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 .
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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 § 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.
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 1-3, 6, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al (US 2025/0261246 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 18, Choi discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 18, UE), comprising:
one or more memories (418th paragraph, UE may include a memory); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (418th paragraph and Fig. 18, UE may include a processor 1805), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to:
receive a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) time configuration that configures one or more SBFD symbols on one or more downlink or flexible symbols (59th paragraph and Fig. 12b, SBFD configuration 1 for the UE includes a number of symbols for each SBFD slot such as D slot or S slot among D slots and S slots. Herein, each D slot or S slot includes 14 symbols);
receive an SBFD frequency configuration that configures one or more downlink sub-bands in the one or more SBFD symbols (Fig. 12b, SBFD configuration 1 includes other DL sub-bands besides UL sub-band in each D slot having a number of SBFD symbols, e.g., 14 symbols) and one or more uplink sub-bands in the one or more SBFD symbols (Fig. 12b, SBFD configuration 1 includes a UL subband in each D slot having a number of SBFD symbols, e.g., 14 symbols);
receive a random access channel (RACH) configuration that configures one or more RACH occasions (ROs) in the one or more SBFD symbols (Fig. 13, RO is configured for each UL sub-band in each D slot having 14 SBFD symbols); and
transmit, on an uplink sub-band of the one or more uplink sub-bands, a RACH message (Figs. 11 and Fig. 13, UE transmits a preamble to gNB on UL sub-band 1310) on a valid RO of the one or more ROs (287th paragraph, UE may determine the RACH occasion is valid based on RACH occasion does not precede an SS/PBCH and starts after N gap symbols from last reception symbol of SS/PBCH), the valid RO being associated with a subset of a set of SBFD-aware user equipments (UEs) (Fig. 13, RACH occasion is valid for a number SBFD-capable UEs in SBFD configurations 13B, 13C, and 13D) or one or more RACH triggering events (284th – 288th and 296th – 305th paragraphs, RACH occasion is valid according to first PRACH configuration, according to no TDD DL/UL configuration information received, according to RACH does not precede an SS/PBCH and starts after N gap symbols from last reception symbol of SS/PBCH, etc…).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 19, Choi discloses that wherein the valid RO is associated with the subset of the set of SBFD-aware UEs (Fig. 13, RACH occasion is valid for a number SBFD-capable UEs).
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses that wherein the subset of the set of SBFD-aware UEs is
associated with a type of a subscription (254th paragraph, gNB may determine a type of a UE based on random access resource used by the UE. SBFD capble UE may transmit a PRACH through a separate random access resource for the SBFD capable UE).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 20, Choi discloses that wherein the valid RO is associated with the one or more RACH triggering events (284th – 288th and 296th – 305th paragraphs, RACH occasion is valid according to first PRACH configuration, according to no TDD DL/UL configuration information received, according to RACH does not precede an SS/PBCH and starts after N gap symbols from last reception symbol of SS/PBCH, etc…).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses that wherein RACH configuration is one of a plurality of RACH configurations that correspond to respective subsets of the set of SBFD aware UEs or RACH triggering events (284th and 292nd paragraphs, first PRACH configuration and second PRACH configuration for SBFD capable UEs or triggering conditions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-11, 13, and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 9 that Choi fails to disclose the valid RO being associated with a subset of a set of SBFD-aware user equipments (UEs) or one or more RACH triggering events. In particular, Choi’s illustration in Fig. 13 of a RO in connection with TDD and SBFD configuration does not identify a sub-group within SBFD capable UEs. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Choi discloses in Figs. 13B, 13C, and 13D, SBFD configurations for SBFD capable UEs. A subset of a set of SBFD-ware UEs, as recited in claim 1, can be, for example, 1 UE out of 5 UEs, 2 UEs out of 5 UEs, or 5 UEs out of 5UEs. Claim 1 does not recite that the subset can not be equal to the set. Choi discloses in Figs. 13B, 13C, and 13D, the ROs to be used by SBFD capable UEs in a network. At a moment of time, it can be 1 UE, 2 UEs, etc… out of hundreds or thousands of SBFD capable UEs, supported by the network, to use the SBFD configurations. Therefore, the SBFD configurations can be used for a number of UEs or a subset of UEs, among the UEs, supported by the network.
Applicant argues in page 9 that Choi describes validity conditions for RACH occasions, not RACH triggering events and/or the reason the UE initiated the RACH procedure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite what the triggering events are. Claim 1 does not recite the reason the UE initiated the RACH procedure as stated by Applicant.
Examiner likes to emphasize that claim 1 recites “transmit, on an uplink sub-band of the one or more uplink sub-bands, a RACH message on a valid RO of the one or more ROs, the valid RO being associated with a subset of a set of SBFD-aware user equipments (UEs) or one or more RACH triggering events”. Therefore, one of the above limitations can be an alternative.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights