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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11, 12, 21, 23, 24, 26, 55, 57-64 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 04/10/2026, 01/30/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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.
Independent Claim
Claim(s) 1, 12, 55, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1).
As to claim 1, 12, 55, 57: Tabet teaches an information processing method, performed by User Equipment (UE), and comprising: sending first information of the UE, wherein the first information is used for configuration by a network device for a working mode of the UE ([0089] At 502, a UE (e.g., such as UE 106) may send first information to a network entity. The network entity may be a mobility management entity (MME) comprised in or coupled to a base station (e.g., base station 102) or may be a base station (e.g., base station 102). The first information may indicate the capabilities of the UE. The capabilities may indicate that the UE supports full duplex frequency division duplexing (FD-FDD) (full duplex mode of operation), half duplex FDD (HD-FDD) (half duplex mode of operation), or both (although not concurrently). In some embodiments the capabilities may additionally indicate that the UE is a power constrained (or peak current limited) device), and the working mode comprises a full duplexing mode (abstract: mode of operation, [0089], claim 8); … ; wherein the UE works in the full duplexing mode based on that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode ([0010, 56] The capabilities may indicate that the UE supports full duplex frequency division duplexing (FD-FDD) (full duplex mode of operation), half duplex FDD (HD-FDD) (half duplex mode of operation)).
Tabet may not explicitly teach and sending second information for indicating a mobility state of the UE; wherein the second information and the first information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE. However, Chou teaches and sending second information for indicating a mobility state of the UE ([0029, 30] In step 513, UE 501 determines the UE speed information, e.g., based on the received mapping rule. In step 514, UE 501 transmits an RRC connection setup complete message to eNB 502. The RRC connection setup complete message comprises the UE speed information); wherein the second information and the first information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE ([0029-32, 38] In step 515, based on the UE speed information, eNB 502 determines new DRX parameters. Finally, in step 516, eNB 502 transmits a MAC-MainConfig to UE 501 to configure the determined DRX parameters).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement mobility info, taught by Chou, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and optimize handovers. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Chou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach that the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold, and that the UE is in a first mobility state; or the UE works in a non-full duplexing mode based on that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, that the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold, and that the UE is in a second mobility state; and wherein a moving rate of the UE in the first mobility state is less than a moving rate of the UE in the second mobility state. However, Karlsson teaches that the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold ([0033, 42, 50]), and that the UE is in a first mobility state ([0033, 45, 50]); or the UE works in a non-full duplexing mode based on that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, that the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold, and that the UE is in a second mobility state; and wherein a moving rate of the UE in the first mobility state is less than a moving rate of the UE in the second mobility state ([0045] high, low mobility).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds and mobility states, taught by Karlsson, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and optimize handovers. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Karlsson and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 6, 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1) in view of 3GPP TS 36.321
As to claim 6, 58: Tabet teaches the method of claim 1 … or the first information, the second information and the third information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE.
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: sending third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE, and … and the third information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE. However, 3GPP teaches further comprising: sending third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE, and … and the third information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE (section 5.4.5 The Buffer Status reporting procedure is used to provide the serving eNB with information about the amount of data available for transmission in the UL buffers associated with the MAC entity; section 6.1.3.1 Buffer Size: The Buffer Size field identifies the total amount of data available across all logical channels of a logical channel group after all MAC PDUs for the TTI have been built).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement cache data volume, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and decide whether full duplex is feasible. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein the first information. However, Karlsson teaches wherein the first information ([0033] the full-duplex operation could thus be activated for best-effort traffic with low quality of service requirement and low bandwidth requirement).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement first information, taught by Karlsson, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine working mode. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Karlsson and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9, 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1) in view of Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 9, 59: Tabet teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the first information of the UE comprises: sending the first information of the UE based on a trigger condition; wherein sending the first information of the UE based on the trigger condition comprises at least one of: … , and sending the first information of the UE; determining that the UE is in a first mobility state, and sending the first information of the UE; wherein the UE in the first mobility state has a moving rate lower than a rate threshold; determining that the transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to the power threshold and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state, and sending the first information of the UE; or determining that a service cache data volume of the UE is greater than a preset data volume, and sending the first information of the UE.
Tabet may not explicitly teach determining that a transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to a power threshold. However, Barrebek teaches determining that a transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to a power threshold (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 11, 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1), Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1) in view of Yong (EP-2805545-A1).
As to claim 11, 60: Tabet teaches the method of claim 9.
Tabet may not explicitly teach comprising: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE within a preset time range is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state. However, Yong teaches further comprising: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE (mobile device can measure Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP) and Reference Signal Receiving Quality (RSRQ) levels of the serving cell for every discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle. Difference between maximum and minimum RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used in determining an estimate how the mobile device crosses the cell) within a preset time range (If a predefined time expires (T >= TCRMAX), Ntotai is compared with predefined thresholds to obtain the mobility state.) is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state ((NCR_ Ntotai < NCR_H => mobility state of UE is classified as medium; totai < NC _M => mobility state of UE is classified as normal)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining mobility state, taught by Yong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yong and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 21, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1) in view of Yong (EP-2805545-A1).
As to claim 21, 61: Tabet teaches the method of claim 20.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the mobility state of the UE based on the second information comprises one of: determining, based on the second information, that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE within a preset time range is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state; or determining, based on the second information, that the change value of the signal strength of the reference signal received by the UE within the preset time range is greater than the threshold, and determining that the UE is in the second mobility state.. However, Yong teaches wherein determining, based on the second information, the mobility state of the UE based on the second information comprises one of: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE (mobile device can measure Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP) and Reference Signal Receiving Quality (RSRQ) levels of the serving cell for every discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle. Difference between maximum and minimum RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used in determining an estimate how the mobile device crosses the cell) within a preset time range (If a predefined time expires (T >= TCRMAX), Ntotai is compared with predefined thresholds to obtain the mobility state.) is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state ((NCR_ Ntotai < NCR_H => mobility state of UE is classified as medium; totai < NC _M => mobility state of UE is classified as normal)); or determining, based on the second information, that the change value of the signal strength of the reference signal received by the UE within the preset time range is greater than the threshold, and determining that the UE is in the second mobility state.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining mobility state, taught by Yong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yong and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 23, 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1) in view of 3GPP TS 36.321.
As to claim 23, 62: Tabet teaches the method of claim 12.
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE. However, 3GPP teaches further comprising: receiving third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE (section 5.4.5 The Buffer Status reporting procedure is used to provide the serving eNB with information about the amount of data available for transmission in the UL buffers associated with the MAC entity; section 6.1.3.1 Buffer Size: The Buffer Size field identifies the total amount of data available across all logical channels of a logical channel group after all MAC PDUs for the TTI have been built.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement cache data volume, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and decide whether full duplex is feasible. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 24, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1), 3GPP TS 36.321 in view of Hong (CN-108476446-A).
As to claim 24, 63: Tabet teaches the method of claim 23 … or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, and-and/or the third information indicates the service cache data volume being less than the preset data volume: and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on … and the third information. However, 3GPP teaches wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on … and the third information (section 5.4.5 The Buffer Status reporting procedure is used to provide the serving eNB with information about the amount of data available for transmission in the UL buffers associated with the MAC entity; section 6.1.3.1 Buffer Size: The Buffer Size field identifies the total amount of data available across all logical channels of a logical channel group after all MAC PDUs for the TTI have been built.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement cache data volume, taught by 3GPP, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and decide whether full duplex is feasible. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and 3GPP in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach the first information. However, Karlsson teaches the first information ([0033, 42, 50]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement first information, taught by Karlsson, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine working mode. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Karlsson and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than or equal to a preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode. However, Hong teaches wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than or equal to a preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold, the user equipment is more than the preset cache value, base station with full duplex transmission mode between user devices will not cause uplink and downlink crosstalk and the like).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether to enable full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 26, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Chou (EP-2945435-B1), Karlsson (EP-3403363-B1), 3GPP TS 36.321 in view of Zhang (US-20220014344), Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 26, 64: Tabet teaches the method of claim 23, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information, the-second information and the third information; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information, the second information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, … ; or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold, the second information indicates the UE being in the second mobility state and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being less than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode.
Tabet may not explicitly teach the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold. However, Harrebek teaches the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach the second information indicates the UE being in a first mobility state. However, Zhang teaches the second information indicates the UE being in a first mobility state ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode. However, Hong teaches and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold, the user equipment is more than the preset cache value, base station with full duplex transmission mode between user devices will not cause uplink and downlink crosstalk and the like).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache data volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if UE would benefit from full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights