DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/799140 filed on 8/9/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 12, 14, 19-21 and 27-37 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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, 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 12, 14, 19-21 and 27-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (hereinafter Li) US 2020/0281018 A1 in view of NTT DOCOMO et al. “Discussion on subband non-overlapping full duplex, 3GPP R1-2204380 (B11 under NPL in IDS filed 7/16/2025; hereinafter NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method for wireless communication (¶0109-¶0449; wireless communication specification and examples), comprising:
performing, by a user equipment (UE), a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission to a base station by: obtaining, by the UE, a random access channel occasion (RO) configuration for a RO (¶0110; configure additional RACH occasions besides those configured through PRACH configuration table (as illustrated in NR standard specification));
determining, by the UE, whether the RO is valid for a uplink (UL) subband based on a set of pre-defined rules, wherein the UL subband is configured in at least one downlink (DL) symbol or at least one flexible symbol (¶0370; validity being on condition of maximum two suggests [predefined rules] e.g., FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE);
and is configured within a part of frequency domain resources of the at least one DL symbol or at least one flexible symbol (¶0120; in one example, for flexible symbols within the DTTC window wherein the SS/PBCH block or other DL signals/channels can be configured, the UE can utilize the RO within such flexible symbols if the UE can succeed in the LBT operation corresponding to this RO);
and in response to the determining that the RO is valid, transmitting, by the UE, the PRACH transmission in the RO to the base station (¶0110; transmit of the configured PRACH. ¶0116; if a UE is provided TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, then RO is valid if the RO is within UL symbols of the RACH slot, OR the RO does not precede an SSB in the RACH slot and starts at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last downlink symbol and at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last SSB transmission symbol).
Li does not expressly teach “…a set of pre-defined rules…”
NPL teaches “…a set of pre-defined rules…” (validity being defined as the application of the rules called "clarified" in the 4 lines that follow Figure 4 on p.4, "With DL subband(s) and UL subband(s) may be configured on the same symbol for subband non-over- lapping full band duplex operation, UE transmission and reception behavior needs to be clarified, e.g.whether/how to receive/transmit DL/UL channel/signal overlapping with a symbol including both DL and UL subbands (i.e. XDD (cross division duplex) symbol)", it applies to RO is a "higher layer configured DL/UL" to which applies the alternative 3 of p.5, last 20 lines, ". Alt 3: No separate configuration, but special handling is needed if higher layer configured DL/UL channel/signal colliding with a set of symbols/slots with partitioned DL and UL frequency resources.
For Alt 1, no specification impact is needed. It is up to gNB to guarantee no collision with XDD symbol or unavailable resource on XDD symbol. It may lead to too restricted scheduling/configuration. For Alt 2, there is little impact on legacy UE operation, and special handling for collision with XDD symbol or unavailable resource on XDD symbol is not needed. But it may bring complexity to both NW and UE due to multiple sets of configurations, with different configurations applicable to different set of sym- bols/slots. For Alt 3, special handling needs to be defined, and new special handling for subband non- overlapping full duplex capable UE may have impact on broadcast channels/signals reception/detection for legacy UEs");
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of NPL into the system of Li in order to completely follow high layer configuration where SSB detection, PDCCH monitoring and valid PRACH occasion is dynamically scheduled (p. 5 I.1-2)
Regarding Claim 3, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein: the set of pre-defined rules comprises that the UL subband is configured for the UE and the UE is provided with a specific information element (IE) (see NPL (validity being defined as the application of the rules called "clarified" in the 4 lines that follow Figure 4 on p.4,…) and Li in ¶0109, ¶0111, ¶0116, ¶0121, ¶0149 & ¶0370; in ¶0370; validity being on condition of maximum two as indicated e.g., FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE);
the determining whether the RO is valid comprises: in response to the set of pre-defined rules being satisfied, determining that the RO is valid (see NPL (validity being defined as the application of the rules called "clarified" in the 4 lines that follow Figure 4 on p.4,…) and Li in ¶0116; if a UE is provided TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, then RO is valid if the RO is within UL symbols of the RACH slot, OR the RO does not precede an SSB in the RACH slot and starts at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last downlink symbol and at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last SSB transmission symbol. Also see ¶0370; validity being on condition of maximum two as indicated e.g., FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE);
the set of pre-defined rules further comprises at least one of the following: that the RO is in the UL subband (see NPL (validity being defined as the application of the rules called "clarified" in the 4 lines that follow Figure 4 on p.4,…) and Li in ¶0405-¶441); that the RO starts at least T symbols after a last pure downlink symbol, wherein T is an integer; that the RO precedes a specific symbol in a PRACH slot and the RO ends at least T symbols before a first specific symbol; that the RO is later than a specific symbol in a PRACH slot and the RO starts at least T symbols after a last specific symbol; or that the RO starts at least T symbols after a last downlink symbol used for downlink transmission for the UE; and the specific symbol comprises an end or a start synchronization signal (SS)/physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block symbol.
Regarding Claim 6, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 3, Li further teaches wherein: the specific IE comprises an IE of tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon comprised in a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (¶0116; if a UE is provided TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, then RO is valid if the RO is within UL symbols of the RACH slot, OR the RO does not precede an SSB in the RACH slot and starts at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last downlink symbol and at least N.sub.gap symbols after a last SSB transmission symbol).
Regarding Claim 7, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 3, li further teaches wherein: that the RO is in the UL subband comprises at least one of the following:
that all time domain resource of the RO is within a time domain resource of the UL subband, and all random access resource in a frequency domain of the RO is within a frequency domain resource of the UL subband (see claim 1, also see ¶0370; FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE);
that all time domain resource of the RO is within the time domain resource of the UL subband, and a portion of the random access resource in the frequency domain of the RO is within the frequency domain resource of the UL subband;
that a portion of the time domain resource of the RO is within the time domain resource of the UL subband, and all random access resource in the frequency domain of the RO is within the frequency domain resource of the UL subband;
or that a portion of the time domain resource of the RO is within the time domain resource of the UL subband, and a portion of the random access resource in the frequency domain of the RO is within the frequency domain resource of the UL subband.
Regarding Claim 12, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 3, NPL further teaches wherein: the set of pre-defined rules further comprises at least one of the following: that the RO spans the UL subband and an uplink symbol in the time domain, that the RO spans the UL subband and a flexible symbol in the time domain, that the flexible symbol is not dynamically indicated for a downlink transmission, that a timing advance (TA) of the uplink symbol and a TA of the UL subband are same, that a timing advance (TA) of the flexible symbol and a TA of the UL subband are same, that a timing advance offset between the symbols of the UL subband and the UL symbols is predefined as 0 or configured as 0 by the base station, that a timing advance offset between the symbols of the UL subband and the flexible symbols is predefined as 0 or configured as 0 by the base station, or that the RO starting from a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol configured with the UL subband and ending in a non-SBFD symbol not configured with the UL subband is determined to be valid based on configuration signaling from the base station, wherein the same frequency resources are used for both the SBFD symbol and non-SBFD symbol of the RO, and the SBFD symbol and the non-SBFD symbol for the RO are continuous in the time domain (see NPL citation in claim 1 and the details, most of the “or” statements are obvious from the cited potion of NPL in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UE is configured with an UL subband (see NPL as cited in claim 1, also see Li in ¶0412-¶0425; UE is configured with multiple candidate UL BWPs); the RO is configured in the UL subband in at least one downlink symbols (see NPL as cited in claim 1, also see Li in ¶0412-¶0425; see examples);
and in response to transmitting, by the UE, the PRACH transmission in the RO within the UL subband: the UE is determined as a UE having UL subband capability by the base station, and at least one of the following: in response to the UE accessing a network, uplink transmission is scheduled in the UL subband, a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) associated with the PRACH transmission is scheduled in the UL subband (see Li citation above and NPL in claim 1), a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) associated with the PRACH transmission is scheduled in the UL subband, a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) associated with the PRACH transmission and corresponding to a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception with an UE contention resolution identity is scheduled in the UL subband, or in response to a second PRACH transmission from a second RO being scheduled in the UL subband, the UE directly performs the second PRACH transmission without determining a validity of the second RO.
Regarding Claim 19, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 1, Li further teaches further comprising: based on at least one of the following: a first parameter or a second parameter in the RO configuration, determining the RO in the frequency domain within the UL subband, wherein: the first parameter indicates an offset of a starting resource block (RB) of the RO relative to a starting RB of the UL subband, and the second parameter indicates a number of RBs in the RO (¶0082, ¶0109, ¶0416-¶0422 e.g., the configuration for the sub-band with dedicated type-0 RO can include one or multiple of {number of FDM'ed PRACH occasions within the sub-band, offset of the lowest PRACH occasion in frequency domain with respect to starting PRB of the sub-band}).
Regarding Claim 20, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 1, Li further teaches wherein: the UL subband is configured to be overlapping and beyond an initial UL bandwidth part (BWP) in the frequency domain (¶0109, ¶0111, ¶0116, ¶0121, ¶0149 & ¶0370; FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE); the PRACH transmission is performed in frequency domain resources from the UL subband being overlapping the initial UL BWP (Fig. 31 & ¶0109, ¶0111, ¶0116, ¶0121, ¶0149 & ¶0370); and the PRACH transmission for a purpose other than an initial random access is performed in frequency domain resources from the UL subband beyond the initial UL BWP (Fig. 31 & ¶0109, ¶0111, ¶0116, ¶0121, ¶0149 & ¶0370; FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE).
Regarding Claim 21, Li in view of NPL teaches the method according to claim 1, Li further teaches wherein: the UL subband is configured to be overlapping and within an initial UL BWP in the frequency domain; and the PRACH transmission is performed in any frequency domain resource from the UL subband within the initial UL BWP (Fig. 31 & ¶0109, ¶0111, ¶0116, ¶0121, ¶0149 & ¶0370; obvious from FIG. 31, wherein two sub-bands are within the UL BWP, and each sub-band can be allocated at most 2 ROs. Each SSB is mapped to 2 ROs, wherein the 2 ROs associated with each SSB are allocated in the two sub-bands within the UL BWP, and each SSB and the associated RO(s) share the same pattern fill. In addition, this illustration assumes the PRACH mask index indicates that every RACH occasion associated with the selected SSB can be utilized by the UE)
Claims 27-37 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights