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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-16, 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: line 2 includes “RS” which is assumed to be “reference signal (RS)”.
Regarding claim 4: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 5: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 6: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 7: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 9: line 1 includes “CSI-RS” which is assumed to be “channel state indicator (CSI)-RS”.
Regarding claim 10: line 1 includes “BWP” which is assumed to be “bandwidth part (BWP)”.
Regarding claim 11: line 1 includes “wherein the meaning that” which should be “wherein ”.
Regarding claim 12: line 1 includes “wherein the meaning that” which should be “wherein ”. Further, line 2 includes “QCLed” which is assumed to be “quasi-colocated (QCLed)”.
Regarding claim 13: line 1 includes “wherein the meaning that” which should be “wherein ”.
Regarding claim 14: line 1 includes “wherein the meaning that” which should be “wherein ”.
Regarding claim 15: line 2 includes “RS” which is assumed to be “reference signal (RS)”.
Regarding claim 16: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 18: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 19: line 1 includes “comprising” which should be “further comprising”.
Regarding claim 20: line 2 includes “RS” which is assumed to be “reference signal (RS)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1: line 3 includes “a first processor, first operating a first signal”; line 4 begins with “wherein” and appears to extend to line 11; lines 4-5 includes “the first operating is to receive” “or” “the first operating is to transmit” and the language of “is to” does not indicate a function is actually performed; lines 6-7 includes “when the first operating is to receive” which merely indicates a condition of a function that is not actually performed; and line 8 includes “when the first operating is to transmit” which merely indicates a condition of a function that is not actually performed. Accordingly, it is not clear which limitations are actually performed, which limitations are required, and which limitations are optional. Further, idiomatic issues regarding “first operating a first signal” further render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. As best understood, examination continued based on the assumption a signal is either received or transmitted, and in response to receiving the signal, particular functions are performed under particular conditions, and in response to transmitting the signal, particular functions are performed under particular conditions. Examiner notes that correction is needed to remove the alternative format, and ensure all limitations are positively recited.
Regarding claim 2: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 3-4 includes “the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool are applied” which is ambiguous as to what is intended by “applied”. In looking to the specification (para. [427, 501-506, 512]) some type of limiting appears to be intended, however, no examples are found and thus, does not provide clarity. Examination continued on the assumption some type of configuration is performed.
Regarding claim 3: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, (similar with claim 1) line 3 includes “the first processor, second operating a second signal”; line 4 begins with “wherein” and appears to extend to line 11; line 7; lines 4-g includes “the second operating is to receive” “or” “the second operating is to transmit” and the language of “is to” does not indicate a function is actually performed; and lines 6-7 include “the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool are not applied to the second RS resource” which is ambiguous as to what is intended by “not applied”. Further, idiomatic issues regarding “second operating a second signal” further render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Accordingly, it is not clear which limitations are actually performed, which limitations are required, and which limitations are optional, and what precisely is intended by “not applied” and the closest examples found in the specification are the “applied” being some type of limiting. As best understood, examination continued based on the assumption a signal is either received or transmitted, and in response to receiving the signal, particular functions are performed under particular conditions, and in response to transmitting the signal, particular functions are performed under particular conditions. Examination continued on the assumption some type of configuration is performed. Examiner notes that correction is needed to remove the alternative format, and ensure all limitations are positively recited.
Regarding claim 8: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, line 2 includes “SSB-Index”; while “SSB” is considered an acronym of “synchronization signal block”, para. 168 of the specification indicates SSB refers “SS (Synchronization Signal/PBCH (Physical Broadcast Channel) block” and thus, whether the claimed “SSB-Index” is “synchronization signal block index” or includes “PBCH block-index” is unclear, where it is noted “PBCH block-index” is not found in the specification. Examination continued on the assumption “SSB-Index” refers to “synchronization signal block index”. The examiner respectfully recommends fully spelling out the element in the first mention of the element.
Regarding claim 10: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15: the claim is interpreted and rejected for substantially the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 15, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 17: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 15, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 15, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 19: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 15, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 20: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully recommends amendments to clearly elucidate actually performed functions explicitly associated with relevant function using language such as, for example, -in response to-, and other temporal expressions such as, for example, -after/prior to/subsequent to-, etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan Beigi et al. (US 2026/0231224 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 63/484,800, filed 2/14/2023) hereinafter Beigi.
Regarding claim 1, Beigi teaches a first node for wireless communications (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) 102; para. [26, 39] and Figs. 1A-1B), comprising: a first receiver (transceiver 120; para. 39 and Fig. 1B), receiving a first reference signal in a first RS resource (WTRU receives reference signal (RS) [RS on RS resource]; para. 94); and a first processor (processor 118; para. 39 and Fig. 1B), first operating a first signal on a first frequency band (WTRU transmits and/or receives; para. 94, uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) using subband-wise [band] duplex; para. [91, 101] and Fig. 4); wherein a duplex mode of the first frequency band is a frequency division duplex (subband-wise frequency division duplexing (FDD); para. 101 and Fig. 4); the first operating is to receive and the first signal is on a downlink working band (DL reception; para. 156, DL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or the first operating is to transmit and the first signal is on an uplink working band (UL transmission; para. 156, UL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4); the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource (WTRU transmits/receives physical channel and RS according to spatial domain; para. 94); when the first operating is to receive, time-domain resources occupied by the first signal are not overlapping with a first time-domain resource pool (reception (Rx) occasion [time domain] are DL-only [not overlapping with UL/first] occasions [pool]; para. 119 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); when the first operating is to transmit, time-domain resources occupied by the first signal are not overlapping with a second time-domain resource pool (transmission (Tx) occasion [time domain] are UL-only [not overlapping with DL/second] occasions [pool]; para. 119 and Fig. 4); time-domain resources occupied by the first time-domain resource pool are orthogonal to time-domain resources occupied by the second time-domain resource pool (Rx occasion are DL-only occasions while Tx occasion are UL-only occasions [DL-only orthogonal to UL-only]; para. 119 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches the first receiver, receiving a first signaling, the first signaling indicating a first RS resource set (WTRU receives configuration of Rx occasions [first RS resource set]; para. 124-125, WTRU receives RS [RS on RS resource] and physical channel according to spatial domain; para. 94, WTRU receives RS parameters; para. 105); wherein only when the first RS resource is an RS resource in the first RS resource set (WTRU receives RS [RS on RS resource]; para. 94), the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool are applied (WTRU receives RS parameters; para. 105, Rx occasion are DL-only occasions while Tx occasion are UL-only occasions [DL-only and UL-only applied]; para. 119).
Regarding claim 3, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein when the first operating is to receive (DL reception; para. 156), the time-domain resources occupied by the first signal belong to a second time-domain resource set (Rx occasion [time domain] are DL-only [DL/second pool] occasions [pool]; para. 119); when the first operating is to transmit (UL transmission; para. 156), the time-domain resources occupied by the first signal belong to a first time-domain resource set (Tx occasion [time domain] are UL-only [UL/first pool] occasions [pool]; para. 119); the first time-domain resource pool comprises the first time-domain resource set (Tx occasion [first pool] are UL-only occasions [first set]; para. 119), and the second time-domain resource pool comprises the second time-domain resource set (Rx occasion [second pool] are DL-only occasions [second set]; para. 119).
Regarding claim 4, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 3.
Beigi further teaches the first receiver, receiving a second signaling (WTRU receives radio resource control (RRC); para. 125); wherein the second signaling is used to configure the first time-domain resource set and the second time-domain resource set (Rx/Tx occasions configured by RRC; para. 125).
Regarding claim 5, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 4.
Beigi further teaches the first receiver, receiving a third signaling (WTRU receives common/dedicated configuration according to slot format indicator (SFI) on downlink control information (DCI); para. [102, 124]); wherein the third signaling is used to configure the first time-domain resource set and the second time-domain resource set (configuration configures Rx occasions; para. 124-125), the second signaling is a higher-layer signaling (WTRU receives RRC, Rx/Tx occasions configured by RRC; para. 125), and the third signaling is a physical-layer signaling (WTRU receives common/dedicated configuration according to SFI on DCI [physical layer signaling]; para. [102, 124]).
Regarding claim 6, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches the first receiver, receiving a fourth signaling (WTRU receives common/dedicated configuration; para. 124); wherein the fourth signaling is used to configure the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool (common/dedicated configuration configures Rx/Tx occasions; para. 124).
Regarding claim 7, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches the first receiver, receiving a second reference signal in a second RS resource (WTRU receives RS [RS on RS resource]; para. 94 and Fig. 2 showing multiple UL/DL); and the first processor (processor 118; para. 39 and Fig. 1B), second operating a second signal on the first frequency band (WTRU transmits and/or receives; para. 94, UL and/or DL using subband-wise [band] duplex; para. [91, 101] and Fig. 4); wherein the second operating is to receive and the second signal is on a downlink working band (DL reception; para. 156, DL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or the second operating is to transmit and the second signal is on an uplink working band (UL transmission; para. 156, UL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4); the second signal is spatially associated with the second RS resource (WTRU transmits/receives physical channel and RS [RS on RS resource] according to spatial domain; para. 94); the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool are not applied to the second RS resource (RS [RS on RS resource] on synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH); para. 94 and Fig. 5 showing SS/PBCH blocks separate from UL/DL subband).
Regarding claim 8, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the first time-domain resource pool is not used for downlink transmission (Tx occasion [first pool] are UL-only occasions [first set]; para. 119), and the second time-domain resource pool is not used for uplink transmission (Rx occasion [second pool] are DL-only occasions [second set]; para. 119).
Regarding claim 9, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the first RS resource is a CSI-RS resource (RS using channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS); para. 94, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or the first RS resource corresponds to an SSB-Index (RS [RS on RS resource] on SS block (SSB) associated with an index; para. [05, 98]).
Regarding claim 10, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the first frequency band corresponds to an Active BWP (WTRU configured with active bandwidth part (BWP) for UL/DL; para. 123-125).
Regarding claim 11, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the meaning that the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource comprises: the first operating is to receive (DL reception; para. 156), and the first RS resource is used to determine spatial reception parameters of the first signal (DL according to spatial reception parameters associated with respective demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) [RS on RS resource]; para. 97-98).
Regarding claim 12, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the meaning that the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource comprises: the first signal and the first RS resource are QCLed (DL according to spatial reception parameters associated with DM-RS [RS on RS resource] configured with quasi-colocation (QCL); para. 98).
Regarding claim 14, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the meaning that the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource comprises: the first operating is to transmit (UL transmission; para. 156), and the first RS resource is used to determine spatial transmission parameters of the first signal (WTRU transmits according to spatial domain filter with reference to RS [RS on RS resource]; para. 94-96).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth 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.
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) 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beigi in view of Park et al. (US 2025/0203588 A1) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 13, Beigi teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beigi further teaches wherein the meaning that the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource comprises: the first operating is to transmit (UL transmission; para. 156).
While Beigi discloses RS measurements, Beigi does not explicitly disclose a measurement for a radio signal in the first RS resource is used to determine a transmit power value of the first signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a measurement for a radio signal in the first RS resource is used to determine a transmit power value of the first signal (UL power for subband non-overlapping full duplex (SBFD) operations determined based on measured RS; para. [03, 155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park to the system of Beigi, where Beigi’s cell barring in SBFD (para. 253) along with Park’s enhanced coverage in SBFD (para. 143) improves user experience by improving reliability and coverage.
Regarding claim 15, Beigi teaches a second node for wireless communications (base station (BS) [114/160]; para. [28-29, 50] Figs. [1A, 1C]), comprising: a first transmitter (BS including transceiver; para. 28), transmitting a first reference signal in a first RS resource (BS transmits downlink (DL) and receives uplink (UL); para. 102); third operating a first signal on a first frequency band (WTRU [BS] transmits and/or receives; para. 94, UL and/or DL using subband-wise [band] duplex; para. [91, 101] and Fig. 4); wherein a duplex mode of the first frequency band is a frequency division duplex (subband-wise frequency division duplexing (FDD); para. 101 and Fig. 4); the third operating is to transmit and the first signal is on a downlink working band (DL reception [BS transmission]; para. 156, DL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or the third operating is to receive and the first signal is on an uplink working band (UL transmission [BS reception]; para. 156, UL used per subband-wise FDD; para. 101 and Fig. 4); the first signal is spatially associated with the first RS resource (WTRU [BS] transmits/receives physical channel and RS according to spatial domain; para. 94); when the third operating is to transmit, time-domain resources occupied by the first signal are not overlapping with a first time-domain resource pool (reception (Rx) [BS transmission] occasion [time domain] are DL-only [not overlapping with UL/first] occasions [pool]; para. 119 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); when the third operating is to receive, time-domain resources occupied by the first signal are not overlapping with a second time-domain resource pool (transmission (Tx) [BS reception] occasion [time domain] are UL-only [not overlapping with DL/second] occasions [pool]; para. 119 and Fig. 4); time-domain resources occupied by the first time-domain resource pool are orthogonal to time-domain resources occupied by the second time-domain resource pool (Rx occasion are DL-only occasions while Tx occasion are UL-only occasions [DL-only orthogonal to UL-only]; para. 119 and Fig. 4).
While Beigi discloses processor, hardware, software, Beigi does not explicitly disclose [second node comprising] a second processor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches [second node comprising] a second processor (processes performed in software/processor; para. 196).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park to the system of Beigi, where Beigi’s cell barring in SBFD (para. 253) along with Park’s enhanced coverage in SBFD (para. 143) improves user experience by improving reliability and coverage.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Beigi and Park teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
Beigi further teaches the first transmitter, transmitting a first signaling, the first signaling indicating a first RS resource set (WTRU receives [BS transmits] configuration of Rx occasions [first RS resource set]; para. 124-125, WTRU receives RS [RS on RS resource] and physical channel according to spatial domain; para. 94, WTRU receives [BS transmits] RS parameters; para. 105); wherein only when the first RS resource is an RS resource in the first RS resource set (WTRU receives [BS transmits] RS [RS on RS resource]; para. 94), the first time-domain resource pool and the second time-domain resource pool are applied (WTRU receives [BS transmits] RS parameters; para. 105, Rx occasion are DL-only occasions while Tx occasion are UL-only occasions [DL-only and UL-only applied]; para. 119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park to the system of Beigi, where Beigi’s cell barring in SBFD (para. 253) along with Park’s enhanced coverage in SBFD (para. 143) improves user experience by improving reliability and coverage.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Beigi and Park teaches the previous limitation of claim 15.
Beigi further teaches wherein when the third operating is to transmit (DL reception [BS transmission]; para. 156), the time-domain resources occupied by the first signal belong to a second time-domain resource set (Rx [BS transmission] occasion [time domain] are DL-only [DL/second pool] occasions [pool]; para. 119); when the third operating is to receive (UL transmission [BS reception]; para. 156), the time-domain resources occupied by the first signal belong to a first time-domain resource set (Tx occasion [time domain] are UL-only [UL/first pool] occasions [pool]; para. 119); the first time-domain resource pool comprises the first time-domain resource set (Tx occasion [first pool] are UL-only occasions [first set]; para. 119), and the second time-domain resource pool comprises the second time-domain resource set (Rx occasion [second pool] are DL-only occasions [second set]; para. 119).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Beigi and Park teaches the previous limitation of claim 17.
Beigi further teaches the first transmitter, transmitting a second signaling (WTRU receives [BS transmission] radio resource control (RRC); para. 125); wherein the second signaling is used to configure the first time-domain resource set and the second time-domain resource set (Rx/Tx occasions configured by RRC; para. 125).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Beigi and Park teaches the previous limitation of claim 18.
Beigi further teaches the first transmitter, transmitting a third signaling (WTRU receives [BS transmission] common/dedicated configuration according to slot format indicator (SFI) on downlink control information (DCI); para. [102, 124]); wherein the third signaling is used to configure the first time-domain resource set and the second time-domain resource set (configuration configures Rx occasions; para. 124-125), the second signaling is a higher-layer signaling (WTRU receives [BS transmission] RRC, Rx/Tx occasions configured by RRC; para. 125), and the third signaling is a physical-layer signaling (WTRU receives [BS transmission] common/dedicated configuration according to SFI on DCI [physical layer signaling]; para. [102, 124]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2025/0158792 A1) discloses dynamic uplink band transmission.
Xiong et al. (US 2026/0136341 A1) discloses techniques for downlink and uplink resource mapping for full duplex and non-cell defining synchronization signal block.
Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2024/0333467 A1) discloses disallowed communication direction for full-duplex time intervals.
Li et al. (US 2024/0305404 A1) discloses a method for signal transmission and apparatus thereof.
US Provisional Application No. 63/484,800 (Beigi) is included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights