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 .
Claims 1-19 and 41 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 6 “unicast RRC signaling” should read --unicast radio resource control (RRC) signaling--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 7
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a third terminal device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim nor the parent claim recites “a second terminal device”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear, because it is unclear if the claim requires a first terminal device, second terminal device, and third terminal device or just a first terminal device, and third terminal device.
In reference to claim 8
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a third terminal device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim nor the parent claim recites “a second terminal device”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear, because it is unclear if the claim requires a first terminal device, second terminal device, and third terminal device or just a first terminal device, and third terminal device.
In reference to claim 13
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a second type of radio resource control (RRC) signaling message" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim nor the parent claim recites “a first type of radio resource (RRC) signaling message”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear, because it is unclear if the claim requires a first type of radio resource control (RRC) signaling message and second type of radio resource control (RRC) signaling message or just one type of radio resource control (RRC) signaling message.
In reference to claim 9, 14
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418).
- In reference claim 1
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches an information acquisition method, applied to a network device (e.g. base station 105-c; Fig. 7 par. 234), comprising:
receiving first indication information (e.g. UE Full-Duplex Capability Indication Message 710; par. 0236) sent by a first terminal device (e.g. UE 115-c; Fig. 7, par. 0234); wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate to the network device that the first terminal device has recorded full duplex information (e.g. recorded information about one or more RF spectrum bands and the one or more types of full-duplex communications supported for each RF spectrum band; par. 0235-0236).
- In reference claim 11
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches an information acquisition method, applied to a terminal device (e.g. UE 115-c; Fig. 7, par. 0234), comprising: indicating (e.g. via UE Full-Duplex Capability Indication Message 710; par. 0236) to a first network device (e.g. base station 105-c; Fig. 7 par. 234) that the terminal device has recorded full duplex information (e.g. recorded information about one or more RF spectrum bands and the one or more types of full-duplex communications supported for each RF spectrum band; par. 0235-0236), in a process of establishing a connection with the first network device (e.g. process 700 as shown in Fig. 7, par. 0234-0240).
- In reference claim 41
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches a communication device (e.g. base station 105-c; Fig. 7 par. 234), comprising: a processor (e.g. processor 1640; par. 0357); and a memory (e.g. memory 1630, par. 0356) having stored therein computer programs, wherein the processor is configured to; receive first indication information (e.g. UE Full-Duplex Capability Indication Message 710; par. 0236) sent by a first terminal device (e.g. UE 115-c; Fig. 7, par. 0234); wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate to the communication device that the first terminal device has recorded full duplex information (e.g. recorded information about one or more RF spectrum bands and the one or more types of full-duplex communications supported for each RF spectrum band; par. 0235-0236).
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) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418) in view of BEALE et al. (US 2016/0323088) and further in view of JIANG (US 2019/0141578).
- In reference claim 7 and 9, as best understood
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim
Abdelghaffar et al. does not teach sending full duplex information supported by the network device to a third terminal device.
BEALE et al. teaches sending full duplex information (par. 0121) supported by a network device (e.g. first base station 205, par. 120) to a third terminal device (e.g. user equipment 201 or 203; par. 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Abdelghaffar et al. to include sending full duplex information supported by the network device to a third terminal device as suggested by BEALE et al. because it would allows another terminal device to be informed that the network device/base station may use full duplex for communications.
The combination of Abdelghaffar et al. and BEALE et al. does not teach sending via system information, wherein the system information is minimum system information or other system information.
JIANG teaches sending via system information, wherein the system information is minimum system information or other system information. (e.g. sending via minimum system information par. 0099-0102)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the combination of Abdelghaffar et al. and BEALE et al. to include sending via system information, wherein the system information is minimum system information or other system information as suggested by JIANG because it allows the network device/base station to send minimum system information to other terminal devices to inform the other terminal devices that the network device/base station may use full duplex for communications
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2018/0159584).
- In reference claim 10
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim
Abdelghaffar et al. does not teach the recorded full duplex information at least comprises: information about the network device supporting a full duplex communication; or information about the network device supporting a full duplex communication and corresponding full duplex information; or information about the network device with a specific full duplex condition.
ZHANG et al. teaches information about a network device supporting a full duplex communication (e.g. small cell supporting full-duplex capability support information; par. 0334); or information about the network device supporting a full duplex communication and corresponding full duplex information; or information about the network device with a specific full duplex condition.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recorded full duplex information of Abdelghaffar et al. to comprise at least information about the network device supporting a full duplex communication; or information about the network device supporting a full duplex communication and corresponding full duplex information; or information about the network device with a specific full duplex condition as suggested by ZHANG et al. because it would the terminal device to indicate information that a network device such as a small cell supports full duplex communication that may be used during establishment of communications among devices within a network.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418) in view of KIM (US 2022/0167148).
- In reference claims 13, as best understood
Abdelghaffar et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Abdelghaffar et al. does not teach the indicating via a second a second type of radio resource control (RRC) signaling message.
KIM teaches indicating via a second a second type of RRC signaling message. (e.g. indicating in RRC message; par. 0202)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicating of Abdelghaffar et al. to be via a second a second type of RRC signaling message as suggested by KIM et al. because it would allow utilizing radio resource control protocol to communicate with the first network device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar et al. (US 2021/0152418) in view of KIM (US 2022/0167148), as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Aoyama et al. (US 2011/0096723).
- In reference claims 14, as best understood
The combination of Abdelghaffar et al. and KIM teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
The combination of Abdelghaffar et al. and KIM does not teach the second type of RRC signaling message is added to any one of the following signaling messages: a RRC connection setup complete signaling message; a RRC connection reconfiguration complete signaling message; a RRC connection reestablishment complete signaling message; or a RRC connection resume complete signaling message.
Aoyama et al. teaches any one of the following signaling messages: a RRC connection setup complete signaling message (par. 0011); a RRC connection reconfiguration complete signaling message; a RRC connection reestablishment complete signaling message; or a RRC connection resume complete signaling message.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abdelghaffar et al. and KIM to include the second type of RRC signaling message is added to any one of the following signaling messages: a RRC connection setup complete signaling message; a RRC connection reconfiguration complete signaling message; a RRC connection reestablishment complete signaling message; or a RRC connection resume complete signaling message as suggested by Aoyama et al. because it would utilizing a known radio resource control protocol message to communicate the indication with the first network device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 12, and 15-18 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.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2023/0370240 pertains to a user equipment (UE) may receive, from a network entity, a capability message indicating that the network entity supports one or more modes of a full-duplex communications scheme. The capability message may be associated with an access procedure between the UE and the network entity and the UE may perform the access procedure with the network entity. The UE may communicate with the network entity based on the access procedure and the network entity supporting the one or more modes associated with the full-duplex communications scheme.
US 12095534 pertains to a full duplex user equipment (UE) may provide a channel state information (CSI) report to a base station to enable the base station to schedule simultaneous uplink and downlink communications for the full duplex UE. For example, the base station may transmit a CSI report configuration to the UE that indicates for the UE to report a full duplex CSI. In some cases, the CSI report configuration may include the UE to report CSI under a full duplex mode with or without an indication of an uplink bandwidth. Accordingly, the UE may calculate and report the self-full duplex mode CSI to the base station according to the received configuration. The base station may then determine a radio resource allocation and transport format for downlink data transfer and for uplink data transfer under the full duplex mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466