DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the separation requirement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner assumes that claim 12 depends on claim 11, not claim 10.
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)(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, 10, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Takeda et al. (US 2022/0322331, “Takeda”).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses a method for processing information, performed by a terminal, and comprising:
- determining whether simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal (See 402 & 404 Fig.4, ‘Simultaneous Rx-Tx not supported; See 606 Fig.6, determine that UE is not capable of simultaneous Rx/Tx in first and second frequency bands; See ¶.84, the UE may transmit, for each of multiple BCs, an indication to the base station about whether the UE supports simultaneous Rx/Tx of data in a particular band pair); and
- determining a Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) mode in which the terminal operates according to a result of determining whether the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal (See ¶.84, the UE may transmit, for each of multiple BCs, an indication to the base station about whether the UE supports simultaneous Rx/Tx of data in a particular band pair. via the first band of the first cell-group in the FR1 licensed FDD band and the second band of the second cell-group in one of the FR1 licensed TDD band, the FR1 unlicensed TDD band, or the FR2 band. In one aspect, the UE may transmit, to the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including a set of UE radio access capability parameters indicating whether the UE supports simultaneous Tx/Rx in TDD-TDD and TDD-FDD inter-band NR-DC).
Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim performed by a network device corresponding to the method claim 1 performed by a terminal and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 35, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations “a processor a transceiver, and a memory (See Fig.16)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 36, it is a non-transitory computer storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 37, it is a non-transitory computer storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 10 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kazmi et al. (US 2016/0323885, “Kazmi”).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kazmi discloses “determining whether the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal according to a separation requirement for an uplink transmission and a downlink reception on an operating band of the terminal (Kazmi, See Fig.1, ‘Duplex Spacing’ between UL band and DL band; See ¶.8, the context of the transmit-receive frequency separation is illustrated in FIG. 1, for frequency division duplexing (FDD) operation. FIG. 1 illustrates a narrowband MTC UE transmit-receive frequency separation. Use of a narrower transmit-receive frequency separation than specified in Table 5.7.4 of TS36.101 may result in levels of self-interference between the MTC UE transmitter and receiver that exceed the ability of the filtering requirements of the MTC UE to allow it to meet the needed performance).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kazmi discloses “determining whether the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal according to an uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP) and a downlink bandwidth part (DL BWP) monitored by the terminal on the operating band and the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception (Kazmi, See ¶.75-77, as an additional embodiment, an exception to the minimum transmit-receive frequency separation may be allowed if frequency hopping is employed at a hopping rate above a given threshold. [0075] Steps performed by a network node serving a FD-FDD capable UE may comprise: [0076] Obtaining at least one parameter (e.g., bandwidth or number of PRBs to be simultaneous transmitted) related to an adaptive transmit-receive frequency separation parameter (Δf) out of at least two values of transmit-receive frequency separation (Δf1 and Δf2), by comparing at least one parameter indicative of the band gap of the bandclass being employed by the UE, and possibly a second parameter indicative of the transmit power and a possibly third parameter indicative of the number of physical channels (e.g., PRBs, REs, etc.) being transmitted or expected to be transmitted at a given time index between the UE and the network node (e.g., transmit power, received signal strength, signal measurement such as pathloss) with a threshold (T); and which parameter is used by the UE for determining the transmit-receive frequency separation (Δf) between UL and DL time resources. [0077] Signaling the obtained at least one parameter to the UE for enabling it to configure the time-frequency distance between UL and DL time resources to be transmitted and received as UL and DL radio signals respectively and/or the combination of transmit-receive distance and allowed transmit power to be employed by the UE).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kazmi discloses “wherein the determining whether the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal according to the UL BWP and the DL BWP monitored by the terminal on the operating band and the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception comprises at least one of: determining whether a frequency difference between a center frequency of the DL BWP and a center frequency of the UL BWP monitored by the terminal on the operating band meets the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception; determining whether a frequency difference between a lowest frequency of the DL BWP and a highest frequency of the UL BWP monitored by the terminal on the operating band meets the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception; or determining whether a frequency difference between a lowest frequency of the UL BWP and a highest frequency of the DL BWP monitored by the terminal on the operating band meets the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception (Kazmi, See ¶.86, the terms transmit-receive frequency separation, TX-RX or RX-TX carrier center frequency separation, TX-RX or RX-TX frequency separation, UL-DL or DL-UL frequency separation, duplexer gap, duplex gap, band separation, duplex spacing, band gap, etc., may be interchangeably used but they all refer to the same concept and meaning i.e., the separation in frequency between the simultaneous transmission and reception of physical channels; See Figs.1-2, default UE Tx/Rx frequency separation and Tx/Rx Carrier Center Frequency Separation; See Fig.3, duplexer gap for candidate bands).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 11-13, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-4, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kazmi and further in view of Xuan et al. (US 2023/0262673, “Xuan”).
Regarding claim 5, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kazmi and Xuan disclose “determining whether the frequency difference between the lowest frequency of the DL BWP and the highest frequency of the UL BWP monitored by the terminal (Xuan, See ¶.9, a maximum frequency of a frequency domain resource may be understood as a frequency corresponding to a subcarrier with a highest frequency in the frequency domain resource. A minimum frequency of a frequency domain resource may be understood as a frequency corresponding to a subcarrier with a lowest frequency in the frequency domain resource; See ¶.131, a center frequency is an intermediate frequency in a frequency range corresponding to a channel bandwidth. A center frequency of a carrier is an intermediate frequency in a frequency range corresponding to a bandwidth of the carrier, and a difference between a frequency corresponding to the center frequency of the carrier and a minimum frequency of the carrier is equal to a difference between the frequency corresponding to the center frequency and a maximum frequency of the carrier) meets a separation requirement of a first threshold (Kazmi, See ¶.107, channel quality or signal quality between MTC UE and serving network node e.g., RSRQ, SINR, SNR, BLER, etc., measurements obtained from the UE or based on UE feedback signals such as ACK/NACK at the MTC UE. For example, the UE may select and use shorter or the shortest magnitude of Δf provided signal quality is above a threshold (e.g., RSRQ is above −10 dB), otherwise it may use the longer or the longest magnitude of Δf; See ¶.119, Signal strength between UE and the network node e.g., path loss, RSRP, etc., measurements obtained from the UE. For example, the UE may select and use shorter or the shortest magnitude of Δf provided the path loss is above a threshold (e.g., path loss is above 70 dB), otherwise it may use the longer or the longest magnitude of Δf).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “determining whether the frequency difference between the lowest frequency of the DL BWP and the highest frequency of the UL BWP monitored by the terminal” as taught by Xuan and the method of “meeting a separation requirement of a first threshold” as taught by Xuan into the system of Takeda, so that it provides a way for the UE to select and use shorter or the shortest magnitude of Δf provided the pass loss being above the threshold (Kazmi, See ¶.119).”
Regarding claim 6, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kazmi and Xuan disclose “wherein the determining whether the frequency difference between the lowest frequency of the UL BWP and the highest frequency of the DL BWP monitored by the terminal on the operating band meets the separation requirement for the uplink transmission and the downlink reception comprises: determining whether the frequency difference between the lowest frequency of the UL BWP and the highest frequency of the DL BWP monitored by the terminal (Xuan, See the rejection of claim 5) meets a separation requirement of a second threshold (Kazmi, See ¶.136, the determination at the UE is typically done by comparing one or more obtained information or parameters with one or more thresholds (H) and based on the comparison of the parameter with the thresholds, selects one of the two or more predefined values of the transmit-receive frequency separation. The threshold(s) may be pre-defined or received from the network node e.g., via higher layer signaling such as via RRC or MAC).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, they are claims corresponding to claims 5 & 6, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Takeda et al. (US 2016/0218853, hereinafter “Takeda’853”).
Regarding claim 7, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Takeda’853 discloses “determining that the terminal operates in a full-duplex FDD mode when the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal; and determining that the terminal operates in a half-duplex FDD mode when the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are not supported by the terminal (Takeda’853, See Fig.4A and ¶.41, as shown in FIG. 4A, cases may occur where full-duplex in FDD is not possible in TDD-FDD CA. In this case, a user terminal cannot transmit and receive UL signals and DL signals at the same time in the FDD cell, and therefore has to employ half-duplex).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “determining that the terminal operates in a full-duplex FDD mode when the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are supported by the terminal; and determining that the terminal operates in a half-duplex FDD mode when the simultaneous downlink reception and uplink transmission are not supported by the terminal” as taught by Takeda’853 into the system of Takeda, so that it provides a way for the UE to employ half-duplex when full-duplex in FDD is not possible (Takeda’853, See ¶.41).
Regarding claim 16, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Takeda discloses “when the terminal operates in the half-duplex FDD mode, configuring semi-statically configured uplink transmission and downlink reception of the terminal at different time domain positions (Takeda’853, See ¶.4, half-duplex FDD); and when it is not expected by the terminal that the semi-statically configured uplink transmission and downlink reception are located at the same time domain position, configuring the semi-statically configured uplink transmission and downlink reception of the terminal at the different time domain positions (See ¶.7, not same time; See ¶.64, semi-static coordination with other base stations is possible; See ¶.85, establish semi-static coordination with other base stations, via the communication path interface 106, based on capability information). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 17.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kishiyama (US 2016/0173263, “Kishiyama”).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kishiyama discloses “performing a downlink reception or an uplink transmission according to a preset priority, when the terminal operates in the half-duplex FDD mode (Kishiyama, See ¶.9-10 and abstract, 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 in half-duplex FDD scheme; See further ¶.28-30 for given priority).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “performing a downlink reception or an uplink transmission according to a preset priority, when the terminal operates in the half-duplex FDD mode” as taught by Kishiyama into the system of Takeda, so that it provides a way of enabling the half-duplex FDD scheme to be optimized (Kishiyama, See ¶.9).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda does not explicitly disclose what Kishiyama discloses “wherein the performing the downlink reception or the uplink transmission according to the preset priority, when the terminal operates in the half-duplex FDD mode comprises at least one of: performing reception of a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) according to the preset priority, when the uplink transmission of the terminal is in conflict with a downlink reception of the SSB of the terminal; performing a dynamically scheduled uplink transmission according to the preset priority, when the dynamically scheduled uplink transmission of the terminal is in conflict with a semi-statically configured downlink reception of the terminal; or performing a dynamically scheduled downlink reception according to the preset priority, when the dynamically scheduled downlink reception of the terminal is in conflict with a semi-statically configured uplink transmission of the terminal (Kishiyama, See ¶.39, the particular subframe may be notified semi-statically from the base station apparatus to the mobile terminal apparatus by RRC signaling or the like, or may be notified dynamically from the base station apparatus to the mobile terminal apparatus by adding a control bit of the PDCCH signal; See ¶.10, 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, when transmission timing of the uplink signal and reception timing of the downlink signal overlaps each other).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights