DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on June 30, 2026, after the non-final rejection of the application.
The Amendment filed 6/30/26 has been entered. Claim 5 was canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending for examination, of which claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang al. (US 20240022388 A1), hereinafter Zhang88, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240267192 A1), hereinafter Zhang92.
Regarding claim 1:
Zhang88 discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, capability information for operating in a sub-band full duplex (SBFD) mode (transmitting capability information indicative of a capability of UE to support one or more subband full-duplex (SBFD) configuration types of a plurality of SBFD configuration types [0045]);
receiving, from the base station (ii) configuration information, based on the capability information, for uplink (UL) signals and channels to be transmitted by the UE in a UL subband while receiving downlink (DL) signals and channels within a DL subband (receiving, at UE {operating in full duplex}, configuration information indicative of an SBFD configuration having an SBFD configuration type of one or more SBFD configuration types [0046] wherein SBFD configuration indicates uplink RBs and downlink RBs [0079]); and
based on the configuration information, performing at least one of:
setting a gap in a frequency domain between the DL subband and the UL subband, wherein each of the DL subband and the UL subband includes a set of resource blocks (RBs) for reception and transmission, respectively (determining gap, which is a frequency offset or a frequency gap between downlink time/frequency resources and uplink time/frequency resources in same SBFD slot [0080]); determining a DL signal and a UL signal that cannot be simultaneously received and transmitted, respectively ; or managing a high self-interference (SI) scenario.
Zhang88 does not further disclose receiving, from the base station, (i) an indication of a base-station guard band needed by the base station and setting the gap comprises setting a gap that is no smaller than a combination of the base-station guard band and the additional guard band indicated in the capability information.
Zhang92, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, from the base station, (i) an indication of a base-station guard band needed by the base station (receiving, from network entity, signaling indicating a first guard band in between subbands [0098]) and setting the gap comprises setting a gap that is no smaller than a combination of the base-station guard band and the additional guard band indicated in the capability information (first guard band comprises a cell-common guard band, and second guard band comprises a UE-specific guard band [0121] and adjusting first guard band, e.g., increasing size of first guard band in response to UE specific conditional guard band request, e.g., additional guard band indicated in capability information [0111 or 0113]).
Also, Zhang92 states that UE determines that a larger guard band would be more advantageous or preferable to a first guard band configured by a network entity and in such cases, the UE may transmit a request for an adjustment to the configured guard band [0113].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the gap that is no smaller than a combination of the base station guard band and the additional guard band indicated in the capability information; thus increasing flexibility for guard band configuration and mitigate potential sources of interference through the use of UE specific conditional guard band requesting [0027].
Regarding claim 2: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 1.
Zhang88 further discloses the capability information includes a specific location of the UL subband relative to a DL bandwidth part (BWP) (indicating a first BWP associated with a downlink subband configuration and a second BWP associated with an uplink subband configuration [0081])
Regarding claim 3: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 2.
Zhang88 further discloses the specific location of the UL subband is anywhere within the DL BWP, at a center of the DL BWP, or at an edge of the DL BWP (second BWP (“BWP2”) associated with uplink subband configuration, and third BWP (“BWP3”) associated with a second downlink subband configuration [0081]).
Regarding claim 4: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 1.
Zhang88 further discloses the capability information includes a minimum frequency gap to separate the UL subband and the DL subband (gap may be a frequency offset or a frequency gap between downlink time/frequency resources and uplink time/frequency resources [0080]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider a minimum frequency gap; thus reducing self-interference between two communications [0080].
Regarding claim 6: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 1.
Zhang88 further disclose an indication of a type of a UL signal or channel and a type of a DL signal or channel that are not allowed to overlap in a time domain (primary synchronization signal (PSS) or a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) [0049]). It is well known in the art that without synchronizing between two devices, data transmission cannot happen. Therefore, the receipt of PSS and SSSs are important, so no overlap occurred in the transmission of these signals.
Regarding claim 7: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 6.
Zhang88 further discloses the UL signal includes a UL demodulation reference signal (DMRS) or a sounding reference signal (SRS) (DMRS [0049]). It is well known in the art that DMRS can be sent as UL for estimating the radio channel for coherent demodulation.
Regarding claim 8: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 6.
Zhang88 further discloses the DL signal includes a DL demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (DMRS [0049]). It is well known in the art that DMRS can be sent as DL for estimating the radio channel for coherent demodulation.
Regarding claim 9: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 1.
Zhang88 further discloses reducing the self-interference {SI} ([0080]). It is known in the art/obvious that reducing interference by using a threshold for comparison would facilitate the decision whether to perform operations. Thus, Zhang88 does suggest comparing the SI to a threshold value; and determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible, in response to the SI being greater than the threshold value.
Regarding claim 10: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 9.
Zhang88 further disclose the configuration information includes the threshold value (including threshold [0201]).
Regarding claim 11: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 9.
Zhang88 further discloses capability information includes the threshold value (including threshold [0201]).
Regarding claim 20: is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1, except that claim 20 is in a device claim format, wherein Zhang88 [in claim 20] also discloses a transceiver and a processor (elements 810, 815 and communications manager, element 820 in Fig.8) (to perform claimed functionalities).
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang88 in view of Zhang92, and further in view of Zhang (US 20240146496 A1), hereinafter Zhang96.
Regarding claim 12: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 9.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not explicitly disclose autonomously falling back to a time division duplex (TDD) operation mode, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible.
Zhang96 discloses autonomously falling back to a time division duplex (TDD) operation mode, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible (reverting from SBFD communication to half duplex communication (e.g., reverting to a legacy TDD slot format [0084]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fall back to a time division duplex (TDD) operation mode, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible; thus enhancing performance of communications in the network (Zhang96 [0084]).
Regarding claim 13: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 and Zhang96 discloses all features of claim 12.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not, while Zhang96 teaches autonomously falling back to the TDD operation mode (reverting from SBFD communication to half duplex communication (e.g., reverting to a legacy TDD slot format [0084]) comprising receiving, in a time slot previously assigned an overlapping DL reception and UL transmission (switching between frequency resources associated with SBFD communication and frequency resources associated with half duplex communication to respond to interference [0084]), the DL reception and dropping the UL transmission; utilizing a priority level to determine which of one the previously assigned overlapping DL reception and UL transmission to perform; or utilizing a slot format configuration for a half-duplex operation to determine which of one the previously assigned overlapping DL reception and UL transmission to perform.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch frequency resources associated with SBFD communication and frequency resources associated with half duplex communication to respond to interference; thus enhancing performance of communications in the network (Zhang96 [0084]).
Regarding claim 14: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 9.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to the base station, a request to fall back to a time division duplex (TDD) operation mode, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible.
Zhang96, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting, to the base station, a request to fall back to a time division duplex (TDD) operation mode, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible (based on indication, the fourth slot may fall back to the legacy slot format [0124]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive indication on the fall back; thus getting prompted for the switch.
Regarding claim 15: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 and Zhang96 discloses all features of claim 14.
Zhang88 further discloses the request is carried via a physical random access channel (PRACH) (via PRACH, [0066]), a medium access control (MAC)-control element (CE), or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).
Regarding claim 16: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 and Zhang96 discloses all features of claim 14.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not, while Zhang96 further disclose falling back falling back to the TDD operation mode, after a time period has elapsed since transmitting the request (plurality of time periods (determining time periods for reverting from SBFD communication to half duplex communication [at the network node [0115]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to falling back falling back to the TDD operation mode, after a time period has elapsed since transmitting the request; thus allowing uninterrupted data communications in the network.
Regarding claim 17: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 and Zhang96 discloses all features of claim 14.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not, while Zhang96 further discloses falling back falling back to the TDD operation mode, in response to receiving a physical downlink control channel within a time period from transmitting the request (upon receiving indication or downlink communications, particular time periods designated for SBFD communication are reverted to half duplex communication [0003] and [0005]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to falling back falling back to the TDD operation mode, in response to receiving a physical downlink control channel within a time period from transmitting the request; thus enhancing performance of communications by reducing self-interference (Zhang96 [0005]).
Regarding claim 18: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 discloses all features of claim 8.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to the base station, a suggested adjustment, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible.
Zhang96, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting, to the base station, a suggested adjustment, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible (switching between frequency resources associated with SBFD communication and frequency resources associated with half duplex communication [0006]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmitting, to the base station, a suggested adjustment, in response to determining that operating in the SBFD mode is no longer possible; thus enhancing performance of communications by responding to dynamic traffic conditions (Zhang96 [0006]).
Regarding claim 19: Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 and Zhang96 discloses all features of claim 18.
Zhang88 in view of Zhang92 does not, while Zhang96 further discloses downlink transmission self-interfere with uplink transmission – this may be caused by a higher transmit power [0079].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce UL transmission power; thus avoiding or reducing interference (Zhang96 [0005]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
