DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on May 6, 2026. Claims 1, 31, and 44 have been amended. New claim 49 has been added. Claims 1-11 and 31-49 are pending in the application.
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 § 102
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, 7-9, 11, 31-34, 39, 42-46, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pedersen et al. (US 2022/0278788).
Regarding Claim 1, Pedersen teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first base station distributed unit (DU), comprising:
receiving system information that indicates one or more resources for crosslink interference (CLI) measurement for a second base station DU (“the DUs 302, 303 are configured 304, 305 with their sounding signal transmission parameters, as well as when to measure on sounding signals from other DUs” – See [0137]; “The DU shall be informed which sounding signal it shall measure on. This comprises informing the DU on which resource elements the sounding signal is transmitted in the slots where it occurs” – See [0121]; “The DU(s) perform(s) the DU-2-DU CLI measurements in line with the measurement object configuration” – See [0146]; See also Fig. 3; DU 303 (first DU) receives configuration information 305 (system information) that indicates resource elements (one or more resources) for CLI measurement for DU 302 (second DU));
identifying, based at least in part on the system information, one or more time-domain resources for the CLI measurement, one or more frequency-domain resources for the CLI measurement, or one or more transmission types for the CLI (“The following information elements for instructing the DUs, when they shall measure on the transmitted sounding signals from other DUs, may comprise the following (i.e. new DU co-channel transmission objects to enable cross-link measurements) in an example embodiment: Timing of when a DU shall measure on sounding signal(s) by other DU(s): I. This may be expressed in terms of system frame number, over which slots and/or symbols it should measure. II. The timing information might be expressed as a vector with multiple time occasions where the DU shall measure on sounding signals from different DUs” – See [0115]-[0119]; “the DU measurement object attributes 202 may comprise the following: Timing of when a DU shall measure on sounding signal(s) by other DU(s)” – See [0133]-[0134]; The first DU identifies, based on the system information, one or more slots/symbols (time-domain resources) for the CLI measurement); and
performing one or more CLI measurements for a cell associated with the second base station DU based at least in part on the one or more resources (“DU # 1 302 transmits 306 a sounding signal via an air interface 308 … Afterwards, the results 307, 310 of the DU-to-DU CLI measurement are reported 309, 313 back to the CU 301” – See [0137]; DU 303 (first DU) performs CLI measurements for the reference signal transmitted by DU 302 (second DU) based on the resources specified in the measurement object).
Regarding Claim 7, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches receiving, from a base station central unit (CU), one or more CLI measurement objects for the cell associated with the second base station DU (“configuring (304, 305) a distributed unit sounding signaling transmission object and a distributed unit cross-link measurement object to at least two separate distributed units (DU) (302, 303, 602, 604) in succession” – See [0021]; See also Fig. 3; The cross-link measurement objects (CLI measurement objects) are associated with DU 302 (second DU). As shown in in Fig. 3, the information is received from the CU in steps 304/305),
wherein the one or more CLI measurement objects identify at least one of: the one or more resources, a measurement window for the one or more CLI measurements, a subcarrier spacing (SCS) for the cell associated with the second base station DU, a reference signal configuration associated with the second base station DU, a cell identifier associated with the second base station DU, or an index of transmitted synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) associated with the second base station DU (“the DU measurement object attributes 202 may comprise the following: Timing of when a DU shall measure on sounding signal(s) by other DU(s) Type of sounding signal and resources it shall measure on, comprising beams” – See [0133]-[0135]; See also Fig. 2; The DUs 302 and 303 receive the CLI measurement objects from CU 301, wherein the measurement objects specify the one or more resources for the CLI measurements).
Regarding Claim 8, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches receiving, from a base station central unit (CU), information identifying a resource configuration for the cell associated with the second base station DU (“the DU measurement object attributes 202 may comprise the following: Timing of when a DU shall measure on sounding signal(s) by other DU(s) Type of sounding signal and resources it shall measure on, comprising beams” – See [0133]-[0135]; See also Figs. 2 and 3; The DUs 302 and 303 receive, from CU 301, the CLI measurement objects which identify the resource configuration for CLI measurements).
Regarding Claim 9, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches that performing the one or more CLI measurements comprises: performing the one or more CLI measurements based at least in part on one or more reference signals transmitted from the second base station DU in the one or more resources, wherein the one or more reference signals comprise at least one of: synchronization signal block (SSB), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a remote interference management reference signal (RIM-RS), a phase tracking reference signal (PTRS), or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (“measure (310) a second sounding signal transmitted by the another distributed unit (303, 604) over an air interface (312), thus obtaining a DU-to-DU cross-link interference measurement result” – See [0053]; “As a non-limiting example embodiment, the sounding signal may simply be the Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS)” – See [0110]; See also Fig. 3; The CLI measurements performed by DU 303 are based on reference signals transmitted by DU 302 (second DU), wherein the reference signals are CSI-RS).
Regarding Claim 11, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches that performing one or more CLI mitigation actions based at least in part on the one or more CLI measurements, wherein the one or more CLI mitigation actions comprise at least one of: aligning a transmit schedule of the first base station DU with a transmit schedule of the cell associated with second base station DU, aligning a receive schedule of the first base station DU with a receive schedule of the cell associated with the second base station DU, aligning at least part of a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration of the first base station DU with a TDD configuration of the cell associated with the second base station DU, adjusting a transmit power of one or more user equipments (UEs) associated with the first base station DU, adjusting a transmit power of one or more integrated access and backhaul (IAB) child nodes of an IAB node associated with the first base station DU, adjusting a transmit power of one or more cells associated with the first base station DU, coordinating spatial domain resources with the cell associated with the second base station DU, or transmitting an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) uplink communication during a scheduled uplink resource for the cell associated with the second base station DU (“The CU evaluates those measurement results, and if critical adjacent channel interference (e.g. from an operator using the adjacent carrier) occurs, then the CU instructs the DUs to use a default static TDD switching pattern (i.e. radio frame configuration) that is aligned with that operator” – See [0156]; The CU performs CLI mitigation actions based on the measurements, wherein the actions include alignment of TDD switching patters between the DUs).
Claims 31, 44, and 49 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 32 and 45 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Claims 33 and 46 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 9.
Claims 34 and 48 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11.
Claim 39 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Claim 42 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 9.
Claim 43 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11.
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.
Claims 2 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2022/0278788) in view of in view of Barac et al. (US 2022/0279532).
Regarding Claim 2, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen does not explicitly teach receiving, from a base station central unit (CU), information identifying a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration for the cell associated with the second base station DU.
However, Barac teaches receiving, from a base station central unit (CU), information identifying a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration for the cell associated with the second base station DU (“In Rel-16, 3GPP has standardized the exchange of semi-static intended TDD UL/DL configurations between neighboring gNBs or gNB-DUs (via their respective gNB-CUs), where the intended TDD pattern contains explicit indications of UL and DL slots and symbols. The slots/symbols whose allocation is not explicitly indicated are considered ‘not available’ and are subject to dynamic, short-term scheduling decisions of the corresponding node. The intended TDD pattern is conveyed in the Information Element (IE) called Intended TDD DL-UL Configuration” – See [0032]; “In particular, the newly introduced Intended TDD DL-UL Configuration is included in the Served Cell Information IE, which is sent from the gNB-DU to the gNB-CU inside either in the F1 SETUP REQUEST or the GNB-DU CONFIGURATION UPDATE messages. The gNB-CU then forwards the Intended TDD DL-UL Configuration IE to the nodes that are in control of the cells that are neighboring the cells whose resources are indicated inside the IE” – See [0033]; “the gNB-CU forwards the information to the recipient gNB-DU(s) via the F1 interface inside the GNB-CU CONFIGURATION UPDATE message” – See [0035]; The first DU receives a TDD configuration of a second/neighbor DU via the CU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include receiving, from a base station central unit (CU), information identifying a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration for the cell associated with the second base station DU. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the network nodes to dynamically exchange detailed information related their intended DL/UL transmission configurations to facilitate CLI mitigation (See Barac, [0030] and [0031]).
Claim 40 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2022/0278788) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0110136).
Regarding Claim 3, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen does not explicitly teach that receiving the system information comprises: receiving the system information from the second base station DU.
However, Li teaches that receiving the system information comprises: receiving the system information from the second base station DU (“the DL/UL configuration and the configuration of the special SF used in a cell are signaled as part of the system information, which is included in system-information block 1 (SIB1)” – See [0019]; “FIG. 13a depicts a method performed by a receiving network node, 1160, 1160b, for CLI mitigation. The method comprises receiving 1310, from at least one sending network node, a time division duplex configuration of the at least one sending network node” – See [0205]; “Furthermore, a NN can also correspond to a distributed gNB or BS” – See [0064]; “The method further comprises adapting 1320 operations in a cell based on the received time division duplex configuration for mitigating CLI with the at least one sending network node” – See [0208]; “The method further comprises adapting 1320 operations in a cell based on the received time division duplex configuration for mitigating CLI with the at least one sending network node” – See [0209]; “In embodiments, the method may further comprise performing at least one measurement on the configured interference measurement resources to estimate CLI levels” – See [0210]; See also Fig. 3; A first base station DU (e.g., NN1) receives an SIB (system information) from a second base station DU (e.g., NN2). Based on the TDD configuration from the system information, the first base station DU identifies measurement resources for CLI measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include receiving the system information from the second base station DU. Motivation for doing so would be to enable information exchange among the DUs in order to provide additional knowledge on the CLI situation so that better CLI mitigation decisions can be made and network performance can be increased (See Li, [0070]).
Claim 35 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 4-6 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2022/0278788) in view of Ye et al. (US 2021/0219155).
Regarding Claim 4, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (“The DU # 1 602 will provide a relay message over the air via the extended F1 interface to IAB # 1 603 … The DU # 2 604 will provide a relay message over the air via the extended F1 interface to IAB # 2 605” – See [0144]; Each of the DUs is associated with a particular IAB node); and
wherein the method further comprises receiving information associated with the second base station DU with the IAB node (“The CU 601 will then configure the sounding signal transmission and measurement of such signals from other DUs, via the F1 interface to DU # 2 604. The DU # 2 604 will provide a relay message over the air via the extended F1 interface to IAB # 2 605” – See [0144]; The measurement information associated with the second DU is relayed from the first DU to IAB node 605, such that the information is received by the IAB node 605).
Pedersen does not explicitly teach that the information is received by a mobile terminal (MT) associated with the IAB node.
However, Ye teaches that the IAB node has a mobile terminal (MT) for transmitting/receiving messages form upper-level nodes (“The IAB node is functionally divided into an IAB mobile termination (MT) and an IAB base station distributed unit (DU). The IAB MT means that the IAB node accesses an upper-level node as a terminal device UE” – See [0003]; “the IAB node 1 receives, by using an MT, a signal sent by the donor node” – See [0067]; The MT of the IAB node receives signals from the upper-level node (e.g., the DU)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen such that the information is received by a mobile terminal (MT) associated with the IAB node since it is a well-known feature of IAB nodes as defined in various 5G communication standards (See Ye, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 5, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches receiving a resource configuration (“the DUs 302, 303 are configured 304, 305 with their sounding signal transmission parameters, as well as when to measure on sounding signals from other DUs” – See [0137]; “The DU shall be informed which sounding signal it shall measure on. This comprises informing the DU on which resource elements the sounding signal is transmitted in the slots where it occurs” – See [0121]; “In cases where the DU(s), transmitting the sounding signal(s), adopt beamforming, the DU that shall measure should also be informed of the transmit beamforming configuration of the sounding signal (see above)” – See [0122]; DU 303 receives the measurement information associated with DU 302 (second DU) in a resource configuration).
Pedersen does not explicitly teach that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) parent node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB child node of the IAB parent node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB child node.
However, Ye teaches that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) parent node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB child node of the IAB parent node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB child node (“an upper-level node of the IAB node 1 is the IAB node 3” – See [0065]; “the IAB node 1 receives, by using a DU” – See [0069]; “an IAB node 1 receives, by using an MT, a signal sent by a DU of an IAB node 3” – See [0072]; “Cross link interference CLI is interference from the DU of the IAB node 3 to the DU of the IAB node 1” – See [0070]; See also Fig. 2; IAB node 3 is a first DU and is an upper-level (parent) node with respect to IAB node 1 which is a lower-level (child) node with respect to IAB node 3, wherein the resource configuration for measuring CLI is associated with IAB node 3 and IAB node 1 (IAB child node)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen such that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) parent node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB child node of the IAB parent node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB child node since the use of parent and child IAB nodes allows for the relay of signals between a donor node and UEs. Accordingly, coverage can be extended (See Ye, [0003] and [0054]).
Regarding Claim 6, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen further teaches receiving information associated with the second base station DU in a resource configuration (“the DUs 302, 303 are configured 304, 305 with their sounding signal transmission parameters, as well as when to measure on sounding signals from other DUs” – See [0137]; “The DU shall be informed which sounding signal it shall measure on. This comprises informing the DU on which resource elements the sounding signal is transmitted in the slots where it occurs” – See [0121]; “In cases where the DU(s), transmitting the sounding signal(s), adopt beamforming, the DU that shall measure should also be informed of the transmit beamforming configuration of the sounding signal (see above)” – See [0122]; DU 303 receives the measurement information associated with DU 302 (second DU) in a resource configuration).
Pedersen does not explicitly teach that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) child node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB parent node of the IAB child node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB parent node.
However, Ye teaches that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) child node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB parent node of the IAB child node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB parent node (“an upper-level node of the IAB node 1 is the IAB node 3” – See [0065]; “the IAB node 1 receives, by using a DU” – See [0069]; “an IAB node 1 receives, by using an MT, a signal sent by a DU of an IAB node 3” – See [0072]; “Cross link interference CLI is interference from the DU of the IAB node 3 to the DU of the IAB node 1” – See [0070]; See also Fig. 2; IAB node 1 is a lower-level (child) node with respect to IAB node 3 which is an upper-level (parent) node with respect to IAB node 1, wherein the resource configuration for measuring CLI is associated with IAB node 3 (IAB parent node) and IAB node 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen such that the first base station DU is associated with an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) child node; wherein the second base station DU is associated with an IAB parent node of the IAB child node; and wherein the resource configuration is associated with the IAB parent node for the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 5.
Claim 36 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claim 37 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claim 38 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claims 10, 41, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. (US 2022/0278788) in view of Miao (US 2022/0103270).
Regarding Claim 10, Pedersen teaches the method of Claim 1. Pedersen does not explicitly teach that performing the one or more CLI measurements comprises: performing one or more received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements based at least in part on one or more CLI-RSSI transmissions from the second base station DU in the one or more resources.
However, Miao teaches performing one or more received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements based at least in part on one or more CLI-RSSI transmissions (“In 3GPP NR system, dynamic TDD operation is supported on an unpaired spectrum so that DL and UL transmission directions at least for data can be dynamically assigned on a per-slot basis at least in a TDM manner … Moreover, SRS-RSRP and RSSI have been adopted as the measurement metric for CLI” – See [0023]; “According to the latest 3GPP discussion, both SRS-RSRP and RSSI are supported for the CLI measurements” – See [0025]; RSSI measurements are performed on CLI-RSSI transmissions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen to include performing one or more received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements based at least in part on one or more CLI-RSSI transmissions from the second base station DU in the one or more resources since RSSI is supported as a CLI measurement metric in the widely adopted 3GPP NR standards.
Claims 41 and 47 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
On pages 16-17 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Li does not teach a first base station DU “receiving system information that indicates one or more resources for crosslink interference (CLI) measurement for a second base station DU,” as recited in independent claims 1, 31, 44, and 49. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner relies upon the Pedersen reference, which was previously cited in the PTO-892 dated March 28, 2024.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights