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 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 (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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0270038; note also 62/500,929, (“929”) with parallel citations) in view of Dey, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0291704; note also IN 202341027624 (“624”), with parallel citations) and Zhou, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0103232 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mahama discloses a method of operating a user equipment (UE), the method comprising and a user equipment (UE), comprising a transceiver (inherent UE has a transmitter/receiver to transmit/receive) configured to:
Receiving/receive a first candidate subband full-duplex (SBFD) configuration associated with a cell; (Mahama discloses that the UE receives a first and second SBFD configuration associated with a single cell via higher layer signaling and “layer 1 signaling” [although not explicitly stated, DCI is a common known type of layer 1 signaling, as discussed in the combination, infra] may be used to indicate which to apply [paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4]. The first SBFD is associated with UL slots and the second is associated with DL slots [paragraphs 0027].)
Receiving/receive a second candidate SBFD configuration associated with a the cell; (paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4 – see (a), supra)
Selecting/select the first candidate SBFD configuration or the second candidate SBFD configuration (Mahama discloses that layer 1 signaling is used to indicate which SBFD configuration is to be selected/applied to a particular SBFD channel transmission [paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4].)
Receiving/receive or transmitting a channel or signal based on the selected SBFD configuration (paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4 – see (c), supra).
Mahama fails to disclose the first SBFD configuration is associated with a first TCI state, the second SBFD configuration is associated with the second TCI state, selecting the first candidate SBFD configuration when a value of the TCI state indicator is associated with the first TCI state configuration or selecting the second candidate SBFD configuration when the value of the TCI state indicator is associated with the second TCI state configuration. In the same field of endeavor, Dey discloses he first SBFD configuration is associated with a first TCI state, the second SBFD configuration is associated with the second TCI state, selecting the first candidate SBFD configuration when a value of the TCI state indicator is associated with the first TCI state configuration or selecting the second candidate SBFD configuration when the value of the TCI state indicator is associated with the second TCI state configuration. (Dey discloses associating a first TCI state and indicator with an UL PUSCH transmission and SBFD configuration and a second TCI state and indicator with a DL PDSCH transmission (paragraph 0091, not also 624, page 8 – separate TCI state indicated in DCI for each SBFD PDSCH and PUSCH type – “In one method, separate TCI state can be indicated in DCI for each SBFD and non-SBFD PDSCH(s)/PUSCH(s) type.”; note also 0088-0090, 624, pages 7-8 -further discussion of assignment of TCI state; 0005-0006, note also 624, page 2 – details of SBFD configurations, such as UDU, DUD, active time etc.])
Therefore, since Dei discloses associating a first SBFD configuration with UL transmission and a second SBFD configuration with DL transmission and Mahama discloses associating first TCI indicator with a PUSCH/UL TCI state for SBFD transmission and a second TCI indicator with a PDSCH/DL TCI state transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the separate UL/DL SBFD configurations of Dei with the respective first TCI indicator for PUSCH/UL TCI state and second TCI indicator with a PDSCH/DL TCI state, as the SBFD configurations of Dei are already associated with DL and UL such that the first TCI state indicator indicates PUSCH/UL TCI state and the first UL SBFD configuration and the second TCI state indicator indicates PDSCH/DL TCI state and the second DL SBFD configuration. The motive to combine is to allow the TCI state indicator to further indicate the SBFD associated with the already TCI state indicator associated PDSCH/DL or PUSCH/UL to reduce overhead.
Mahama as modified by Dei fails to disclose the TCI state indicator is a code point or that the value of the TCI state code point is from a set of values associated with a set of transmit-receive points (TRPs). In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses the TCI state indicator is a code point or that the value of the TCI state code point is from a set of values associated with a set of transmit-receive points (TRPs). (Zhou discloses that a base station associates multiple TCI states with TCI codepoints [paragraph 0150] and that the set of codepoints in a multi-TRP single DCI can be from multiple TRPs, as evidenced by the implicit TRP ID associated with each TCI state [paragraphs 0149, 0151].)
Therefore, since Zhou discloses assigning TCI codepoints from a set of codepoints associated with multiple TRPs in a multi-TRP single DCI system, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the codepoints of Zhou with the system of Mahama as modified by Dei by making the first and second TCI indications of the DCI a respective first and second codepoint and to further assign the first and second codepoints from a set of TCI codepoints shared/associated with multiple TRPs. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by using a single DCI to schedule multiple TRP transmissions.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou, supra, discloses first TCI state code point from the first TCI state configuration or a second TCI state code point from the second TCI state configuration includes a downlink (DL) TCI state, an uplink (UL) TCI state (see combination of Mahama and Dei- first TCI state is an UL TCI state for PUSCH, second TCI state is a DL TCI state for PDSCH.)
Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou fails to disclose a TCI state includes a source reference signal for quasi-colocation or a source reference signal for spatial information. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Dei discloses a TCI state includes a source reference signal for quasi-colocation or a source reference signal for spatial information. ( [paragraph 72, note also 624, page 3 – RS includes SRS; paragraph 0078-0079, note also 624, page 5 - RS and QCL information among the RS is indicated via the TCI states].)
Therefore, since Dei further discloses associating RS and QCL state with a particular TCI state, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the RS TCI state of Dei with the system of Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou by further including RS an QCL information with the TCI state. The motive to combine is to allow the association of the TCI state with reference signals and QCL information used to configure the state to match the channel conditions determined from the RS and QCL information to reduce interference and improve transmission quality.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou fails to disclose receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) configuration determining a downlink (DL) reception parameter in a slot or symbol for a PDSCH reception instance based on the selected SBFD configuration and receiving the PDSCH based on the DL reception parameter. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Dei discloses receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) configuration determining a downlink (DL) reception parameter in a slot or symbol for a PDSCH reception instance based on the selected SBFD configuration and receiving the PDSCH based on the DL reception parameter (Dei discloses that the SBFD configuration determines if the UE is to transmit or receive the respective PUSCH and PDSCH based on comparing the SBFD configuration to determine a DL/UL parameter indicating if a particular PDSCH/PUSCH is to be dropped in the slot [paragraph 0081, note also 624, page 6].)
Therefore, since Dei discloses PDSCH/PUSCH configuration determination based on SBFD configuration, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the SBFD determination of Dei with the system of Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou by determining a parameter of if the PDSCH/PUSCH is to be transmitted or received at all in the slot based on the selected SBFD configuration. The motive to combine is to reduce interference by not transmitting/receiving a PUSCH/PDSCH that falls within both SBFD and non-SBFD symbols (paragraph 0081, note also 624, page 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou in claims 4 and 10, supra, further discloses receiving a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) configuration determining an uplink (UL) transmission parameter in a slot or symbol for a PUSCH transmission instance based on the selected SBFD configuration and transmitting the PUSCH based on the UL transmission parameter (As discussed in the combination with claims 4 and 10, supra, the UE may also compare the PUSCH configuration to the SBFD configuration to determine if the PUSCH transmission falls within both SBFD and non-SBFD portions of the uplink.
Regarding claim 15, Mahama discloses a base station configured to:
transmit a first candidate subband full-duplex (SBFD) configuration associated with a cell; (Mahama discloses that the base station/gNB/TRP transmits and the UE receives a first and second SBFD configuration associated with a single cell via higher layer signaling and “layer 1 signaling” [although not explicitly stated, DCI is a common known type of layer 1 signaling, as discussed in the combination, infra] may be used to indicate which to apply [paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4]. The first SBFD is associated with UL slots and the second is associated with DL slots [paragraphs 0027].)
transmit a second candidate SBFD configuration associated with a the cell; (paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4 – see (a), supra)
transmit a channel or signal associated with a SBFD configuration (paragraphs 0027, 0029; see also 929, page 4 – gNB/base station/TRP transmits or receives a respective DL/UL channel based on the SBFD configuration)
Mahama fails to disclose a processor and transceiver. However, it is officially noted that the use of a processor and transceiver to implement base station functions was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the base station of Mahama using a processor and transceiver. The motive to combine is to use the low cost microprocessor and transceiver.
Mahama fails to disclose the SBFD configuration is from the first candidate SBFD configuration when a value of a TCI state indication is associated with the first TCI state configuration or the second candidate SBFD configuration when the value of the TCI state indication is associated with the second TCI state configuration. In the same field of endeavor, Dey discloses a processor and transceiver the SBFD configuration is from the first candidate SBFD configuration when a value of a TCI state indication is associated with the first TCI state configuration or the second candidate SBFD configuration when the value of the TCI state indication is associated with the second TCI state configuration. (Dey discloses associating a first TCI state and indicator with an UL PUSCH transmission and SBFD configuration and a second TCI state and indicator with a DL PDSCH transmission (paragraph 0091, not also 624, page 8 – separate TCI state indicated in DCI for each SBFD PDSCH and PUSCH type – “In one method, separate TCI state can be indicated in DCI for each SBFD and non-SBFD PDSCH(s)/PUSCH(s) type.”; note also 0088-0090, 624, pages 7-8 -further discussion of assignment of TCI state; 0005-0006, note also 624, page 2 – details of SBFD configurations, such as UDU, DUD, active time etc.])
Therefore, since Dei discloses associating a first SBFD configuration with UL transmission and a second SBFD configuration with DL transmission and Mahama discloses associating first TCI indicator with a PUSCH/UL TCI state for SBFD transmission and a second TCI indicator with a PDSCH/DL TCI state transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the separate UL/DL SBFD configurations of Dei with the respective first TCI indicator for PUSCH/UL TCI state and second TCI indicator with a PDSCH/DL TCI state, as the SBFD configurations of Dei are already associated with DL and UL such that the first TCI state indicator indicates PUSCH/UL TCI state and the first UL SBFD configuration and the second TCI state indicator indicates PDSCH/DL TCI state and the second DL SBFD configuration. The motive to combine is to allow the TCI state indicator to further indicate the SBFD associated with the already TCI state indicator associated PDSCH/DL or PUSCH/UL to reduce overhead.
Mahama as modified by Dei fails to disclose the TCI state indicator is a code point or that the value of the TCI state code point is from a set of values associated with a set of transmit-receive points (TRPs). In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses the TCI state indicator is a code point or that the value of the TCI state code point is from a set of values associated with a set of transmit-receive points (TRPs). (Zhou discloses that a base station associates multiple TCI states with TCI codepoints [paragraph 0150] and that the set of codepoints in a multi-TRP single DCI can be from multiple TRPs, as evidenced by the implicit TRP ID associated with each TCI state [paragraphs 0149, 0151].)
Therefore, since Zhou discloses assigning TCI codepoints from a set of codepoints associated with multiple TRPs in a multi-TRP single DCI system, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the codepoints of Zhou with the system of Mahama as modified by Dei by making the first and second TCI indications of the DCI a respective first and second codepoint and to further assign the first and second codepoints from a set of TCI codepoints shared/associated with multiple TRPs. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by using a single DCI to schedule multiple TRP transmissions.
Regarding claim 17, Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou fails to transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) configuration that indicates a downlink (DL) parameter in a slot or symbol for a PDSCH reception instance and transmitting the PDSCH based on the DL parameter. In the same field of endeavor, another portion of Dei discloses transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) configuration that indicates a downlink (DL) parameter in a slot or symbol for a PDSCH reception instance and transmitting the PDSCH based on the DL parameter. (Dei discloses that the SBFD configuration determines if the base station is to receive or transmit the respective PUSCH and PDSCH based on comparing the SBFD configuration to determine a DL/UL parameter indicating if a particular PDSCH/PUSCH is to be dropped in the slot [paragraph 0081, note also 624, page 6].)
Therefore, since Dei discloses PDSCH/PUSCH configuration determination based on SBFD configuration, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the SBFD determination of Dei with the system of Mahama as previously modified by Dei and Zhou by determining a parameter of if the PDSCH/PUSCH is to be transmitted or received at all in the slot based on the selected SBFD configuration. The motive to combine is to reduce interference by not transmitting/receiving a PUSCH/PDSCH that falls within both SBFD and non-SBFD symbols (paragraph 0081, note also 624, page 6).
