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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 02/12/2026. Claims 1, 2, 20-22, and 29-30 have been amended. Claim 16 have been canceled. Claim 15 was previously canceled. Therefore, claims 1-14 and 17-30 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 20, 29, and 30 filed on 02/12/2026 regarding “wherein the set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” have been carefully considered but they are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserted that:
Kim is generally directed to "a method of measuring remote cross-link interference and a UE therefor." Abstract. At the portions cited by the Office Action, Kim describes "a ULE and a base station (BS) which support full-duplex radio (FDR)." Id. [0003]. With reference to Figure 12, Kim discusses "an example of allocating different frequency resources to a downlink reference signal (DL RS) and an uplink reference signal (UL RS)." Id. [0136]. Specifically, Kim describes how "different frequency or physical resources are used for the DL RS and the UL RS so that orthogonality between the DL RS and the UL RS may be maintained and distinguished... the DL RS is non-continuously configured and the UL RS is non-continuously configured using frequency or physical resources which are not used for the DL RS.” Id. Para [0137], Figure 12.
Kim therefore describes how downlink and uplink resources may be configured orthogonally, using different frequency or physical resources, or through non-continuous configuration. The resource allocation scheme described in Kim, however, does not teach or suggest "[measuring] respective reference signals of the first set of reference signals received in each subband of a set of subbands of a set of cross-link interference resources of a bandwidth part to obtain the cross-link interference channel measurements, wherein the set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part" as recited in amended independent claim 1. For example, Kim does not teach or suggest a subband full-duplex system, but instead describes a UE and a base station that are configured generally for full-duplex radio. In addition, while Kim's uplink and downlink resources are orthogonally configured to be non-overlapping, Kim does not teach or suggest "cross-link interference resources [that] are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part" as recited in amended independent claim 1.
(The asserted portion of Applicant’s argument, pages 12-13)
The examiner acknowledges that Kim primarily focuses on an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (FDM) layout for reference signals as described in para [0137]. However the Applicant’s contention overlooks the common knowledge in the art at the time of the invention and fails to consider the explicit teaching of Oh et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240236736, hereinafter “Oh”), which is hereby combined with Ly and Kim under 35 USC § 103. The claimed limitation requiring a “set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” was fully known and routine in the art to the Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by Oh.
Oh explicitly teaches a duplex system architecture designed to flexibly divide resources in the frequency domain. In paragraph [0362], Oh discloses: “The system that may flexibly divide the uplink resource and downlink resource in the time domain and/or frequency domain may be referred to as an XDD system, … subband full duplex system, … and, for convenience of description, it is referred to as an XDD system in the disclosure. …”
Furthermore, paragraph [0416] of Oh explicitly links this system’s localized interference measurement to a specific “The downlink signal/channel-based adjacent channel leakage interference may be measured based on the time/frequency resource information (e.g., RE mapping pattern) of the downlink signal or channel including at least one of the CSI-RS resource, DL rate matching resource, DL OFDM symbol location, DL PRB/subband location, or DL BWP,” directly satisfying the claimed constraint of operating within a bandwidth part.
Oh directly establishes that the adjacent channel leakage (ACL) interference occurring in these duplex system is synonymous with, and interchangeably used as, Cross-Link Interference (CLI) (paragraphs 0391-0392) of Oh).
To address the frequency-domain imbalance of this cross-link interference, Oh explicitly teaches configuring CLI measurement resources into a subband structure. Paragraph [0413] of Oh discloses: “a subband report may be introduced to properly report imbalance per frequency resource of adjacent channel leakage interference. In other words, the base station may transmit configuration information to instruct to report the SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI for at least one subband …” This directly maps to the claimed “set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications ...”
Crucially, Oh fully discloses the exact claimed step of measuring specific reference signals within each individual subband to derive localized CLI channel measurements. Paragraphs [0418 and 0422] of Oh explicitly states:
[0418] In an embodiment, the base station may measure CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, or RSSI from the downlink signal received from an adjacent base station based on the time and frequency resources of the adjacent channel leakage interference for each subband, and share them between base stations.
[0422] To measure the adjacent channel leakage interference according to one of the above-described embodiments, when a report for at least one of the CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, and RSSI is configured in the UE, and a frequency resource (e.g., at least one subband) for the report is configured, the UE may calculate “the linear average over the power contribution (in [W])” of Tables 36 and 39, separately per subband.
Oh, therefore, clearly teaches the claimed limitation “wherein the set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” as recited in amended claim 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to enhance the performance and accuracy of Kim’s remote CLI mitigation framework, would have found it entirely obvious to utilize the subband-specific full-duplex CLI measurement architecture explicitly taught by Oh. Oh provides a direct motivation to combine by stating that measuring and sharing subband-level adjacent channel leakage (CLI) interference is vital to “enhance the performance of the XDD system, such as maximizing the reception performance and minimizing the guard band.” (paragraph [0398] of Oh). Applying the combination of Ly and Kim (BS-to-BS reference signal tracking) to the subband-level full-duplex resource blocks of Oh is a predictable combination of prior art elements yielding expected results.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 20-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (WO 2020/024081 A1; hereinafter “Ly”), in view of Kim et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210321417, hereinafter “Kim”), and further in view of Oh et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240236736, hereinafter “Oh”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Ly unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims 1, 20, 29, and 30:
Regarding claim 1, Ly teaches An apparatus for wireless communication at a first base station [FIG. 7, a BS 710b (“victim BS”)], comprising:
one or more memories [FIG. 4, Memory 442]; and
one or more processors [FIG. 4, Processor 440] coupled with the one or more memories and configured to:
receive, before receiving a first set of reference signals, a plurality of second sets of reference signals (Para [0071]; A victim BS can receive the RIM RS, determine the RIM RS (interpreted as “a plurality of second sets of reference signals”) is from the aggressor BS) (Para [0073]; a RS design for a RIM RS to be transmitted by a BS (e.g., a potential aggressor BS) (e.g., transmitted periodically) so that one or more other BSs (e.g., potential victim BSs) can receive the RIM RS, determine the BS that transmitted the RIM RS, and measure the interference from the BS that transmitted the RIM RS.) (Examiner’s note: as disclosed in para [0073] of Ly, a RIM RS to be transmitted by a BS (e.g., a potential aggressor BS) (e.g., transmitted periodically). Thus, a RIM RS transmitted in first period corresponds to “a plurality of second sets of reference signals” and a RIM RS transmitted in second period corresponds to “a first set of reference signals”), wherein each second set of reference signals of the plurality of second sets of reference signals is from a respective aggressor base station (Para [0073]; a RIM RS to be transmitted by a BS (e.g., a potential aggressor BS)) of multiple aggressor base stations (FIG. 1, BSs 110a-110z), wherein a second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations based at least in part on the plurality of second sets of reference signals (Para [0073]; a RS design for a RIM RS to be transmitted by a BS (e.g., a potential aggressor BS) (e.g., transmitted periodically) so that one or more other BSs (e.g., potential victim BSs) can receive the RIM RS, determine the BS that transmitted the RIM RS.). (Further, in claim 19 of Ly, Ly discloses “wherein the RS comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH), wherein receiving the RS comprises receiving the PRACH multiple times, and further comprising: determining if the PRACH received multiple times is received according to a pattern in time; and when the PRACH is received according to the pattern in time, determining the PRACH is associated with the second BS.”), and wherein each aggressor base station of the multiple aggressor base stations transmits downlink signals that interfere with uplink signals at the first base station (Para [0068] … In particular, the DL transmissions from BS 710a may be received at BS 710b and interfere with the UL transmissions from UE 720b received at BS 710b);
receive the first set of reference signals from the second base station of the multiple aggressor base stations…, (Para [0071]; A victim BS can receive the RIM RS, determine the RIM RS is from the aggressor BS, and perform interference measurements based on the RIM RS (interpreted as “the first set of reference signals”).) (Examiner’s note: The aggressor BS of Ly transmits a RIM RS periodically (see para [0073] of Ly). The victim BS identifies (determines) the aggressor BS based on the RIM RS received in first period (interpreted as “a plurality of second sets of reference signals”), and measure the interference from the identified BS based on the RIM RS received in second period (interpreted as “the first set of reference signals”). Thus, a RIM RS, received after the aggressor BS is identified(determined), is corresponded to “a first set of reference signals”, (see claims 17 and 19 of Ly, “when the PRACH is received according to the pattern in time, determining the PRACH is associated with the second BS” in claim 19 and “performing interference measurement … based on the RS being associated with the second BS” of claim 17)) (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim), the first set of reference signals associated with cross-link interference channel measurements (Para [0074]; the RIM RS could be …a channel state information-RS (CSI-RS) (interpreted as “first set of reference signals associated with cross-link interference channel measurements”));
(The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim and Oh)
perform one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements, (Para [0072] … the aggressor BS and the victim BS can further perform remote interference mitigation based on the measured remote interference. For example, the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS, and the aggressor BS can adjust its DL transmissions (e.g., timing, transmit power, beamforming, etc.). In another example, the victim BS can adjust its processing of transmissions (e.g., using receiver side beamforming, etc.)) (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim).
Ly does not explicitly disclose the limitations “receive the first set of reference signals from the second base station of the multiple aggressor base stations based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals, wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations,” “measure respective reference signals of the first set of reference signals received
in each sub band of a set of sub bands of a set of cross-link interference resources of a bandwidth part to obtain the cross-link interference channel measurements, wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part; and”, and “the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprising at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel.”
Kim is directed to a method of measuring remote cross-link interference.
Kim discloses the claimed limitation:
“receive the first set of reference signals from the second base station of the multiple aggressor base stations based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals, wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations” [para [0266] of Kim; the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information from the aggressor gNB through the RS … The configuration information may include a frequency-domain indication and a time-domain indication. In addition, the configuration information may include a cell/cluster ID, a remote CLI level, and an interference management technique candidate.][para [0302] of Kim; 3. Step 3: The aggressor gNB may detect the first RS broadcast by the victim gNB and feedback corresponding information for RIM via OTA signaling. In order for the victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNB, the aggressor gNB may transmit a second RS. The corresponding information for RIM may include at least one of a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a group ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster ID of the aggressor gNB, or a power level of remote interference.][para [0303] of Kim; 4. Step 4: The victim gNB measures the second RS received from the aggressor gNB.) (para [0303] of Kim; 6. Step 6: Step 1 to step 5 are repeated until a predefined condition is satisfied.). As discussed in paragraphs [0300-0305] of Kim, the victim gNB (“first BS”) identifies the aggressor gNB (“the second BS”) among the neighboring BSs through the previously received configuration information and the corresponding information (e.g. cell ID of aggressor gNB) received in step 3. Step 1 to 5 are repeated until a predefined condition is satisfied. The victim gNB may receive the second RS (“first set of reference signals from the second base station”) based on the configuration information associated with the second RS (The second RS that the aggressor gNB transmits to the victim gNB may include the cell ID, the group ID, and/or the cluster ID of the aggressor gNB. See para [0241] of Kim) in the repeated step 4. Therefore, Kim teaches the limitation “receives the first set of reference signals from the second base station of the multiple aggressor base stations based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals”.
“wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations” (Additionally, in repeated step 3 of Kim (see paragraphs [0302 and 0305] of Kim, which is repeated after the aggressor gNB is identified (based on the received second RS) in the previous step 4, the configuration with the aggressor gNB is established by receiving the corresponding information. Therefore, Kim teaches the above recited limitation.
“measure respective reference signals of the first set of reference signals received in each sub band of a set of sub bands of a set of cross-link interference resources of a bandwidth part to obtain the cross-link interference channel measurements, wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part (FIG. 12 and para [0136] of Kim; FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an example of allocating different frequency resources to a DL RS and a UL RS, for cross-link interference measurement) (Examiner’s note: different frequency resources shown in FIG. 12 of Kim is corresponded to the claimed language “each subband of a set of subbands”). FIG. 12 of Kim is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(FIG. 12 of Kim, annotated)
the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprising at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel. (para [0217] of Kim; when remote CLI occurs, only symbols of a specific number of a received UL signal are affected by remote CLI, so that a remote CLI signal is included in the UL signal. For example, the UL signal may be transmitted in units of subframes or slots and symbols included in the front part of a UL subframe or a UL slot (i.e., some symbols of the UL subframe or UL slot) in the time domain are subjected to remote CLI. Therefore, for more precise mitigation or cancellation of remote CLI, interference measurement and estimation at the symbol level are required. Remote CLI may be predicted depending on interference measurement and estimation.)(para [0235] of Kim; [Method of Configuring RS Transmitted to Make Request to Victim gNB for Measurement of Remote CLI by Aggressor gNB) (para [0236] of Kim; As described above, the victim gNB may predict information about remote CLI generated by the aggressor gNB with respect thereto, based on an RS (second RS) transmitted by the aggressor gNB. The victim gNB may distinguish the aggressor gNB that generates interference, based on the second RS transmitted by the aggressor gNB. The victim gNB may analyze remote CLI based on the second RS. As described above, a remote interference channel may maintain reciprocity. The victim gNB may directly or indirectly estimate remote CLI that the aggressor gNB generates with respect to the victim gNB, based on the second RS transmitted by the aggressor gNB to the victim gNB, by the reciprocal remote interference channel.) (para [0264] of Kim; FIG. 23 illustrates a method of reducing remote CLI by controlling UL resources by a victim gNB according to the present disclosure.)(para [0265] of Kim; [UL Symbol Backoff at Victim gNB]) (para [0266] of Kim; In the method of reducing remote CLI according to the present disclosure, the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information from the aggressor gNB through the RS or backhaul signal. Based on the configuration information, the victim gNB may process a UL symbol of a specific location in order to avoid remote CLI from the aggressor gNB. The configuration information may include a frequency-domain indication and a time-domain indication. In addition, the configuration information may include a cell/cluster ID, a remote CLI level, and an interference management technique candidate (interpreted as “based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel”). The configuration information may be referred to as backoff information.) (para [0268] of Kim; Referring to FIG. 23, remote CLI may be avoided by not using UL resources that temporally overlap with a DL signal of the aggressor gNB in time, based on information corresponding to the time domain among the configuration information. For example, UL symbols of a UL slot of the victim gNB overlapping the location of DL symbols corresponding to remote CLI of the aggressor gNB may be punctured or specific symbols may be muted. (interpreted as “at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel.”))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify a base station of LY by using the features of Kim in order to mute the uplink signals associated with the set of cross-link interference resources. The rationale for doing so would have been to achieve better interference cancellation or mitigation procedures in frequency domain.
The combination of Ly and Kim fail to explicitly disclose the limitation “wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part”.
In analogous art, Oh explicitly teaches “wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” (para [0362] of Oh: … The system that may flexibly divide the uplink resource and downlink resource in the time domain and/or frequency domain may be referred to as an XDD system, flexible TDD system, hybrid TDD system, TDD-FDD system, hybrid TDD-FDD system, subband full duplex system, or dynamic TDD system and, for convenience of description, it is referred to as an XDD system in the disclosure. ...) (para [0416]: The downlink signal/channel-based adjacent channel leakage interference may be measured based on the time/frequency resource information (e.g., RE mapping pattern) of the downlink signal or channel including at least one of the CSI-RS resource, DL rate matching resource, DL OFDM symbol location, DL PRB/subband location, or DL BWP.) (paragraphs [0391-0392]: In the disclosure, for convenience of description, the uplink leakage signal received together when the desired downlink signal is received, or the downlink leakage signal received together when the desired uplink signal is received is collectively referred to as adjacent channel leakage (ACL) interference. The ACL may be interchangeably used with other terms meaning uplink signal measurement and reporting by the UE, such as cross-link interference (CLI).)
To address the frequency-domain imbalance of this cross-link interference, Oh explicitly teaches configuring CLI measurement resources into a subband structure. Paragraph [0413] of Oh discloses: “a subband report may be introduced to properly report imbalance per frequency resource of adjacent channel leakage interference. In other words, the base station may transmit configuration information to instruct to report the SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI for at least one subband …” This directly maps to the claimed “set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications ...”
Crucially, Oh fully discloses the exact claimed step of measuring specific reference signals within each individual subband to derive localized CLI channel measurements. Paragraphs [0418 and 0422] of Oh explicitly states:
[0418] In an embodiment, the base station may measure CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, or RSSI from the downlink signal received from an adjacent base station based on the time and frequency resources of the adjacent channel leakage interference for each subband, and share them between base stations.
[0422] To measure the adjacent channel leakage interference according to one of the above-described embodiments, when a report for at least one of the CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, and RSSI is configured in the UE, and a frequency resource (e.g., at least one subband) for the report is configured, the UE may calculate “the linear average over the power contribution (in [W])” of Tables 36 and 39, separately per subband.
Oh, therefore, clearly teaches the claimed limitation “wherein the set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” as recited in amended claim 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the BS-to-BS remote Cross-Link Interference (CLI) mitigation framework of Ly and Kim with the subband full-duplex (SB-FD) localized resource allocation and subband-level reference signal measurement techniques explicitly taught by Oh. Specifically, Ly and Kim establish the foundation framework for an affected victim base station to detect remote cross-link interference, identify a specific transmitting aggressor base station using a preliminary reference signal tracking mechanism, and subsequently establish network configurations to execute an interference mitigation procedure (e.g., symbol muting/backoff). Oh explicitly teaches a subband full-duplex (SB-FD) architecture operating within a specific bandwidth par (BWP), where cross-link interference resources are structured into a set of subbands, and the base station measures incoming downlink reference signals (e.g., CSI-RS) from adjacent base stations separately per each individual subband to acquire granular CLI channel measurements. Oh provides a direct motivation to combine by stating that measuring and sharing subband-level adjacent channel leakage (CLI) interference is vital to “enhance the performance of the XDD system, such as maximizing the reception performance and minimizing the guard band.” (paragraph [0398] of Oh). Applying the combination of Ly and Kim (BS-to-BS reference signal tracking) to the subband-level full-duplex resource blocks of Oh is a predictable combination of prior art elements yielding expected results.
Regarding claim 20, Ly teaches An apparatus for wireless communication at a first base station (FIG. 7, a BS 710a (“aggressor BS”)), comprising:
one or more memories (FIG. 4, Memory 442); and
one or more processors (FIG. 4, Processor 440) coupled with the one or more memories and configured to:
transmit, to a second base station, a first set of reference signals based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals, (Para [0073]; a RIM RS (interpreted as “a first set of reference signals”) to be transmitted by a BS (e.g., a potential aggressor BS)) (Para [0074]; the RIM RS could be one of a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block (sometimes referred to as a synchronization signal block (SSB)), a channel state information-RS (CSI-RS), a tracking reference signal (TRS), a positioning RS (PRS), a physical random access channel (PRACH), or a sounding RS (SRS).) (Examiner’s note: a RIM RS transmitted in first period corresponds to “a second set of reference signals” and a RIM RS transmitted in second period corresponds to “a first set of reference signals”], (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim), and wherein the first base station is one of the multiple aggressor base stations that each transmit downlink signals that interfere with uplink signals at the second base station (Para [0068] … In particular, the DL transmissions from BS 710a may be received at BS 710b and interfere with the UL transmissions from UE 720b received at BS 710b);
receive, from the second base station, a measurement report comprising an indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements (Para [0072] the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS,) (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim and Oh) and
perform one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements (Para [0072] … the aggressor BS and the victim BS can further perform remote interference mitigation based on the measured remote interference. For example, the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS, and the aggressor BS can adjust its DL transmissions (e.g., timing, transmit power, beamforming, etc.). In another example, the victim BS can adjust its processing of transmissions (e.g., using receiver side beamforming, etc.)), the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprising at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel. (The missing/crossed out limitation will be discussed in view of Kim).
Ly does not explicitly disclose the limitation “transmit, to a second base station, a first set of reference signals based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals, wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations, …”, “wherein the second base station is identified as a victim base station based at least in part on a plurality of second sets of reference signals received from the second base station by the first base station before the first set of reference signals is transmitted,” “an indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements that are based at least in part on respective reference signals of the first set of reference signals received in each subband of a set of subbands of a set of cross-link interference resources of a bandwidth part, wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band fullduplex communications within the bandwidth part”, and “the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprising at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel.”
Kim is directed to a method of measuring remote cross-link interference.
Kim discloses the claimed limitation “transmit, to a second base station, a first set of reference signals based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals, wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations,” (para [0266] of Kim; the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information from the aggressor gNB through the RS) (para [0302] of Kim; 3. Step 3: The aggressor gNB may detect the first RS broadcast by the victim gNB and feedback corresponding information for RIM via OTA signaling. In order for the victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNB, the aggressor gNB may transmit a second RS. The corresponding information for RIM may include at least one of a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a group ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster ID of the aggressor gNB, or a power level of remote interference.) (para [0303] of Kim; 4. Step 4: The victim gNB measures the second RS received from the aggressor gNB.) (para [0303] of Kim; 6. Step 6: Step 1 to step 5 are repeated until a predefined condition is satisfied.). As discussed in paragraphs [0300-0305] of Kim, the victim gNB (“first BS”) identifies the aggressor gNB (“the second BS”) among the neighboring BSs through the previously received configuration information and the corresponding information (e.g. cell ID of aggressor gNB) received in step 3. Step 1 to 5 are repeated until a predefined condition is satisfied. The aggressor gNB transmits the second RS (“first set of reference signals”) based on the configuration information associated with the second RS (The second RS that the aggressor gNB transmits to the victim gNB may include the cell ID, the group ID, and/or the cluster ID of the aggressor gNB. See para [0241] of Kim) in the repeated step 4.] Therefore, Kim teaches the limitation “transmit, to a second base station, a first set of reference signals based at least in part on a configuration associated with the first set of reference signals,”. Additionally, in repeated step 3, which is repeated after the aggressor gNB is identified (based on the received second RS) in the previous step 4, the configuration with the aggressor gNB is established by receiving the corresponding information. Therefore, Kim teaches the limitation “wherein the configuration is established with the second base station after the second base station is identified from the multiple aggressor base stations”.
Kim discloses the limitation “wherein the second base station is identified as a victim base station based at least in part on a plurality of second sets of reference signals received from the second base station by the first base station before the first set of reference signals is transmitted,” (para [0302] of Kim; 3. Step 3: The aggressor gNB may detect the first RS broadcast by the victim gNB and feedback corresponding information for RIM via OTA signaling. In order for the victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNB, the aggressor gNB may transmit a second RS (interpreted as “the first set of reference signals”)).
Kim discloses the limitation “an indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements that are based at least in part on respective reference signals of the first set of reference signals received in each subband of a set of subbands of a set of cross-link interference resources of a bandwidth part” (FIG. 12 and para [0136] of Kim; FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an example of allocating different frequency resources to a DL RS and a UL RS, for cross-link interference measurement) (Examiner’s note: different frequency resources shown in FIG. 12 of Kim is corresponded to the claimed language “each subband of a set of subbands”).
Kim further discloses the limitation “the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprising at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel” (para [0217] of Kim; when remote CLI occurs, only symbols of a specific number of a received UL signal are affected by remote CLI, so that a remote CLI signal is included in the UL signal. For example, the UL signal may be transmitted in units of subframes or slots and symbols included in the front part of a UL subframe or a UL slot (i.e., some symbols of the UL subframe or UL slot) in the time domain are subjected to remote CLI. Therefore, for more precise mitigation or cancellation of remote CLI, interference measurement and estimation at the symbol level are required. Remote CLI may be predicted depending on interference measurement and estimation.][para [0235] of Kim; [Method of Configuring RS Transmitted to Make Request to Victim gNB for Measurement of Remote CLI by Aggressor gNB]] (para [0265] of Kim; [UL Symbol Backoff at Victim gNB])(para [0266] of Kim; In the method of reducing remote CLI according to the present disclosure, the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information from the aggressor gNB through the RS or backhaul signal. Based on the configuration information, the victim gNB may process a UL symbol of a specific location in order to avoid remote CLI from the aggressor gNB. The configuration information may include a frequency-domain indication and a time-domain indication. In addition, the configuration information may include a cell/cluster ID, a remote CLI level, and an interference management technique candidate (interpreted as “based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel”). The configuration information may be referred to as backoff information.) (para [0268] of Kim; Referring to FIG. 23, remote CLI may be avoided by not using UL resources that temporally overlap with a DL signal of the aggressor gNB in time, based on information corresponding to the time domain among the configuration information. For example, UL symbols of a UL slot of the victim gNB overlapping the location of DL symbols corresponding to remote CLI of the aggressor gNB may be punctured or specific symbols may be muted. (interpreted as “at least muting uplink resources within the set of cross-link interference resources, wherein the muting is based at least in part on the cross-link interference channel measurements communicated via an inter-base station channel.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify a base station of LY by using the features of Kim in order to mute the uplink signals associated with the set of cross-link interference resources. The rationale for doing so would have been to achieve better interference cancellation or mitigation procedures in frequency domain.
The combination of Ly and Kim fail to explicitly disclose the limitation “wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band fullduplex communications within the bandwidth part”.
In analogous art, Oh explicitly teaches “wherein the set of sub bands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for sub band full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” (para [0362] of Oh: … The system that may flexibly divide the uplink resource and downlink resource in the time domain and/or frequency domain may be referred to as an XDD system, flexible TDD system, hybrid TDD system, TDD-FDD system, hybrid TDD-FDD system, subband full duplex system, or dynamic TDD system and, for convenience of description, it is referred to as an XDD system in the disclosure. ...) (para [0416]: The downlink signal/channel-based adjacent channel leakage interference may be measured based on the time/frequency resource information (e.g., RE mapping pattern) of the downlink signal or channel including at least one of the CSI-RS resource, DL rate matching resource, DL OFDM symbol location, DL PRB/subband location, or DL BWP.) (paragraphs [0391-0392]: In the disclosure, for convenience of description, the uplink leakage signal received together when the desired downlink signal is received, or the downlink leakage signal received together when the desired uplink signal is received is collectively referred to as adjacent channel leakage (ACL) interference. The ACL may be interchangeably used with other terms meaning uplink signal measurement and reporting by the UE, such as cross-link interference (CLI).)
To address the frequency-domain imbalance of this cross-link interference, Oh explicitly teaches configuring CLI measurement resources into a subband structure. Paragraph [0413] of Oh discloses: “a subband report may be introduced to properly report imbalance per frequency resource of adjacent channel leakage interference. In other words, the base station may transmit configuration information to instruct to report the SRS-RSRP or CLI-RSSI for at least one subband …” This directly maps to the claimed “set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications ...”
Crucially, Oh fully discloses the exact claimed step of measuring specific reference signals within each individual subband to derive localized CLI channel measurements. Paragraphs [0418 and 0422] of Oh explicitly states:
[0418] In an embodiment, the base station may measure CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, or RSSI from the downlink signal received from an adjacent base station based on the time and frequency resources of the adjacent channel leakage interference for each subband, and share them between base stations.
[0422] To measure the adjacent channel leakage interference according to one of the above-described embodiments, when a report for at least one of the CSI-RSRP, CSI-RSRQ, CSI-SINR, and RSSI is configured in the UE, and a frequency resource (e.g., at least one subband) for the report is configured, the UE may calculate “the linear average over the power contribution (in [W])” of Tables 36 and 39, separately per subband.
Oh, therefore, clearly teaches the claimed limitation “wherein the set of subbands of the set of cross-link interference resources are configured for subband full-duplex communications within the bandwidth part” as recited in amended claim 1.
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the BS-to-BS remote Cross-Link Interference (CLI) mitigation framework of Ly and Kim with the subband full-duplex (SB-FD) localized resource allocation and subband-level reference signal measurement techniques explicitly taught by Oh. Specifically, Ly and Kim establish the foundation framework for an affected victim base station to detect remote cross-link interference, identify a specific transmitting aggressor base station using a preliminary reference signal tracking mechanism, and subsequently establish network configurations to execute an interference mitigation procedure (e.g., symbol muting/backoff). Oh explicitly teaches a subband full-duplex (SB-FD) architecture operating within a specific bandwidth par (BWP), where cross-link interference resources are structured into a set of subbands, and the base station measures incoming downlink reference signals (e.g., CSI-RS) from adjacent base stations separately per each individual subband to acquire granular CLI channel measurements. Oh provides a direct motivation to combine by stating that measuring and sharing subband-level adjacent channel leakage (CLI) interference is vital to “enhance the performance of the XDD system, such as maximizing the reception performance and minimizing the guard band.” (paragraph [0398] of Oh). Applying the combination of Ly and Kim (BS-to-BS reference signal tracking) to the subband-level full-duplex resource blocks of Oh is a predictable combination of prior art elements yielding expected results.
Regarding claim 29, it is directed to a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, it is directed to a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 20, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 20.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Kim further teaches:
transmit, to each aggressor base station of the multiple aggressor base stations, one or more reference signals based at least in part on an uplink signal of the first base station being affected by cross-link interference [Para [0196] of Kim; The victim gNB identifies that remote CLI has occurred.][Para [0197] of Kim; The victim gNB broadcasts a predetermined signal (interpreted as “one or more reference signals”) to complain to aggressor gNBs about occurrence of remote CLI.]; and
receive, from each aggressor base station of the multiple aggressor base stations, a plurality of one or more additional reference signals of the plurality of second sets of reference signals in response to the one or more reference signals, wherein the second base station is identified based at least in part on one or more additional reference signals received from the second base station satisfying a threshold interference level [Para [0198] of Kim; The aggressor gNB detects the complaint signal transmitted by the victim gNB and then broadcasts a predetermined RS (interpreted as “a plurality of one or more additional reference signals”) to inform the victim gNB of information for resolving remote CLI (e.g., a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster/group ID to which the aggressor gNB belongs, remote interference power, etc.] [Para [0196] of Kim; The victim gNB identifies that remote CLI has occurred. (interpreted as “satisfying a threshold interference level”)].
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2 where claim 21 recited similar claimed limitation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Ly teaches:
receive one or more reference signals of a second set of reference signals of the plurality of second sets of reference signals from the second base station, the one or more reference signals comprising an identifier of the second base station [Para [0071]; A victim BS can receive the RIM RS, determine the RIM RS (interpreted as “one or more reference signals of a second set of reference signals”) is from the aggressor BS]; and
determine that the one or more reference signals satisfy a threshold interference level [Para [0073]; measure the interference from the BS that transmitted the RIM RS.],
Ly, however, does not explicitly disclose the limitation “the one or more reference signals comprising an identifier of the second base station” and “wherein the second base station is identified based at least in part on the identifier of the second base station and the determination that the one or more reference signals satisfy the threshold interference level.”
Kim discloses the claimed limitation “the one or more reference signals comprising an identifier of the second base station” and “wherein the second base station is identified based at least in part on the identifier of the second base station and the determination that the one or more reference signals satisfy the threshold interference level.” [Para [0198] of Kim; The aggressor gNB … broadcasts a predetermined RS (interpreted as “the one or more reference signals comprising an identifier of the second base station”) to inform the victim gNB of information for resolving remote CLI (e.g., a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster/group ID to which the aggressor gNB belongs, remote interference power, etc.]
Regarding claim 4, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Kim discloses
determine one or more beam directions used by the second base station for transmitting the downlink signals based at least in part on a quasi co-location relationship between the first set of reference signals and the plurality of second sets of reference signals, wherein the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures are based at least in part on the one or more beam directions [Paragraphs [0315-0316] of Kim; a quasi-static TDD configuration may be assumed.] [Para [0338] of Kim, Referring to FIG. 24, the aggressor gNB may change DL beamforming to remove remote CLI by down-tilting a Tx beam.].
