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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Wu et al. (US 2025/0048441 A1). Regarding claim 1, 18, 20, Wu et al. discloses an apparatus, apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories (See Fig 15 item 1509); and one or more processors (See Fig 15 item 1510), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a configuration associated with a set of random access occasions (ROs) (Para 200-204 teaches of sets of RO that are dynamically configured or preconfigured on the network side); receive an indication of a configuration associated with one or more subband full duplex (SBFD) symbols (Fig 5 Para 100 and Para 169) teaches of non-overlapping subband full duplex mode); and refrain from transmitting in an RO, in the set of ROs, that is originally configured, by the configuration associated with the set of ROs, to be at least partially outside an uplink subband of the one or more SBFD symbols (See Fig 5 Para 169-175 teaches that collum 3 RO partially overlap with downlink subband. These ROs are considered invalid, i.e. they cannot be used for transmission). Regarding claim 2, Wu et al. discloses an apparatus, wherein, to refrain from transmitting in the RO, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: refrain from transmitting in the RO based at least in part on the RO being originally configured, by the configuration associated with the set of ROs, to be at least partially outside the uplink subband (See Fig 5 Para 169-175 teaches that collum 3 RO partially overlap with downlink subband. These ROs are considered invalid, i.e. they cannot be used for transmission). Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. discloses an apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: receive a command to treat all ROs at least partially outside the uplink subband as invalid, wherein the UE refrains from transmitting in the RO in response to the command (See Fig 5 Para 169-175 teaches that collum 3 RO partially overlap with downlink subband. These ROs are considered invalid, i.e. they cannot be used for transmission. Para 177 teaches of Higher layer signaling regarding the RO that can be used.). Regarding claim 16, Wu et al. discloses an apparatus, wherein the RO is in a first slot, and wherein, to refrain from transmitting in the RO, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: refrain from transmitting in the RO based at least in part on a next available resource, in the uplink subband of the one or more SBFD symbols, being in a second slot that is subsequent to the first slot and that includes the set of ROs as originally configured. (See Fig 5 Para 170-175 teaches of two collum of configured ROs being invalid cause they overlap with downlink. In this case the other two collum of conjured ROs are valid and are useable. Also See Fig 6 Para 172-175 teaches of the condition where the upper row of configured ROs are invalid but the bottom row of configured ROs are still valid and can be used). Regarding claim 17, Wu et al. discloses an apparatus, wherein the configuration associated with the set of ROs indicates that the set of ROs are frequency division multiplexed (Para 67 teaches of frequency division multiple access).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-15 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY P CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 5712723940. 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.
/AJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467