Regarding claims 18, Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou in claim 18, supra, further discloses transmiting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) configuration that indicates an uplink (UL) parameter in a slot or symbol for a PUSCH transmission instance; and receive the PUSCH based on the UL parameter (As discussed in the combination with claims 4 and 10, supra, the UE may also compare the PUSCH configuration to the SBFD configuration to determine if the PUSCH transmission falls within both SBFD and non-SBFD portions of the uplink.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahama, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0270038; note also 62/500,929, (“929”) with parallel citations), Dey, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0291704; note also IN 202341027624 (“624”)) and Zhou, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0103232 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0264475 A1)
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou, supra, discloses receiving a downlink control information (DCI) that includes the TCI state code point (The combination with Dei discloses that TCI indication is included in DCI, Zhou makes it clear the indication is a code point).
Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou fails to disclose a DCI format. In the same field of endeavor, Yi discloses a DCI format (paragraph 0241- DCI format indicating TCI state)
Therefore, since Yi discloses a DCI format, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the DCI format of Yi with the system of Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou by transmitting the DCI using a DCI format. The motive to combine is to use an expected format to indicate what information is to be conveyed in the DCI to make decoding and interpreting the DCI easier.
Regarding claims 16, Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou, supra, discloses transmitting a downlink control information (DCI) that includes the TCI state code point (The combination with Dei discloses that TCI indication is included in DCI, Zhou makes it clear the indication is a code point).
Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou fails to disclose a DCI format. In the same field of endeavor, Yi discloses a DCI format (paragraph 0069- DCI format indicating TCI state)
Therefore, since Yi discloses a DCI format, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the DCI format of Yi with the system of Mahama as modified by Dei and Zhou by transmitting the DCI using a DCI format. The motive to combine is to use an expected format to indicate what information is to be conveyed in the DCI to make decoding and interpreting the DCI easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the first candidate SBFD configuration or the second candidate SBFD configuration includes a frequency-domain restriction for transmissions associated with the set of TRPs, and a transmission of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is allowed on a TRP in the set of TRPs when a frequency-domain allocation of the PUSCH is within a range of the frequency-domain restriction.
That is, Dey loosely discloses that a SBFD configuration includes frequency restrictions and FH patterns that fall outside of the UL frequency restrictions for SBFD are discarded. [0060-0061]. However, Dey does not mention multi-TRP such that frequency domain restrictions are associated with a set of TRPs and not a single TRP. Furthermore, although Zhou discusses multi-TRP it is silent on SBFD configuration, including frequency restrictions, or teaching a frequency domain restriction for a set of TRPs. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation could be located. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the first candidate SBFD configuration or the second candidate SBFD configuration includes a frequency-domain restriction for receptions associated with the set of TRPs, and a reception of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is allowed on a TRP in the set of TRPs when a frequency-domain allocation of the PDSCH is within a range of the frequency-domain restriction.
That is, as was the case with claim 6, Dey discloses that a SBFD configuration includes frequency restrictions on both UL or DL, and further discloses dropping PDSCH if it includes non-SFBD symbols paragraphs 0080-0081]. However, Dey does not mention multi-TRP such that frequency domain restrictions are associated with a set of TRPs and not a single TRP. Furthermore, although Zhou discusses multi-TRP it is silent on SBFD configuration, including frequency restrictions, or teaching a frequency domain restriction for a set of TRPs. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation could be located.
Regarding claims 13, 14, 19 and 20, the claims are all the same as those of claims 6 and 7 or are the mirror image from the base station perspective and the reasons for allowance remains the same as was stated with respect to claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0222155) – disclosing SBFD configuration for PDCCH
Moon, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0142790) – disclosing SBFD configuration
R1-2304380 (Author Unknown, Discussion for Evaluation on NR duplex evolution, Doc. No. R1-2304380, pages 1-6, 26 May 2023) – disclosing SBFD
R1-2305695 (Author Unknown, Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex, Doc. No. R1-2305695, pages 1-5, 26 May 2023) – disclosing SBFD
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