Regarding claim 5, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Kim discloses
receive, from the second base station, a message indicating the configuration of the first set of reference signals, wherein the configuration of the first set of reference signals comprises one or more types of reference signals used for the first set of reference signals, time and frequency resources associated with the first set of reference signals, port information associated with the first set of reference signals, or any combination thereof [Para [0266] of Kim; the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information (interpreted as “a message indicating a configuration…”) from the aggressor gNB through the RS … The configuration information may include a frequency-domain indication and a time-domain indication. In addition, the configuration information may include a cell/cluster ID, a remote CLI level, and an interference management technique candidate.] [Para [0302] of Kim; The aggressor gNB may detect the first RS broadcast by the victim gNB and feedback corresponding information for RIM via OTA signaling. In order for the victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNB, the aggressor gNB may transmit a second RS. The corresponding information for RIM may include at least one of a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a group ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster ID of the aggressor gNB, or a power level of remote interference].
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5 where claim 23 recited similar claimed limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the message indicating the configuration of the first set of reference signals is received over a backhaul link between the first base station and the second base station [Para [0266] of Kim; [Para [0266] of Kim; the victim gNB may previously receive configuration information from the aggressor gNB through the RS or backhaul signal.].
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6 where claim 24 recited similar claimed limitation of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Ly teaches,
transmit, to the second base station, a measurement report comprising an indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements [Para [0072] of Ly; … the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS…].
Regarding claim 8, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 7, Ly teaches, wherein the indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements comprises an indication of the cross- link interference channel measurements, the indication being compressed or uncompressed [Para [0071] of Ly; … For example, the victim BS can measure a signal strength (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI) , reference signal received power (RSRP) , reference signal received quality (RSRQ) , etc. ) of the RIM RS.].
Regarding claim 9, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 7, Ly teaches, wherein the indication of the cross- link interference channel measurements comprises one or more channel statistics, one or more cross-link interference metrics, a received signal strength indicator, a reference signal received power, or any combination thereof [Para [0071] of Ly; … For example, the victim BS can measure a signal strength (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI) , reference signal received power (RSRP) , reference signal received quality (RSRQ) , etc. ) of the RIM RS.].
Regarding claim 10, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 7, Ly teaches, wherein the measurement report is transmitted over a backhaul link between the first base station and the second base station [Para [0072] of Ly; … the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS…].
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 10 where claim 27 recited similar claimed limitation of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Kim teaches,
communicate signaling with the second base station that indicates a resource allocation, or one or more directional beams, or both, used by the first base station and the second base station for periodic transmissions to one or more other devices, wherein the resource allocation, or the one or more directional beams, or both, are configured to mitigate cross-link interference at the first base station based at least in part on the signaling [Para [0241] of Kim: the second RS that the aggressor gNB transmits to the victim gNB may include the cell ID, the group ID, and/or the cluster ID of the aggressor gNB][paragraphs [0244-0251] of Kim: If the victim gNB is aware of the ID of the aggressor gNB in the one-way OTA-based approach-2, two-way OTA-based approach-2, and two-way OTA-based approach-3 described above, specific information may be transmitted through backhaul signaling (interpreted as “signaling with the second base station that indicates a resource allocation, or one or more directional beams, or both… ”). The specific information transmitted through backhaul signaling may include the following information. RS configuration (a time-frequency location, a time offset, a frequency offset, sequence information, and/or the number of RS repetitions) (interpreted as “resource allocation”). …. Beam-specific information (a high-interference transmission (Tx) beam of the aggressor gNB, a high-interference Rx beam of the victim gNB, and/or a down-tilting degree of the aggressor gNB) (interpreted as “one or more directional beams”)][para [0347] of Kim: Then, in order to coordinate between aggressor gNBs and victim gNBs, a proposed mitigation technique may be recommended through backhaul signaling (interpreted as “the resource allocation, or the one or more directional beams, or both, are configured to mitigate cross-link interference at the first base station based at least in part on the signaling”).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 13 where claim 26 recited similar claimed limitation of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the signaling comprises an indication of one or more patterns corresponding to the periodic transmissions, and wherein mitigation of the cross-link interference is based at least in part on the one or more patterns [Para [0407] of Kim: a CSI-RS with high mobility has a density of 3 REs per physical resource block (PRB). … this means that such a pattern has 4 repetitions in the time domain within one OFDM symbol due to comb-like mapping in the frequency domain.][Para [0408] of Kim: Existing RS Patterns (e.g., a CSI-RS and a PRACH) are Considered to Design an RS for RIM.] [Para [0203] of Kim: The victim gNB may detect the reference signal … generate interference mitigation criteria that may mitigate remote CLI based on the information.]
Regarding claim 17, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, Kim discloses wherein the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures further comprise beamforming nulling, combiner modification, interference cancellation, or any combination thereof [Para [0146] of Kim: For interference cancellation and channel estimation in a victim TRP, a DL RS of an aggressor TRP and a UL RS of the victim TRP should be orthogonal.].
Regarding claim 18, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, Ly discloses wherein the first set of reference signals comprises one or more types of reference signals, the one or more types of reference signals comprising a channel state information reference signal, a synchronization signal block, a demodulation reference signal, or any combination thereof [Para [0074]; … the RIM RS could be one of a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block (sometimes referred to as a synchronization signal block (SSB) ) , a channel state information-RS (CSI-RS) , a tracking reference signal (TRS) , a positioning RS (PRS) , a physical random access channel (PRACH) , or a sounding RS (SRS).].
Regarding claim 22, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: Kim teaches:
transmit, to the second base station, one or more additional reference signals, the one or more reference signals comprising an identifier of the first base station [Para [0302] of Kim; 3. Step 3: The aggressor gNB may detect the first RS broadcast by the victim gNB and feedback corresponding information for RIM via OTA signaling. In order for the victim gNB to identify the aggressor gNB, the aggressor gNB may transmit a second RS (interpreted as “one or more reference signals”) . The corresponding information for RIM may include at least one of a cell ID of the aggressor gNB, a group ID of the aggressor gNB, a cluster ID of the aggressor gNB, or a power level of remote interference.]; and
wherein the measurement report is received based at least in part on the identifier of the first base station and the one or more additional reference signals satisfying a threshold interference level[para [0303] of Kim; 4. Step 4: The victim gNB measures the second RS received from the aggressor gNB. The victim gNB shares recommended candidate techniques with the aggressor gNB via backhaul signaling based on the information received from the aggressor gNB and preknown information (advance information).] [para [0305] of Kim; 6. Step 6: Step 1 to step 5 are repeated until a predefined condition is satisfied.].
Regarding claim 25, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 20, Ly discloses wherein the indication of the cross-link interference channel measurements comprises one or more channel statistics, one or more cross-link interference metrics, a received signal strength indicator, a reference signal received power, or any combination thereof [Para [0071] of Ly; … For example, the victim BS can measure a signal strength (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI) , reference signal received power (RSRP) , reference signal received quality (RSRQ) , etc. ) of the RIM RS.].
Regarding claim 28, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 20, wherein Ly discloses the one or more cross-link interference mitigation procedures comprise beamforming modification, precoder modification, directional beam restriction, or any combination thereof [Para [0072] of Ly; … the aggressor BS and the victim BS can further perform remote interference mitigation based on the measured remote interference. For example, the victim BS can transmit information regarding the measure remote interference (e.g., via a backhaul) to the aggressor BS, and the aggressor BS can adjust its DL transmissions (e.g., timing, transmit power, beamforming, etc.)...].
Claim(s) 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly in view of Kim, in view of Oh, and further in view of Han et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100232539, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 11, Ly, Kim and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors configured to measure the first set of reference signals are further configured to:
Ly, Kim and Oh fail to disclose the claimed limitation select one or more combiner matrices based at least in part on a combiner codebook that comprises a set of two or more combiner matrices; measure, in a first subband, one or more reference signals of the first set of reference signals using the one or more combiner matrices; and measure, in a second subband, one or more additional reference signals of the first set of reference signals using the one or more combiner matrices.
In analogous art, Han discloses the limitations
select one or more combiner matrices based at least in part on a combiner codebook that comprises a set of two or more combiner matrices [Para [0014] of Han: determining one of a first PMI and a second PMI for interference from an adjacent Base Station (BS), ];
measure, in a first subband, one or more reference signals of the first set of reference signals using the one or more combiner matrices; and measure, in a second subband, one or more additional reference signals of the first set of reference signals using the one or more combiner matrices [Para [0035] of Han: an MS measures dominant DownLink (DL) interference channels based on a reference signal, and determines possible interference power of the dominant interference links based on each PMI (w1, w2, . . . , wN) in the codebook.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Ly, Kim and Oh by using the features of Han in order to measure reference signals using the one or more combiner matrices. The rationale for doing so would have been to measure the reference signal by using combiner matrices in codebook to have better accuracy based on types of the reference signals.
Regarding claim 12, Ly, Kim, Oh, and Han disclose The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
select, for each of the first subband and the second subband, a respective combiner matrix from the one or more combiner matrices that is associated with a threshold level of cross-link interference based at least in part on measuring the one or more reference signals and the one or more additional reference signals [Para [0008] of Han: the MS 110 searches a reference signal for a Precoding Matrix Index (PMI) (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the worst PMI’) causing high interference or a PMI (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the best PMI’) causing low interference.].
Claim(s) 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly in view of Kim, in view of Oh, and further in view of Xu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200112420, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 19, Ly, Kim, and Oh disclose The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors configured to measure the first set of reference signals are further configured to:
Ly, Kim, and Oh fail to disclose the claimed limitation measure the first set of reference signals using a single-port measurement scheme or a multi-port measurement scheme, or both, based at least in part on the one or more types of reference signals.
In analogous art, Xu discloses the above recited limitation [Para [0067] of Xu: … For example, CL-RSRP may use single-port measurements, such as port 15 based on CSI-RS, port 5/7/8 of DMRS. CL-RSRP can also use multi-port measurements, such as 2-port, or 4-port, or more (such as port 15-16 based on CSI-RS, or port 15-18, or port 15-22), if the single-port measurement accuracy is not satisfactory or the multi-port measurement accuracy is better.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of LY, Kim and Oh by using the features of Xu in order to measure reference signals using single-port measurements or multi-port measurement. The rationale for doing so would have been to measure the reference signal by using single-port measurements or multi-port measurement to have better accuracy based on types of the reference signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights