Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 01/10/2024.
Notice of 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 Status
Claims 1-68 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2024, 06/05/2025, 12/04/2025, and 05/04/2026 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siomina et al. (Publication No. US 2015/0215107), the prior art discloses that the HD-FDD operation is generally implemented as a scheduler constraint, implying that the scheduler ensures that an HD-FDD device is not scheduled simultaneously in the downlink (DL) and uplink (UL); see ¶ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, 23, 30, 39, 46, 55, and 62 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 33-48 are rejected under U.S.C. the § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 33 and 48, recite the language "computer readable medium” which typically covers forms of non-transitory media as well as transitory media. Furthermore, the specification fails to provide any definition that would deny the interpretation of the language as transitory media; PGPUB ¶ 46. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes transitory media such as signal per se. As result, the scope of the claim includes software stored on a signal and must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claims 34-47, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11-12, 16-17, 22, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 38, 41, 43-44, 48-49, 54, 57, 59-60, and 64-68 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Publication No. US 20180176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 33, and 49, Lee discloses a wireless communication method in a user equipment (UE) of a wireless communication network, the UE configured to operate in half duplex frequency division duplexing (HD-FDD) mode in the network, the method comprising (A WTRU is configured to communicate using HD-FDD; see figure 7 & ¶ 92.):
configuring the UE for one or more conditions under which the UE will transmit under HD-FDD mode in uplink (UL) to a network device of the network and not receive in downlink (DL) from the network device during a Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure (The WTRU may skip [configuration] either an uplink transmission or downlink reception if the WTRU is scheduled for an uplink transmission in subframe n as well as downlink reception in an adjacent subframe, wherein skipping [configuration] is based on a rule configured according to the priority [condition] between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception; see figure 7 numeral 710 & ¶ 92.);
determining whether the configured one or more conditions arise for a particular RACH procedure (Check [determining] the uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception priority [condition]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 92.); and
upon determining that the configured one or more conditions arise for the particular RACH procedure, transmitting under HD-FDD mode in UL during the particular RACH procedure in accordance with the configured one or more conditions (When the uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.).
Regarding claims 6, 22, 38, and 54, Lee discloses configuring comprises pre-configuring the UE with one or more of as the one or more conditions (The rule may be predefined [pre-configured] or configured according to the priority [condition] between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception; see ¶ 92.).
Regarding claims 9, 25, 41, and 57, Lee discloses configuring comprises: identifying a set of one or more RACH procedure characteristics as the one or more conditions under which the UE will transmit under HD-FDD mode in UL and not receive in DL regardless of one or more DL transmission characteristics (The WTRU may skip [configuration] either an uplink transmission or downlink reception if the WTRU is scheduled for an uplink transmission in subframe n as well as downlink reception in an adjacent subframe, wherein skipping [configuration] is based on a rule configured according to the priority [condition] between uplink signal transmission [characteristic] and downlink signal reception; see figure 7 numeral 710 & ¶ 92. When the uplink signal [PRACH preamble] transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93.); and
configuring the UE in accordance with the identified set of one or more RACH procedure characteristics (The rule may be predefined [pre-configured] or configured according to the priority [condition] between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception; see ¶ 92.).
Regarding claims 11, 27, 43, and 59, Lee discloses a set of one or more DL transmission characteristics under which the UE will transmit during a RACH procedure under HD-FDD mode in UL and not receive in DL; and configuring the UE m accordance with the identified set of one or more DL transmission characteristics (When the uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure] and the downlink signal includes at least one of (E)PDCCH, PHICH, PCFICH, and PDSCH [characteristic].; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.).
Regarding claims 12, 28, 44, and 60, Lee discloses that the set of one or more DL transmission characteristics comprises semi-static and cell-specific DL transmissions (The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure] and the downlink signal includes at least one of (E)PDCCH, PHICH, PCFICH, and PDSCH [characteristic].; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.).
Regarding claims 16, 32, 48, and 64, Lee discloses transmitting, by a network device to a user equipment (UE), a configuration (Scheduled transmission based on resources for which a scheduling grant has been provided (e.g., in a DCI format), wherein the scheduled transmission comprises one or more of PUCCH, SRS, and PRACH transmissions; see ¶ 60.)
in which the UE can transmit under half duplex frequency division duplexing (HD-FDD) mode in uplink (UL) to the network device; and not receive in downlink (DL) from the network device, during a Random Access Channel (RACH) procedure; and receiving, from the UE, one or more transmissions under HD-FDD mode in UL during a RACH procedure in accordance with the transmitted configuration (When the uplink signal [PRACH preamble] transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93. A WTRU is configured to communicate using HD-FDD; see figure 7 & ¶ 92.); and
Regarding claims 65-68, Lee discloses configuring the UE for one or more conditions under which the UE will transmit under HD-FDD mode in UL to the network device and not receive in downlink DL from the network device during a RACH procedure comprises configuring the UE to prioritize i) synchronization signal block (SSB) or ii) physical RACH (PRACH) or msgA physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) triggered by higher layers conditions (When the uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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.
Claims 2-3, 18-19, 34-35, and 50-51 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of Rastegardoost et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0060894, hereinafter referred as Rastegardoost).
Regarding claims 2, 18, 34, and 50, Lee discloses that the one or more conditions include one or more of: a priority class of RACH procedure transmissions, the priority class including one or more of physical RACH (PRACH) transmissions, physical UL shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions (When the uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.), physical UL control channel (PUCCH) transmissions, and sounding reference signal (SRS) transmissions;
Lee disclose determining whether to skip an uplink transmission or downlink reception, but fails to explicitly disclose a set of one or more transmission parameters including one or more of power control parameters, coverage enhancement parameters, and beam forming parameters of the UL transmissions of the RACH procedure. However, in analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses that the one or more RACH parameters provided, by the BS, in the configuration message may be used to determine an uplink transmit power of RACH parameters, wherein the one or more parameter includes initial power of the preamble transmission; see figure 13 & ¶ 173. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee determination mechanims with the parameters of Rastegardoost in order to avoid interference between channel by controlling the power of the preamble transmission.
Regarding claims 3, 19, 35, and 51, Lee discloses: a transmission associated with the particular RACH procedure comprises at least one of a PRACH transmission, a PUSCH transmission, a PUCCH transmission, and a SRS transmission (When the uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, transmit the uplink signal and skip the reception of the downlink signal; see figure 7 numeral 740/760 & ¶ 93. The uplink signal comprises a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure]; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.); and
Lee discloses determining whether to skip an uplink transmission or downlink reception, but fails to explicitly disclose transmitting comprises applying one or more of power control, coverage enhancement and beamforming parameters to the transmission. However, in analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses that the one or more RACH parameters provided, by the BS, in the configuration message may be used to determine an uplink transmit power of RACH parameters, wherein the one or more parameter includes initial power of the preamble transmission; see figure 13 & ¶ 173. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee determination mechanims with the parameters of Rastegardoost in order to avoid interference between channel by controlling the power of the preamble transmission.
Claims 4-5, 20-21, 36-37, and 52-53 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of Wong et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0089138, hereinafter referred as Wong).
Regarding claims 4, 20, 36, and 52, Lee discloses that the rule may be predefined or configured according to the priority between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception, but fails to disclose configuring comprises receiving, by the UE from the network device in DL, the one or more conditions. However, in analogous art, Wong discloses determining that an intra-UE HD-FDD collision is detected in respect of communication resources allocated by a single indication, the communications device 270 may determine which resources are to use based on the corresponding priority, wherein the priorities can be indicated by means of static signalling, such as in system information, or RRC reconfiguration; see ¶ 92 & ¶ 99. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee determination mechanims with the priority indication of Wong in order to enable the selection of the appropriate resource for communication based in the priority indication.
Regarding claims 5, 21, 37, and 53, Lee discloses that the rule may be predefined or configured according to the priority between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception, but fails to disclose receiving the one or more conditions comprises receiving the one or more conditions via one or more of: one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages, one or more system information (SI) messages, and one or more medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) messages. However, in analogous art, Wong discloses determining that an intra-UE HD-FDD collision is detected in respect of communication resources allocated by a single indication, the communications device 270 may determine which resources are to use based on the corresponding priority, wherein the priorities can be indicated by means of static signalling, such as in system information, or RRC reconfiguration; see ¶ 92 & ¶ 99. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee determination mechanims with the priority indication of Wong in order to enable the selection of the appropriate resource for communication based in the priority indication.
