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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
In paragraph 0121, the specification refers to label 1200. However, in Figure 12 there is no label 1200.
In paragraph 0074, the specification refers to label 170. However, in Figure 1C there is no label 170.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A term such as ‘comprises’ or ‘includes’ is missing from the sentence structure. The claim should read "wherein the DCI comprises (or includes) at least one of".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nhan, Nhat-Quang et al. (US 20260239405 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nhan).
Regarding claim 1, Nhan teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to (Nhan disclose a device with memory and a processor. See paragraph [0004]).
obtain signaling indicating 1) a first one or more symbols configured as subband full duplex (SBFD) symbols with a frequency allocation that includes at least one downlink subband and at least one uplink subband, 2) a second one or more symbols configured as non-SBFD symbols (Nhan discloses a network device that indicates SBFD slots and their subband allocations as well as non-SBFD slots. See paragraphs [0060], [0071], [0075] and [0120-0122]).
and 3) whether operation of the apparatus is subject to one or more restrictions for transmission or reception of signals across the first one or more symbols and the second one or more symbols (Nhan discloses a configuration that indicates activation of collision rules, which the examiner interprets to be the restriction. See paragraphs [0077], [0091] and [0125]).
and process signals in at least one of the first one or more symbols or the second one or more symbols, in accordance with the signaling (Nhan discloses performing communication with other devices based on the configuration information. See paragraphs [0062] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Nhan teaches wherein the one or more restrictions restrict operation of the apparatus to: processing signals in the first one or more symbols only; or processing signals in the second one or more symbols only (Nhan discloses processing signal for non-SBFD only or SBFD only. In some cases, this is done by dropping a transmission type to process the other type. See paragraph [0059] and Figure 1C).
Regarding claim 3, Nhan teaches the first one or more symbols occur in a first one or more slots that have only SBFD symbols; or the second one or more symbols occur in a second one or more slots that have only non-SBFD symbols (Nhan discloses indication of a frequency band and more specifically slots that are only for SBFD symbols and slots only for non-SBFD. See paragraphs [0120-0123]).
Regarding claim 4, Nhan teaches wherein the signaling comprises radio resource control (RRC) signaling with a parameter that indicates whether operation of the apparatus is subject to the one or more restrictions (Nhan discloses signaling that indicates the collision handling rules (restrictions) via RRC. See paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Nhan teaches wherein the parameter indicates at least one of: that the apparatus is restricted to processing signals across the first one or more symbols, that the apparatus is restricted to processing signals across the second one or more symbols, or that the apparatus is not subject to the one or more restrictions (Nhan discloses indication of the rule to the restricted processing of the SBFD symbols (the first one or more symbols). See paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Nhan teaches wherein the one or more restrictions are configured for at least one of: per serving-cell, per apparatus configuration; per apparatus bandwidth part (BWP); per apparatus BWP, for at least one of one or more types of uplink signals or one or more types of downlink signals; or per BWP, for each of the one or more types of uplink signals and for each of the one or more types of downlink signals (Nhan discloses the restriction being configured via an apparatus configuration, where the first apparatus receives configuration information. See Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Nhan teaches wherein the one or more restrictions are configured for at least one of: one or more types of uplink signals; or one or more types of downlink signals (Nhan discloses that the rules are configured for many uplink signal types such as PUCCH, PUSCH, SRS, etc. and downlink signal types like PDCCH, PDSCH, SSB and CSI-RS. See paragraphs [0095-0096] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Nhan teaches wherein the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) wherein the DCI at least one of: schedules or indicates activation of a type of signal; or comprises a field that indicates whether the apparatus is restricted to: processing signals associated with the first one or more symbols, or processing signals associated with the second one or more symbols, wherein the one or more restrictions are to be applied when the apparatus is processing that type of signal (Nhan discloses signaling that comprises a DCI that indicates scheduling information such as slots and frequency allocations. See paragraphs [0120-0123]).
Regarding claim 13, Nhan teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect a conflict between the one or more restrictions and a potential transmission occasion or a potential reception occasion; and perform one or more actions after the detection (Nhan discloses detecting a collision or conflict and processing the signal based on the configuration information. See paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Nhan teaches an apparatus that can perform one or more actions when: the signaling indicates operation of the apparatus is not subject to one or more restrictions, and processing a potential transmission or a potential reception in SBFD symbols wherein the potential transmission is scheduled on frequency resources having one or more physical resource blocks (PRB) outside a usable uplink or downlink PRB (Nhan discloses performing different collision handling procedures due to checking if scheduled resource blocks overlap to another signal type. See paragraphs [0051-0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Nhan teaches wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: dropping the potential transmission, canceling the potential reception, postponing the potential transmission, processing the signals with the usable PRBs or applying rate matching for PRBs outside usable PRBs when processing the potential reception (Nhan discloses dropping transmission by prioritizing if downlink or uplink transmissions are more impactful in that moment. See paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nhan in view of Choe, Hyunjung (US 20240259933 A1, hereinafter referred to as Choe).
Regarding claim 6, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except wherein the signaling comprises broadcast signaling, and the one or more restrictions are common across wireless nodes capable of receiving the broadcast signaling.
In the same field of endeavor, Choe discloses using broadcast signaling to indicate restrictions. See paragraph [0271].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate using broadcast signaling to convey information to many devices. The motivation to combine is deliver information instantly and efficiently to all devices in that coverage area.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nhan in view of Rudolf, Marian et al. (US 20240196241 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rudolf-241).
Regarding claim 10, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE).
In the same field of endeavor, Rudolf-241 discloses signaling comprising a MAC-CE. See paragraph [0232].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate sending a signal that includes a MAC-CE. The motivation to combine is to provide faster, more efficient control signaling.
Regarding claim 11, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except the MAC CE indicates activation or deactivation of a feature for a type of signal; the one or more restrictions are to be applied when the apparatus is processing that type of signal; and the MAC CE comprises: a first field that indicates whether the apparatus is subject to the one or more restrictions; and a second field that indicates whether the one or more restrictions restrict the apparatus to processing signals associated with the first one or more symbols, or processing signals associated with the second one or more symbols.
In the same field of endeavor, Rudolf-241 discloses using a MAC-CE to send an indication of a limited set of active slots. The MAC-CE has an indication that the apparatus can have these restrictions and if it impedes on the processing of non-SBFD or SBFD slots. See paragraph [0232].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate a MAC-CE that indicates the signal types, the restrictions on those types and how it will impact the signal processing. The motivation to combine is to have a compact and efficient way to configure and control UE signal processing.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nhan in view of Fakoorian, Seyed Ali Akbar et al. (US 20210360664 A1, hereinafter referred to as Fakoorian).
Regarding claim 16, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except apply a resource block (RB) offset to a single frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) for scheduling a transmission, wherein the signaling indicates operation of the apparatus is not subject to one or more restrictions when processing the transmission.
In the same field of endeavor, Fakoorian discloses adding an RB offset to an FDRA and indication of the operating restriction based on the FDRA field indicating the uplink and/or downlink allocations. See paragraphs [0101] and [0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate offsetting the FDRA when needed. The motivation to combine is to optimize resource align and mitigate interference.
Regarding claim 17, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except output signaling indicating that the apparatus is capable of supporting the one or more restrictions.
In the same field of endeavor, Fakoorian discloses providing the capability of the UE for SBFD. See paragraph [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate obtaining a capability report of the SBFD status. The motivation to combine is for efficiency, interference mitigation and interoperability.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nhan in view of Rudolf, Marian et al. (US 20240214948 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rudolf-948).
Regarding claim 18, Nhan teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except further comprising at least one transceiver configured to receive the signaling, wherein the apparatus is configured as a user equipment (UE).
In the same field of endeavor, Rudolf-948 discloses a UE with a transceiver that receives signals. See paragraph [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Nhan reference to incorporate the apparatus being a UE that contains a transceiver. The motivation to combine is to allow bidirectional communication and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao, Yue et al. (US 20260238448 A1, RESOURCE DETERMINATION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND DEVICE)
Sun, Jing Yuan et al. (US 20260164450 A1, PDCCH MAPPING)
Ibrahim, Abdelrahman Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed (US 20240113847 A1, CONTROL CHANNEL RECEPTION IN FULL DUPLEX TIME INTERVALS)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/C.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
