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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to a request for continued examination filed on 16 January 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-15, 18-22, 24-27 and 29-35 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 to recites, in part, “receive, from the base station, an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication, wherein the spatial nulling is configured, based at least in part on the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, to mitigate interference between an uplink communication from the second mobile station to the base station and the downlink communication from the base station to the first mobile station; and apply, at the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during transmission of the uplink communication to the base station…to block transmissions of signals in the direction of the second mobile station…”
Examiner has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s disclosure, and cannot find a description of the recited combination of features. Fig. 4 and the related description describe receiving “an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication,” and applying “the spatial nulling during reception of the downlink communication,” to block transmission from the direction of the second user equipment. Fig. 5 and the related description describe receiving “an indication to use spatial nulling during transmission of an uplink communication,” and applying “the spatial nulling during transmission of the uplink communication… to block transmissions of signals in the direction of the second mobile station.” However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusion from applicant’s disclosure that applicant possessed the features, receiving “an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication,” and applying “the spatial nulling during transmission of the uplink communication to the base station…to block transmissions of signals in the direction of the second mobile station.” Claims 34-35 depend upon claim 29, accordingly, claims 29 and 34-35 are rejected for lack of a written description.
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 to recites, in part, “receive, from the base station, an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication, wherein the spatial nulling is configured, based at least in part on the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, to mitigate interference between an uplink communication from the second mobile station to the base station and the downlink communication from the base station to the first mobile station; and apply, at the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during transmission of the uplink communication to the base station…to block transmissions of signals in the direction of the second mobile station”. There appears to be lack of antecedent basis for “the uplink communication to the base station” in line 18 of claim 29 as far as the claim can be understood because the claim is directed towards functions of a first mobile station (lines 3-4) and only other instance of an uplink communication recited in the claim relates to an uplink communication from the second mobile station (lines 14-15). Accordingly, “the uplink communication” does not appear to find antecedent basis in the claim rendering the scope of claim 29 indefinite. Claims 34-35 depend upon claim 29. Accordingly, claims 29 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 USC 112 for lack of clarity.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The features in claim 30, “means for applying, at the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station by using one or more reflectors to block reception of signals from a direction of the second mobile station,” are modified by sufficient structure (i.e., one or more reflectors) which provides sufficient structure to entirely perform recited function.
Applicant has disclosed hardware or a combination of hardware and software which implement the algorithm disclosed at Fig. 4, [0062]-[0079] as the means recited in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-15, 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askar et al. (US 2021/0051660 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0279313 A1) in view of Xu (CN111181615A) citations correspond to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Askar discloses a first mobile station for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, configured to (Fig. 26, [0299]-[0306]):
receive, from a base station, an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication ([0125] disclosing the base station control the UEs to set the receive beam pattern and/or the transmit beam pattern; [0121] disclosing the beam patterns are set such that the radiation towards the base station is stronger than the radiation towards the other respective UE; [0122]-[0124] disclosing the use of beamforming to create a beam pattern such that a null pattern is directed towards the other respective UE; Fig. 9, [0236] disclosing the radiation patterns as spatial properties of the transmissions; [0139] disclosing nulls in receive and/or transmit beam patterns; Figs. 9-10, [0239]-[0241]; Figs. 19-20, [0281]-[0283] disclosing techniques similar to Figs. 9 and 10 disclosing while UE 2021 is receiving from the base station, said UE sets the receive beam pattern with a null towards UE 2022; [0242] disclosing the base station may control the UEs which interfere with one another to align the nulls of the beam pattern to a correct direction),
wherein the spatial nulling is configured, based at least in part on a relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station ([0121]-[0126] disclosing the UEs utilize beamforming to direct a null towards the direction os the other UE under the control of the base station such that he radiation pattern is stronger towards the base station than it is towards the other respective UE; [0260] disclosing an interference direction; See Fig. 9, 208b2 and 208c1 [0236] disclosing the radiation patterns as spatial properties of the transmissions [0239] disclosing the UEs can place the nulls in their transmission and reception beams, implicitly disclosing in order to steer the null towards the other UE, the first UE must have knowledge of the “relative direction”), to mitigate interference between an uplink communication from the second mobile station to the base station and the downlink communication from the base station to the first mobile station (The broadest reasonable interpretation of this functional language is the intended result of the use of spatial nulling. This is a feature does not limit the claim scope because one of ordinary skill in the art of spatial nulling would understand that the structure/functions already recited in the claim operates to achieve the intended result of mitigating interference by uplink transmissions from the other mobile station to reception of downlink signals from the base station; In any case, Askar discloses the same intended result at [0283] disclosing a UE placing a null in its receive beam pattern when receiving downlink form the base station such that interference from transmissions to the base station by the other UE is suppressed);
apply, by the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station ([0283] disclosing a UE placing a null in its receive beam pattern when receiving downlink form the base station such that interference from transmissions to the base station by the other UE is suppressed).
Askar discloses UEs capable of null-steering control their transmission (TX) and reception (RX) beams in order to steer a null in their TX and/or RX beam pattern in the direction of the interference to substantially reduce interference ([0261]-[0262]). Askar does not disclose how to determine the direction from which the interference originates. This one of ordinary skill in the art would need to solve the problem of determining the direction to/from other UEs that are causing interference.
Huang discloses receive, from a base station, an indication of a configuration of a positioning reference signal associated with a second mobile station (Fig. 5, S520, [0119], [0122], [0127]-[0128] disclosing the base station sends to the first terminal device a first sidelink positioning reference signal configuration comprising second sidelink positioning reference signal configuration of a second sidelink positioning reference signal sent by the second terminal device);
determine the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station based at least in part on the indication of the configuration of the positioning reference signal received from the base station (Fig. 5, S550, [0155], [0160] disclosing the first terminal device determines the angle of arrival AoA of the second sidelink positioning reference signal transmitted by the second terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the techniques of Huang (i.e. determine the angle of arrival of signals from other user equipment) to solve the problem of determining the direction to/from other UEs that are causing interference because the teaching lies in Huang that this overcomes positioning inaccuracies in techniques that rely on measurements between a network device (i.e., base station) and a user equipment ([0003]-[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these techniques based on the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the prior art disclosures.
Xu suggests by using one or more reflectors to block reception of signals from a direction of the second mobile station (pp. 13-14 [0046] disclosing use of a smart reflective surface near the user equipment which can suppress interference between user terminals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar as taught by Xu because smart reflective surfaces can overcome severe interference, are easy to deploy, are low cost and light weight ([0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
apply receive (Rx) nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station ([0139] disclosing nulls in receive and/or transmit beam patterns; Figs. 9-10, [0239]-[0241]; Figs. 19-20, [0281]-[0283] disclosing techniques similar to Figs. 9 and 10 in which UE 2021 places a null in the receive pattern of Fig. 20) to reduce interference on the downlink communication from the uplink communication associated with the second mobile station (this is a feature of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claims; however, see Fig. 20, [0283] disclosing UE 2022 transmits on the uplink in the same timeslot as UE 2021 receives the downlink with the null in the receive pattern, [0282] disclosing so as to suppress inter-UE interference).
Regarding claim 3, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
estimate a channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station ([0141]-[0142] disclosing estimate an inter-UE-interference channel; see also [0159]-[0160] and [0285]).
Regarding claim 5, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors, to estimate the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station, are configured to: estimate the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station when the second mobile station is transmitting another uplink communication to the base station ([0141]-[0142] and [0159]-[0160] disclosing UE estimates inter-UE-interference by listening to pilots on the interference channel; [0283], [0285] disclosing UE 2022 transmits un the uplink and inter-UE-interference is estimated by listening to pilots in the interference channels).
Regarding claim 6, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit, to the base station, an indication of the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station ([0125] disclosing the base station receives reports from the UE of interference caused by the second UE); and
receive, from the base station, an indication of one or more combiner parameters based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station ([0125] disclosing responsive to the received reports, the base station controls the UEs to set their receive beam pattern and/or transmit beam pattern; [0139] disclosing nulls in receive (RX) and/or transmit (TX) beam patterns; [0238]-[0239] disclosing setting TX and RX beam patterns to form nulls in particular directions; [0125] and [0242] disclosing the base station may control the UEs which interfere with one another to align the nulls of the beam pattern to a correct direction; See also [0260]-[0262] disclosing the null is steered in a particular direction; The term “combiner” or “combiner coefficients/weights/parameters” and the like are terms of the art for setting/controlling RX beam patterns; thus, examiner sees controlling/setting RX beam patterns as implicitly disclosing “an indication of one or more a combiner parameters”),
wherein the one or more processors, to apply Rx nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station, are configured to apply Rx nulling during reception of the downlink communication using the one or more combiner parameters ([0121]-[0124] disclosing the UE is controlling its antenna array to set the receive beam pattern and to perform receive beam pattern nulling by taking advantage of beamforming which inherently is done with receive beamforming weights applied to the signals received at the UE antennas, said receive beamforming weights corresponding to “combiner parameters” and the disclosure at [0125] implies these parameters are provided by the base station to control their beam patterns; [0139] disclosing nulls in receive (RX) beam patterns; [0238]-[0239] disclosing setting RX beam patterns to form nulls in particular directions; [0125] and [0242] disclosing the base station may control the UEs which interfere with one another to align the nulls of the beam pattern to a correct direction; See also [0260]-[0262] disclosing the null is steered in a particular direction; ; The term “combiner” or “combiner coefficients/weights/parameters” and the like are terms of the art for setting/controlling RX beam patterns; thus, examiner sees controlling/setting RX beam patterns as implicitly disclosing using the “one or more combiner parameters”; See Fig. 20, [0283] disclosing while UE 2021 is receiving for the base station, said UE sets the receive beam pattern with a null towards UE 2022;).
Regarding claim 7, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit, to the base station, an indication of the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station ([0125] disclosing the base station receives reports from the UE of interference caused by the second UE); and
receive, from the base station, an indication to use Rx nulling, wherein the one or more processors, to apply Rx nulling during the reception of the downlink communication, are configured to apply Rx nulling during the reception of the downlink communication based at least in part on receiving the indication to use Rx nulling ([0125] disclosing responsive to the received reports, the base station controls the UEs to set their receive beam pattern and/or transmit beam pattern; [0121]-[0124] disclosing the UE is controlling its antenna array to set the receive beam pattern and to perform receive beam pattern nulling by taking advantage of beamforming; See Fig. 20, [0283] disclosing while UE 2021 is receiving for the base station, said UE sets the receive beam pattern with a null towards UE 2022).
Regarding claim 9, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
apply transmit (Tx) nulling to transmission of another uplink communication to the base station ([0282 disclosing UE 2021 places a null in its transmission beam pattern when transmitting to the base station) to reduce interference from the other uplink communication on another downlink communication from the base station to the second mobile station ([0282] this is because the transmission from UE 2021 causes interference to UE 2022 which is receiving from the base station).
Regarding claim 10, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station ([0141]-[0142] disclosing estimate an inter-UE-interference channel; see also [0159]-[0160] and [0285]).
Regarding claim 12, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station, are configured to: receive, from at least one of the second mobile station or the base station, an indication of the channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station ([0141]-[0143]).
Regarding claim 13, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 10
wherein the one or more processors, to apply Tx nulling to the transmission of the uplink communication, are configured to apply Tx nulling to the transmission of the uplink communication using a precoder indicated by the base station ([0121]-[0126] disclosing the base station can control the UEs to set their transmit beam pattern and wherein the UE controls its antenna array to set the transmit beam pattern and to perform transmit beam pattern nulling by taking advantage of beamforming; [0139] disclosing nulls in transmit (TX) beam patterns; [0238]-[0239] disclosing setting TX beam patterns to form nulls in particular directions; [0125] and [0242] disclosing the base station may control the UEs which interfere with one another to align the nulls of the beam pattern to a correct direction; See also [0260]-[0262] disclosing the null is steered in a particular direction; Further, the term “precoder” or “precoder coefficients/weights /parameters” and the like are terms of the art for setting/controlling TX beam patterns; thus, examiner sees controlling/setting TX beam patterns as implicitly disclosing a precoder indicated by the base station”; See also [0260]-[0262] disclosing the null is steered in a particular direction).
Regarding claim 14, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the base station, an indication of the channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication of the precoder, are configured to receive the indication of the precoder based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the channel ([0125]; see rejection of claim 1 for further discussion of “indication of a/the precoder”).
Regarding claim 15, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the base station, an indication to use Tx nulling, wherein the one or more processors, to apply Tx nulling to the transmission of the uplink communication, are configured to apply Tx nulling to the transmission of the uplink communication based at least in part on receiving the indication to use Tx nulling ([0121]-[0126] disclosing the base station can control the UEs to set their transmit beam pattern and wherein the UE controls its antenna array to set the transmit beam pattern and to perform transmit beam pattern nulling by taking advantage of beamforming).
Regarding claim 18, Askar does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang discloses the first mobile station of claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors, to determine a relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, are configured to detect the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station based at least in part on the positioning reference signal associated with the second mobile station (Fig. 5, S520, [0119], [0122], [0127]-[0128] disclosing the base station sends to the first terminal device a first sidelink positioning reference signal configuration comprising second sidelink positioning reference signal configuration of a second sidelink positioning reference signal sent by the second terminal device; [0155], [0160] disclosing the first terminal device determines the angle of arrival AoA of the second sidelink positioning reference signal transmitted by the second terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the disclosure of Huang because this provides for more accuracy in positioning over conventional techniques ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 19, Askar does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang discloses the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, are configured to:
detect a location of the second mobile station using sidelink positioning (Fig. 5, S560, [0162], [0164] disclosing the second terminal device sends the first measurement value, comprising the position of the second terminal device, to the first terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the disclosure of Huang because this provides for more accuracy in positioning over conventional techniques ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 21, Askar does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang suggests the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, are configured to:
estimate a direction of interference from a signal transmitted by the second mobile station (Fig. 5, S520, [0119], [0126]-[0128] disclosing the base station sends to the first terminal device a first sidelink positioning reference signal configuration comprising second sidelink positioning reference signal configuration of a second sidelink positioning reference signal sent by the second terminal device; Fig. 5, S550, [0155], [0160] disclosing the first terminal device determines the angle of arrival AoA of the second sidelink positioning reference signal transmitted by the second terminal device).
Askar discloses the relative direction to the second mobile station is known by the first mobile station and used to determine which direction to steer null signals without specifically disclosing techniques for determining said relative direction ([0260] disclosing an interference direction; See Fig. 9, 208b2 and 208c1 [0239]; Fig. 10, N1, N2, [0241]-[0242] disclosing beam positions adjusted such that null positions N1 and N2 point towards each other); as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Huang for techniques on how to determine the relative location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the disclosure of Huang because this provides for more accuracy in positioning over conventional techniques ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 22, Askar does not expressly disclose the following; however, Huang discloses the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station, are configured to: receive, from the second mobile station via a sidelink channel, an indication of a location of the second mobile station (Fig. 5, S560, [0162]-[0164] disclosing the second terminal device sends the first measurement value through the PC5 interface, comprising the position of the second terminal device, to the first terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the disclosure of Huang because this provides for more accuracy in positioning over conventional techniques ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim is directed towards the method performed by the first user equipment of claim 1 wherein the indication received from the base station is based on a prediction of an extent of blockage of the downlink communication due to spatial nulling ([0242] disclosing based on the interference level reported for the UE, the base station controls UEs to align their respective nulls in the beam patterns to a correct direction; Such determination by the base station is necessarily a prediction, by the base station, based on the reported interference level that the interference will occur and that the spatial nulling applied will mitigate ethe interference).
Regarding claim 25, Askar discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the method further comprises:
estimating a channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station ([0141]-[0142] and [0159]-[0160] disclosing UE estimates inter-UE-interference by listening to pilots on the interference channel; [0283], [0285] disclosing UE 2022 transmits un the uplink and inter-UE-interference is estimated by listening to pilots in the interference channels); and
applying receive (Rx) nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station([0139] disclosing nulls in receive and/or transmit beam patterns; Figs. 9-10, [0239]-[0241]; Figs. 19-20, [0281]-[0283] disclosing techniques similar to Figs. 9 and 10 in which UE 2021 places a null in the receive pattern of Fig. 20) to reduce interference on the downlink communication from the uplink communication associated with the second mobile station (this is a feature of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claims; however, see Fig. 20, [0283] disclosing UE 2022 transmits on the uplink in the same timeslot as UE 2021 receives the downlink with the null in the receive pattern, [0282] disclosing so as to suppress inter-UE interference).
Regarding claim 27. Askar discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the method further comprises:
determining a channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station ([0141]-[0142] and [0159]-[0160] disclosing UE estimates inter-UE-interference by listening to pilots on the interference channel; [0283], [0285] disclosing UE 2022 transmits un the uplink and inter-UE-interference is estimated by listening to pilots in the interference channels; Use of reciprocity to determine a channel in the opposite direction is applicant’s admitted prior art, see Official Notice section below); and
applying transmit (Tx) nulling to transmission of another uplink communication to the base station ([0282 disclosing UE 2021 places a null in its transmission beam pattern when transmitting to the base station) to reduce interference from the other uplink communication on another downlink communication from the base station to the second mobile station ([0282] this is because the transmission from UE 2021 causes interference to UE 2022 which is receiving from the base station).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed towards an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising means and structures for performing the functions of claim 1. The prior art discloses equivalent means and structures as cited in the rejection of claim 1; therefore, claim 30 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 1.
Regarding claims 31-33, the claims are directed towards the method performed by the apparatus of claims 18-19 and 21; accordingly, claims 31-33 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 18-19 and 21.
Claim(s) 29 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askar et al. (US 2021/0051660 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0279313 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0178338 A1) in view of Xu (CN111181615A) citations correspond to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 29, Askar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first mobile station, cause the first mobile station to ([0301]):
receive, from the base station, an indication to use spatial nulling during reception of a downlink communication ([0125] disclosing the base station control the UEs to set the receive beam pattern and/or the transmit beam pattern; [0121] disclosing the beam patterns are set such that the radiation towards the base station is stronger than the radiation towards the other respective UE; [0122]-[0124] disclosing the use of beamforming to create a beam pattern such that a null pattern is directed towards the other respective UE; Fig. 9, [0236] disclosing the radiation patterns as spatial properties of the transmissions; [0139] disclosing nulls in receive and/or transmit beam patterns; Figs. 9-10, [0239]-[0241]; Figs. 19-20, [0281]-[0283] disclosing techniques similar to Figs. 9 and 10 disclosing while UE 2021 is receiving from the base station, said UE sets the receive beam pattern with a null towards UE 2022; [0242] disclosing the base station may control the UEs which interfere with one another to align the nulls of the beam pattern to a correct direction),
wherein the spatial nulling is configured, based at least in part on a relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station ([0121]-[0126] disclosing the UEs utilize beamforming to direct a null towards the direction os the other UE under the control of the base station such that he radiation pattern is stronger towards the base station than it is towards the other respective UE; [0260] disclosing an interference direction; See Fig. 9, 208b2 and 208c1 [0236] disclosing the radiation patterns as spatial properties of the transmissions [0239] disclosing the UEs can place the nulls in their transmission and reception beams, implicitly disclosing in order to steer the null towards the other UE, the first UE must have knowledge of the “relative direction”), to mitigate interference between an uplink communication from the second mobile station to the base station and the downlink communication from the base station to the first mobile station (The broadest reasonable interpretation of this functional language is the intended result of the use of spatial nulling. This is a feature does not limit the claim scope because one of ordinary skill in the art of spatial nulling would understand that the structure/functions already recited in the claim operates to achieve the intended result of mitigating interference by uplink transmissions from the other mobile station to reception of downlink signals from the base station; In any case, Askar discloses the same intended result at [0283] disclosing a UE placing a null in its receive beam pattern when receiving downlink form the base station such that interference from transmissions to the base station by the other UE is suppressed);; and
apply, by the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station ([0283] disclosing a UE placing a null in its receive beam pattern when receiving downlink form the base station such that interference from transmissions to the base station by the other UE is suppressed).
Askar discloses UEs capable of null-steering control their transmission (TX) and reception (RX) beams in order to steer a null in their TX and/or RX beam pattern in the direction of the interference to substantially reduce interference ([0261]-[0262]). Askar does not disclose how to determine the direction from which the interference originates. This one of ordinary skill in the art would need to solve the problem of determining the direction to/from other UEs that are causing interference.
Huang discloses receive, from a base station, an indication of a configuration of a positioning reference signal associated with a second mobile station (Fig. 5, S520, [0119], [0122], [0127]-[0128] disclosing the base station sends to the first terminal device a first sidelink positioning reference signal configuration comprising second sidelink positioning reference signal configuration of a second sidelink positioning reference signal sent by the second terminal device);
determine the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station based at least in part on the indication of the configuration of the positioning reference signal received from the base station (Fig. 5, S550, [0155], [0160] disclosing the first terminal device determines the angle of arrival AoA of the second sidelink positioning reference signal transmitted by the second terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the techniques of Huang (i.e. determine the angle of arrival of signals from other user equipment) to solve the problem of determining the direction to/from other UEs that are causing interference because the teaching lies in Huang that this overcomes positioning inaccuracies in techniques that rely on measurements between a network device (i.e., base station) and a user equipment ([0003]-[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these techniques based on the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the prior art disclosures.
Askar does not disclose the following; however, Ahn suggests apply, at the first mobile station, the spatial nulling during transmission of the uplink communication to the base station using one or more isolators to block transmission of signals in a direction of the second mobile station ([0309] disclosing a transmission (TX) beam and a reception (RX) beam can be identical through beam reciprocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar as taught by Ahn because this simplifies the process by only requiring determination of either the TX beam while omitting a process for determining the RX beam and vice versa ([0309]).
Xu suggests by using one or more reflectors to block reception of signals from a direction of the second mobile station (pp. 13-14 [0046] disclosing use of a smart reflective surface near the user equipment which can suppress interference between user terminals (i.e., isolate the interference otherwise experienced by the terminals)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar as taught by Xu because smart reflective surfaces can overcome severe interference, are easy to deploy, are low cost and light weight ([0046]).
Regarding claim 34, Askar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first mobile station to:
apply receive (Rx) nulling during reception of the downlink communication from the base station ([0139] disclosing nulls in receive and/or transmit beam patterns; Figs. 9-10, [0239]-[0241]; Figs. 19-20, [0281]-[0283] disclosing techniques similar to Figs. 9 and 10 in which UE 2021 places a null in the receive pattern of Fig. 20) to reduce interference on the downlink communication from the uplink communication associated with the second mobile station (this is a feature of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claims; however, see Fig. 20, [0283] disclosing UE 2022 transmits on the uplink in the same timeslot as UE 2021 receives the downlink with the null in the receive pattern, [0282] disclosing so as to suppress inter-UE interference).
Regarding claim 35, Askar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the first mobile station to:
apply transmit (Tx) nulling to transmission of another uplink communication to the base station ([0282 disclosing UE 2021 places a null in its transmission beam pattern when transmitting to the base station) to reduce interference from the other uplink communication on another downlink communication from the base station to the second mobile station ([0282] this is because the transmission from UE 2021 causes interference to UE 2022 which is receiving from the base station).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askar et al. (US 2021/0051660 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0279313 A1) in view of Xu (CN111181615A), further in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0112420 A1), hereafter Xu2.
Regarding claim 4, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors, to estimate the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station, are configured to:
estimate the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station from a transmission of the uplink reference signal by the second mobile station (Fig. 20, [0283]-[0285] disclosing UE 2022 transmits un the uplink and inter-UE-interference is estimated by listening to pilots in the interference channels).
Askar does not disclose the following, however, Xu2 discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the base station, an indication of a configuration of an uplink reference signal associated with the second mobile station and estimate the channel based at least in part on the indication of the configuration of the uplink reference signal (Fig. 3, 320, 330, [0038]; Fig. 2, 228, [0042]; Fig. 5, 550, [0046] and [0112]-[0120] disclosing the UE can be configured by the base station for measuring cross link interference based on reference signals such as SRS and DMRS transmitted from other UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the invention of Xu2 because this provides more flexible techniques for measuring and mitigating cross-link interference ([0007]).
Regarding claim 11, Askar discloses the first mobile station of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors, to determine the channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station, are configured to:
estimate a channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station from a transmission of the uplink reference signal by the second mobile station ([0141]-[0142] and [0159]-[0160] disclosing UE estimates inter-UE-interference by listening to pilots on the interference channel; [0283], [0285] disclosing UE 2022 transmits un the uplink and inter-UE-interference is estimated by listening to pilots in the interference channels); and
estimate the channel from the first mobile station to the second mobile station based at least in part on the channel from the second mobile station to the first mobile station and channel reciprocity between the first mobile station and the second mobile station ([0225] disclosing use of channel reciprocity by the base station for channel estimation of the downlink. Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that channel reciprocity can be used to estimate a channel in the forward direction (i.e., from the first mobile station to the second mobile station) based on the estimate if the channel in the reverse direction (i.e., from the second mobile station to the first mobile station) Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Askar in this way in order to reduce the overhead of transferring such interference reports via the sidelink or the base station as disclosed at [0141]).
Askar does not disclose the following; however, Xu2 discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the base station, an indication of a configuration of an uplink reference signal associated with the second mobile station (Fig. 3, 320, 330, [0038]; Fig. 2, 228, [0042]; Fig. 5, 550, [0046] and [0112]-[0120] disclosing the UE can be configured by the base station for measuring cross link interference based on reference signals such as SRS and DMRS transmitted from other UEs; [0064]-[0065] disclosing SRS and DMRS as uplink signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Askar with the invention of Xu because this provides more flexible techniques for measuring and mitigating cross-link interference ([0007]).
Regarding claim 26, the claim is directed towards the method performed by the first mobile station if claim 4; therefore, claim 26 is rejected on the grounds presented above for claim 4.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askar et al. (US 2021/0051660 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0279313 A1) in view of Xu (CN111181615A), further in view of Chae et al. (US 2019/0245592 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Askar does not disclose the following; however, Chae suggests the first mobile station of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from the base station a location of the second mobile station, wherein the relative direction between the first mobile station and the second mobile station is determined using the location of the second mobile station ([0112] disclosing use of location information of a peer or neighboring user equipment can be used to search for a beam based on the area in which the peer UE is located; [0114] disclosing a eNB or RSU (i.e., a base station) broadcasts the location information of the neighboring UE), or
At the time of the invention there was a recognized problem in the art of reducing interference between user equipment when their beam patterns were aligned as evidenced by the teaching in Askar. Askar recognized the need for a manner in which to enable user equipment to align respective nulls in the beam patterns to a correct direction to reduce such interference. At the time of the invention there was a known finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions for aligning beam patterns with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art with the disclosure of Askar in hand would look for one predictable potential solution for aligning beam patterns in the manner taught by Askar. Based on the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the prior art teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the use of Chae’s location information to aligning the beam nulls of Askar. When one of ordinary skill in the art read the teaching in Chae in light of the disclosure of Askar, they would have found it obvious to try the techniques of Chae to align the null patterns of Askar based on the location information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the techniques of Chae to align the beam nulls of Askar.
Official Notice
Applicant has failed to traverse examiner’s statement of Official notice in the rejection of claim 11 in the office action mailed on 25 September 2023. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments have effectively overcome the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in the previous office action. However, applicant’s amendments has introduced issues with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed above in the grounds of rejection. Applicant is advised to carefully review amendments prior to submitting them to the Office in order to prevent such issues in the future.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Examiner accepts applicant’s admission on the record that Askar discloses nulling of beam patterns to mitigate interference (pg. 17, lines 7-12).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hessler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,141,988 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461