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
Based on new ground of rejection, applicant’s argument submitted on 06/17/2026 are moot.
Based on applicant’s response to claim objection, the objection has been withdrawn. Based on applicant’s explanation for “network entity”, amended claims have been addressed below.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abotabl et al. (US 2023/0075417, hereinafter Abotabl).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Abotabl discloses a network entity (120 of fig. 6) for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system (para 0007; a processor) configured to:
receive first information (602 & 604) that is indicative of a subband full duplex (SBFD) configuration for an SBFD mode of operation (para 0082; the base station may transmit, to the UE, an indication to operate in a full duplex mode (e.g., using an SBFD mode); receive second information (610) that is indicative of a time division duplex (TDD) configuration for a non-SBFD mode of operation (para 0091; the base station and the UE may optionally communicate (e.g., transmit or receive) using a different mode other than the SBFD mode (e.g., a non-SBFD mode). In some aspects, the base station and the UE may communicate according to a slot format indicator (SFI) and/or a TDD pattern (sometimes referred to as a TDD uplink/downlink common configuration or a TDD uplink/downlink dedicated configuration). The TDD pattern may indicate whether slots are to be used for DL communications, UL communications, or are flexible (meaning that an SFI carried in DCI can indicate whether one or more symbols of the slot can be used for DL transmission or UL transmissions); and
transmit an indication that indicates operation of the network entity in the SBFD mode or in the non-SBFD mode (para 0070; 0082; 0090; 0091; 0097; 0123 and 0145; an indication to operate in full duplex or halfduplex mode) wherein operation of the network entity in the SBFD mode is in accordance with the SBFD configuration (para 0070; and 0097; an indication from the base station to the UE to instruct the UE to operate using an SBFD mode, such as that shown in the second configuration), and wherein operation of the network entity in the non-SBFD mode is in accordance with the TDD configuration (para 0067; 0073; and 0091; the first configuration may indicate a first slot format pattern (sometimes called a TDD pattern) associated with a half-duplex mode)).
Regarding claim 20, Abotal discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having code for wireless communication stored thereon that, when executed by a network entity, causes the network entity to perform the method steps of claim 17 (para 0152; and 0168 – software stored in a memory to be executed by the processor).
Regarding claims 2, and 18, Abotal discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: receive, responsive to transmission of the indication (para 0070), third information that schedules an uplink or downlink transmission in an SBFD resource in accordance with the SBFD configuration (para 0069), wherein the indication is indicative of operation of the network entity in the SBFD mode (para 0070; instruct the UE to operate using and SBFD mode).
Regarding claims 3, and 19, Abotal discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: receive, responsive to transmission of the indication, third information that schedules an uplink or downlink transmission in a resource in accordance with the TDD configuration (para 0073; 0075 and 0077), wherein the indication is indicative of operation of the network entity in the non-SBFD mode (para 0091).
Regarding claim 11, Abotabl discloses wherein transmission of the indication occurs while the network entity is in a radio resource control inactive mode or a radio resource control idle mode (par 0081; inactive state).
Regarding claim 12, Abotabl discloses that wherein the transmission of the indication occurs as part of capability signaling or feature support signaling (para 0069; 0095-0096 and 0098 – feature support signaling/bandwidth and mode support).
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 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 20claimed 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.
4. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Rosa (WO 2024010586, hereinafter Rosa).
Regarding claim 4, Abotal does not expclitly disclose wherein transmission of the indication occurs as part of an initial access procedure.
In an analogous art, Rosa discloses wherein transmission of the indication occurs as part of an initial access procedure (para 0034; configuration information sent during initial access procedure). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rosa’s disclosure in order to provide access to the devices to start the service with the network according to the available resources.
Regarding claim 6, Abotal does not expclitly disclose wherein transmission of the indication occurs while the network entity is in a radio resource control connected mode.
In an analogous art, Rosa discloses wherein transmission of the indication occurs while the network entity is in a radio resource control connected mode (para 0034; RRC connected mode). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rosa’s disclosure in order to provide access to the devices to start the service with the network according to the available resources.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl/Rosa in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0292304, hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 8, Abotabl/Rosa does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission of the indication occurs as part of a user equipment (UE) assistance information transmission.
In an analogous art, Oh discloses wherein the transmission of the indication occurs as part of a user equipment (UE) assistance information transmission (para 0214; UE assistance information 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 Abotal/Ross’s method/system by having Oh’s disclosure in order to optimize radio resources according to UE’s preferences.
6. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Rudolf et al. (US 2024/0267932, hereinafter Rudolf).
Regarding claim 13, Abotal does not explicitly disclose wherein transmission of the indication occurs as part of a random access procedure.
In an analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein transmission of the indication occurs as part of a random access procedure (para 0121 and 0125; random access procedure). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rudolf’s disclosure in order to synchronize and connect the device with the network.
Regarding claim 14, Abotal does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication comprises a random-access preamble or the indication is associated with a random-access occasion.
In an analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein the indication comprises a random-access preamble or the indication is associated with a random-access occasion (para 0121; random access preamble). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rudolf’s disclosure in order to synchronize and connect the device with the network.
Regarding claim 15, Abotal does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is configured to: transmit a message, subsequent to the indication, that indicates a condition associated with the non-SBFD mode.
In an analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: transmit a message, subsequent to the indication, that indicates a condition associated with the non-SBFD mode (para 0103; 0132 and 0195; conditions in non-SBFD subbands). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rudolf’s disclosure in order to improve the efficiency and coverage of the communication system.
Regarding claim 16, Abotal does not explicitly disclose wherein
the processing system is configured to: transmit a message, subsequent to the first information, that indicates a SBFD period associated with the SBFD configuration.
In an analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein the processing system is configured to: transmit a message, subsequent to the first information, that indicates a SBFD period associated with the SBFD configuration (para 0103; 0142-0143; 0154; duration for SBFD). 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 Abotal’s method/system by having Rudolf’s disclosure in order to improve the efficiency and coverage of the communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 7, and 9-10 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 and addressing all the objections stated above.
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art of record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “wherein the indication is indicative of operation of the network entity in the non-SBFD mode based on participation of the network entity in the initial access procedure and based on the SBFD configuration, a first quantity of bandwidth part switching supported by the network entity, a second quantity of downlink to uplink switching or uplink to downlink switching supported by the network entity, or a combination thereof” when considered as a whole along with other claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art of record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “wherein the indication is indicative of operation of the network entity in the non-SBFD mode based on the network entity being in the radio resource control connected mode and based on a first quantity of bandwidth part switching supported by the network entity, a second quantity of downlink to uplink switching or uplink to downlink switching supported by the network entity, a third quantity of cross link interference experienced by the network entity, a fourth quantity of uplink data available for transmission, a bandwidth part configuration of the SBFD configuration supported by the network entity, or a combination thereof” when considered as a whole along with other claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, none of the prior art of record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “ wherein the indication is indicative of operation of the network entity in the non-SBFD mode based on participation of the network entity in transmission of the UE assistance information transmission and based on one or more events of a bandwidth part of the SBFD configuration after a bandwidth part switch supported by the network entity, a change in cell conditions associated with the network entity, or a change in a quantity of uplink data available for transmission” when considered as a whole along with other claimed limitations.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment has necessitated the new ground of rejection. 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).Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMINA CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-7102. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday (7:30 a.m. to 5.00p.m.).If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system,
see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system,
contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMINA F CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights