, and FD modes.
Regarding claim 5, Rudolf further discloses “the duplex information indicates frequency information for at least one mode from among the subband full-duplex mode, the subband half-duplex mode, or the full-duplex mode”. Rudolf ¶[0121] discloses UL and DL subbands within an NR carrier and identifies configurations as “DU”, “UD”, and “DUD”.
Rudolf further discloses “the frequency information comprising an uplink frequency range, a downlink frequency range, a guard band frequency range, or any combination thereof for the at least one mode”. Rudolf ¶[0121] identifies distinct UL and DL subbands (i.e., UL and DL frequency ranges). Rudolf ¶[0121] and ¶[0122] describe SBFD slots/symbols having non-overlapping UL and DL subbands, which inherently include a guard-band region between them.
Rudolf further discloses “a subcarrier spacing for the at least one mode, a frequency offset for the at least one mode, or any combination thereof.” Rudolf ¶[0114]–[0117] describe schedulable DL and UL symbols within NR frames and refer to subcarrier spacing configurations applicable to SBFD operation.
Regarding claim 6, Rudolf discloses “the duplex information indicates a type of frequency domain allocation for one or more time periods”. Rudolf ¶[0121] describes the UL/DL subband configuration “on the full-duplex slot or symbol,” which is a time period.
Rudolf further discloses “the type of frequency domain allocation comprising a pattern of one or more downlink allocations and one or more uplink allocations within the one or more time periods.” Rudolf ¶[0121] explicitly describes “DU”, “UD”, and “DUD” frequency-domain patterns of DL and UL subbands within a symbol/slot.
Regarding claim 7, Rudolf discloses “the duplex information indicates time information for at least one mode from among the subband full-duplex mode, the subband half-duplex mode, or the full-duplex mode”. Rudolf ¶[0121]–[0122] define UL/DL subband configurations for “full-duplex slot or symbol” and “SBFD slots/symbols,” indicating the time intervals during which the SBFD mode is active.
Rudolf further discloses “the time information comprising one or more time periods in which the at least one mode is active, a periodicity for the at least one mode, one or more respective communication directions for the one or more time periods, or any combination thereof.” Rudolf ¶[0121] defines the communication direction (UL or DL) for SBFD symbols. Rudolf ¶[0114]–[0117] describe periodic DL/UL schedulable symbols across slots/frames.
Regarding claim 8, Rudolf discloses “the first network entity is a distributed unit.” Rudolf ¶[0110]–[0111] describe SBFD configurations delivered through higher layer/RRC signaling. Rudolf ¶[0040]–[0046] describe the gNB which, in NR architecture, includes DU functions handling MAC-layer scheduling, UL/DL symbol allocation, and SBFD resource configuration. Thus, Rudolf’s gNB embodies a distributed unit.
Claims 9–11, 13–17, 19, 21-28, and 30 recite limitations corresponding to those in claims 1 and 3–8 but from the perspective of a second network entity or a user equipment. Rudolf describes determining duplex information (¶[0121]–[0125]), outputting configuration information (¶[0110]–[0111]), UL/DL allocation patterns (“DU”, “UD”, “DUD”), subcarrier spacing and frequency information (¶[0114]–[0117], ¶[0121]), and SBFD UL/DL operation (¶[0124]–[0125]). These disclosures correspond to the claimed duplex information, duplex configurations, activation behaviors, time-domain and frequency-domain indications, and operational behaviors. Accordingly, Rudolf anticipates claims 9–11, 13–17, 19–28, and 30.
Regarding claim 20, Rudolf discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising one or more memories storing processor-executable code and one or more processors configured to execute the code to perform wireless communication operations.
Rudolf discloses “receive, from a first network entity, one or more messages indicating duplex information for one or more cells … wherein the duplex information comprises information related to a subband full-duplex mode, a subband half-duplex mode, a full-duplex mode, or any combination thereof”, as Rudolf teaches that a UE receives duplex configuration information from a network entity. (¶[0110, 0121-0124])
Rudolf further discloses “communicate … with the first network entity in accordance with the duplex information”, as Rudolf teaches UE communication based on duplex configuration. (¶[0124])
Rudolf does not specifically disclose “wherein an origin of the one or more messages comprises a second network entity that is distinct from the first network entity.”
Teyeb et al. discloses a split gNB architecture including a central unit (CU) and a distributed unit (DU), wherein signaling procedures such as bearer context setup are performed over an F1 interface between the CU and DU (¶[0163]). In such split architectures, different network entities perform different functions and exchange signaling messages, such that information may be generated at one entity (e.g., CU) and transmitted via another entity (e.g., DU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the duplex information originate from one network entity and be transmitted to the UE via another network entity in order to support functional splitting and distributed processing in a split RAN architecture.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468