Claims 8, 24, 40, and 56 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of Kishiyama et al. (Publication No. US 2013/0301486, hereinafter referred as Kishiyama).
Regarding claims 8, 24, 40, and 56, Lee discloses determining that the rule may be predefined or configured according to the priority between uplink signal transmission and downlink signal reception, but fails to disclose receiving, by the UE from the network device in DL, one or more modifications to the pre-configured one or more conditions; and reconfiguring the UE with the received one or more modifications. However, in analogous art, Wong discloses a control section configured to cause the transmission/reception section to selectively perform transmission of the uplink signal and reception of the downlink signal, based on a priority relationship defined between the uplink signal and the downlink signal, wherein the priority relationship is capable of being modified as appropriate corresponding to the network configuration, base station apparatus configuration, mobile terminal apparatus configuration and the like; see ¶ 9 and ¶ 67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee priority mechanism with the priority relationship of Kishiyama in order to enable the optimization of Half-duplex FDD scheme when transmission and reception overlap.
Claims 10, 26, 42, and 58 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of You et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0007667, hereinafter referred as You).
Regarding claims 10, 26, 42, and 58, Lee discloses determining whether to skip an uplink transmission or downlink reception, but fails to explicitly disclose that the set of one or more RACH procedure characteristics comprises one or more of: handover (HO) characteristics, scheduling requests for mission critical reports, Beam Failure Recovery (BFR) characteristics, and access identities pre-defined for higher priority access classes. However, in analogous art, You discloses a half-duplex frequency division duplex (HD-FDD), when uplink transmission and downlink receipt are performed on the same subframe or neighboring subframes, a user equipment drops one of the uplink transmission and the downlink receipt according to a priority; see ¶ 7. Furthermore, the random access procedure [RACH] is used for handover; see ¶ 78. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee prioritization mechanism with the random access procedure of You in order to avoid congestion performing handover procedure.
Claims 13, 15, 29, 31, 45, 47, 61, and 63 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0176000, hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of He et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0297776, hereinafter referred as He).
Regarding claims 13, 29, 45, and 61, Lee discloses disclose that the set of one or more DL transmission characteristics comprises semi-static and cell-specific DL transmissions (The uplink signal transmission has higher priority than downlink signal, wherein the uplink signal includes a PRACH preamble [RACH procedure], and wherein the downlink signal includes at least one of (E)PDCCH, PHICH, PCFICH, and PDSCH [characteristic].; see figure 7 numeral 720 & ¶ 93.), but fails to explicitly disclose the exception of synchronization signal block (SSB) transmissions. However, in analogous art, He discloses HD-FDD collision handling techniques; see ¶ 50. If a random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) is overlapped with a cell-specific SSB, the UE defers the PRACH transmission that may be scheduled for this RO to the next RO that is associated with the selected SSB; see figure 6 & ¶ 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee prioritization mechanism with the deferment technique of He in order to handle cell-specific downlink reception and cell-specific uplink transmission in accordance with the HD-FDD restrictions; see ¶ 43.
Regarding claims 15, 31, 47, and 63, Lee discloses the set of one or more DL transmission characteristics comprises, for a given dynamic UL grant for RACH procedures (Scheduleded transmission may be a transmission for which a scheduling grant has been provided, wherein the scheduled transmission may be used for PRACH transmission; see ¶ 60.), but fails to explicitly disclose semi-static and cell-specific DL transmissions arriving at the UE after the given dynamic UL grant for RACH procedures. However, in analogous art, He discloses HD-FDD collision handling techniques; see ¶ 50. If a random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) is overlapped with a cell-specific SSB, the UE defers the PRACH transmission that may be scheduled for this RO to the next RO that is associated with the selected SSB; see figure 6 & ¶ 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee prioritization mechanism with the deferment technique of He in order to handle cell-specific downlink reception and cell-specific uplink transmission in accordance with the HD-FDD restrictions; see ¶ 43.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights