DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 17/711,912 filed on April 1st, 2022.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 01/23/2026, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 2, 21, 29, and 32 are newly canceled.
Claims 1, 3 – 13, 20, 22 – 23, 25 – 28, 30 – 31, 33 – 34, and 36 – 38 are pending.
Claims 1, 3 – 13, 20, 22 – 23, 25 – 28, 30 – 31, 33 – 34, and 36 – 38 are rejected.
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 Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s remarks, see page 11 of the Remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the status of the claims is acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12 – 15 of the Remarks, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 20, 28, and 31, and dependent claims 3 – 13, 22 – 23, 25 – 27, 30, 33 – 34, and 36 – 38, with the exception of newly canceled claims 2, 21, 29, and 32, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 10/23/2025, particularly in view of the currently amended limitations as argued by the applicant, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park et al. [US 20200359331 A1]. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10 – 12, 13, 20, 25 – 28, 30 – 31, and 36 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al. [US PG PUB 20220095240] hereinafter Ying, and further in view of Lopez-Perez et al. [US PG PUB 20170034837] hereinafter Perez, Palanki et al. [US 20090197631 A1] hereinafter Palanki, and Park et al. [US 20200359331 A1] hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Ying teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Ying: Fig. 1; Wireless communication) at a network entity (Ying: Fig. 2, ¶ 41 – 42; gNB 203), comprising:
at least one processor (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254 – 255; processors 1410); and
memory (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254, ¶ 256; memory/storage devices 1420) coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254, ¶ 256; wherein the memory is coupled with the at least one processor via connection 1440, and the memory having/storing instructions executable by the at least one processor in section 1450) to cause the network entity to:
receive, from a first user equipment (UE) (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; victim UE), a first uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message) indicating a cross-link interference report associated with cross-link interference measured at the first UE and a set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (also known as the gNB 403 (Ying: ¶ 42)), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402);
transmit, to a second UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; aggressor UE) based at least in part on the first uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein in step 406, the aggressor UE is identified by the UE (gNB 403) from the CLI measurement reports (the first uplink message)), a first downlink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; transmission information exchange request 408) indicating the uplink power limit associated with uplink communications transmitted by the second UE (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters);
transmit a second downlink message to the first UE during a transmission time interval and based at least in part on transmitting the first downlink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation request message to the victim UE during a time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608), and wherein the sending of the CLI mitigation request message is as a result of the response of the UE transmitting a transmission information exchange with the aggressor UE); and
receive, from the second UE during the transmission time interval, a second uplink message in accordance with the uplink power limit and the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the aggressor UE transmits to the UE (i.e., gNB 403) a transmission information exchange accept response message which includes power control parameters during the time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608)).
Ying does not explicitly disclose wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE during a time duration, and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the first uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both;
select an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and
and that the communication between the victim UE, the aggressor UE and the UE (gNB) is done during a full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the request for reduced cross-link interference during the time duration and the requested cross-link interference control parameter, or that transmitting a second downlink message to the first UE is done during a transmission time interval included within the time duration in accordance with the full-duplex operational mode, or that receiving from the second UE a second uplink message is done during the transmission time interval included within the time duration in accordance with the full-duplex operational mode.
Referring to the invention of Perez, Perez teaches that a base station operating in full-duplex mode communicates with multiple UEs (Perez: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, ¶ 23-24; wherein UE 109 forms one UE of a pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101, UE 111 forms the other UE of the pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101. UE 109 and UE 111 transmit in the same frequency resource, the former in UL and the latter in DL).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the full-duplex operational mode of the network entity teachings of Perez into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Perez: ¶ 25-26).
Referring to the invention of Palanki, Palanki teaches wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein a UE may request interfering eNBs to reduce interference on the primary control segment of its desired eNBs on the downlink. The desired eNB may request interfering UEs to reduce interference on its primary control segment on the uplink) during a time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request), and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters comprises a requested cross-link interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request, e.g., the control channel, the operating scenario, etc. Therefore, the at least one parameter for the request upon which the duration may be based upon is a interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE), wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the request for reduced cross-link interference during the time duration and the requested cross-link interference control parameter (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein each interfering UE/eNB may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources to allow the eNB to receive the uplink control channel(s) from its UEs, and wherein, the interfering station may reduce its transmit power on the radio resources to a lower level or zero. In one design, the interfering station may determine the pathloss from the sender station to the interfering station based on a transmit power level and a received power level of the request), or that transmitting a second downlink message to the first UE is done during a transmission time interval included within the time duration, or that receiving from the second UE a second uplink message is done during the transmission time interval included within the time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request. Therefore, when the transmit power is reduced during the entire duration, it will encompass the duration when the second downlink message is transmitted to the first UE as well as when the second uplink message is received from the second UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the request for reduced interference teachings of Palanki into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying and Perez, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Palanki: ¶ 8).
Ying in view of Perez and Palanki do not explicitly disclose one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both;
select an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both.
Referring to the invention of Park, Park teaches cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range));
select an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power (i.e., selecting an uplink power limit) based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound); and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uplink power limit for reduced interference teachings of Park into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, and Park, in order to directly reduce interference, improve coverage and capacity, benefit cell-edge users, lower UE power consumption, and to integrate well with adaptive resource allocation.
In view of the combined teachings of cross-link interference mitigation as taught by Ying, of full-duplex mode of operation between the devices as taught by Perez, of requests for CLI mitigation during time durations and CLI control parameters as taught by Palanki, and of selecting uplink power limit, CLI limits and rages as taught by Park, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that all of the limitations of claim 1 would be obviously met.
Regarding claim 3, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink power limit is selected (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power (i.e., selecting an uplink power limit) based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound) such that cross-link interference measured at the first UE that is attributable to uplink communications transmitted by the second UE during the full-duplex operational mode is less than or equal to the cross-link interference limit, an upper bound of the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Regarding claim 6, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:
transmit, via the first downlink message, an indication of the time duration associated with the uplink power limit (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-75, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters and the time duration which can indicate the time duration of interested transmission information (i.e., the specific transmission time interval for the required transmission)).
Regarding claim 10, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cross-link interference report comprises one or more cross-link interference measurements performed by the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE (i.e., gNB 403) transmits a CLI measurement configuration message to the victim UE for CLI measurement, and receives a CLI measurement report back from the victim UE based on the CLI measurement configuration message it initially sent to the victim UE) on signals received from the second UE during the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein “some of the steps may be performed simultaneously, or in a different order than shown”, thus, the CLI measurement configuration message may contain signals received from the aggressor UE (i.e., the second UE)), and wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the one or more cross-link interference measurements (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE receives CLI measurement reports from the victim UE, then transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters).
Regarding claim 11, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE comprise a cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI)), and wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Regarding claim 12, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first uplink message comprises an indication of the second UE, and wherein transmitting the first downlink message to the second UE is based at least in part on the indication of the second UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (the gNB 403), and the UE identifies the aggressor UE (i.e., the second UE) from the information before transmitting the transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE. Therefore, the CLI report (the first uplink message) comprises an indication of the second UE in order for the gNB (the UE) to be able to transmit the first downlink message to the second UE, based on the indication of the second UE comprised in the CLI report)).
Regarding claim 13, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first uplink message comprises an uplink control information message, a medium access control-control element message, or both (Ying: Fig. 13, ¶ 241, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein one or more protocol entities (e.g., Medium Access Control (MAC) 1320) of arrangement 1300 may be implemented in UEs 701, RAN nodes 711, and one or more protocol entities that may be implemented in one or more of UE 701, gNB 711, AMF 921, etc. may communicate with a respective peer protocol entity that may be implemented in or on another device using the services of respective lower layer protocol entities to perform such communication. Therefore, the CLI report (the first uplink message) will comprise a MAC message).
Regarding claim 20, Ying teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (Ying: Fig. 1; Wireless communication) at a first user equipment (UE) (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61; victim UE 401), comprising:
at least one processor (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254 – 255; processors 1410); and
memory (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254, ¶ 256; memory/storage devices 1420) coupled with the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (Ying: Fig. 14, ¶ 254, ¶ 256; wherein the memory is coupled with the at least one processor via connection 1440, and the memory having/storing instructions executable by the at least one processor in section 1450) to cause the first UE to:
perform one or more cross-link interference measurements associated with uplink communications transmitted by a second UE to a network entity (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE performs CLI measurement, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402, (as a part of resolving the interference experienced at the victim UE when trying to communicate with the aggressor UE 405 (i.e., a second UE)));
transmit, to the network entity, an uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message) indicating the one or more cross-link interference measurements and a set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (also known as the gNB 403 (Ying: ¶ 42)), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402), wherein the one or more cross-link interference measurements, the set of cross-link interference parameters, or both, are usable by the network entity for determining an uplink power limit associated with uplink communications performed by the second UE (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters); and
receive a downlink message from the network entity based at least in part on the uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the UE sends a CLI mitigation message to the first UE (i.e., the victim UE) based on the CLI report (i.e., the uplink message) that the UE received from the victim UE).
Ying does not explicitly teach that that transmitting to the network entity is based at least in part on the full-duplex operational mode, and that uplink communications performed by the second UE are done during the full duplex operational mode, or that receive, within the time duration, a downlink message from the network entity during the full-duplex operational mode; and wherein the uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE during a time duration; and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both, usable by the network entity for determining the uplink power limit.
Referring to the invention of Perez, Perez teaches that a base station operating in full-duplex mode communicates with multiple UEs (Perez: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, ¶ 23-24; wherein UE 109 forms one UE of a pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101, UE 111 forms the other UE of the pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101. UE 109 and UE 111 transmit in the same frequency resource, the former in UL and the latter in DL).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the full-duplex operational mode of the network entity teachings of Perez into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Perez: ¶ 25-26).
Referring to the invention of Palanki, Palanki teaches wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein a UE may request interfering eNBs to reduce interference on the primary control segment of its desired eNBs on the downlink. The desired eNB may request interfering UEs to reduce interference on its primary control segment on the uplink) during a time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request), and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters comprises a requested cross-link interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request, e.g., the control channel, the operating scenario, etc. Therefore, the at least one parameter for the request upon which the duration may be based upon is a interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE); or that receive, within the time duration, a downlink message from the network entity (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request. Therefore, when the transmit power is reduced during the entire duration, it will encompass the duration when the downlink message from the network entity is transmitted to the first UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the request for reduced interference teachings of Palanki into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying and Perez, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Palanki: ¶ 8).
Ying in view of Perez and Palanki do not explicitly disclose wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both.
Referring to the invention of Park, Park teaches cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)), usable by the network entity for determining the uplink power limit (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uplink power limit for reduced interference teachings of Park into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, and Park, in order to directly reduce interference, improve coverage and capacity, benefit cell-edge users, lower UE power consumption, and to integrate well with adaptive resource allocation.
In view of the combined teachings of cross-link interference mitigation as taught by Ying, of full-duplex mode of operation between the devices as taught by Perez, of requests for CLI mitigation during time durations and CLI control parameters as taught by Palanki, and of selecting uplink power limit, CLI limits and rages as taught by Park, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that all of the limitations of claim 1 would be obviously met.
Regarding claim 25, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE comprise a cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI)), and wherein receiving the downlink message is based at least in part on the cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range). Therefore, the downlink message will be received based on the cross-link interference reduction value since the uplink transmit power limit is based on the reduction value).
Regarding claim 26, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the uplink message comprises an indication of the second UE, and wherein receiving the downlink message is based at least in part on the indication of the second UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (the gNB 403), and the UE identifies the aggressor UE (i.e., the second UE) from the information before transmitting the transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE. Therefore, the CLI report (the first uplink message) comprises an indication of the second UE in order for the gNB (the UE) to be able to transmit the first downlink message to the second UE, based on the indication of the second UE comprised in the CLI report)).
Regarding claim 27, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the uplink message comprises an uplink control information message, a medium access control-control element message, or both (Ying: Fig. 13, ¶ 241, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein one or more protocol entities (e.g., Medium Access Control (MAC) 1320) of arrangement 1300 may be implemented in UEs 701, RAN nodes 711, and one or more protocol entities that may be implemented in one or more of UE 701, gNB 711, AMF 921, etc. may communicate with a respective peer protocol entity that may be implemented in or on another device using the services of respective lower layer protocol entities to perform such communication. Therefore, the CLI report (the first uplink message) will comprise a MAC message).
Regarding claim 28, Ying teaches a method for wireless communication (Ying: Fig. 1; Wireless communication) at a network entity (Ying: Fig. 2, ¶ 41 – 42; gNB 203), comprising:
receiving, from a first user equipment (UE) (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; victim UE), a first uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message) indicating a cross-link interference report associated with cross-link interference measured at the first UE and a set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (also known as the gNB 403 (Ying: ¶ 42)), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402);
transmitting, to a second UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; aggressor UE) based at least in part on the first uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein in step 406, the aggressor UE is identified by the UE (gNB 403) from the CLI measurement reports (the first uplink message)), a first downlink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; transmission information exchange request 408) indicating the uplink power limit associated with uplink communications transmitted by the second UE (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters);
transmitting a second downlink message to the first UE during a transmission time interval and based at least in part on transmitting the first downlink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation request message to the victim UE during a time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608), and wherein the sending of the CLI mitigation request message is as a result of the response of the UE transmitting a transmission information exchange with the aggressor UE); and
receiving, from the second UE during the transmission time interval, a second uplink message in accordance with the uplink power limit and the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the aggressor UE transmits to the UE (i.e., gNB 403) a transmission information exchange accept response message which includes power control parameters during the time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608)).
Ying does not explicitly disclose wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE during a time duration, and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the first uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both;
selecting an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and
and that the communication between the victim UE, the aggressor UE and the UE (gNB) is done during a full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the request for reduced cross-link interference during the time duration and the requested cross-link interference control parameter, or that transmitting a second downlink message to the first UE is done during a transmission time interval included within the time duration in accordance with the full-duplex operational mode, or that receiving from the second UE a second uplink message is done during the transmission time interval included within the time duration in accordance with the full-duplex operational mode.
Referring to the invention of Perez, Perez teaches that a base station operating in full-duplex mode communicates with multiple UEs (Perez: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, ¶ 23-24; wherein UE 109 forms one UE of a pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101, UE 111 forms the other UE of the pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101. UE 109 and UE 111 transmit in the same frequency resource, the former in UL and the latter in DL).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the full-duplex operational mode of the network entity teachings of Perez into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Perez: ¶ 25-26).
Referring to the invention of Palanki, Palanki teaches wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein a UE may request interfering eNBs to reduce interference on the primary control segment of its desired eNBs on the downlink. The desired eNB may request interfering UEs to reduce interference on its primary control segment on the uplink) during a time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request), and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters comprises a requested cross-link interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request, e.g., the control channel, the operating scenario, etc. Therefore, the at least one parameter for the request upon which the duration may be based upon is a interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE), wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the request for reduced cross-link interference during the time duration and the requested cross-link interference control parameter (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein each interfering UE/eNB may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources to allow the eNB to receive the uplink control channel(s) from its UEs, and wherein, the interfering station may reduce its transmit power on the radio resources to a lower level or zero. In one design, the interfering station may determine the pathloss from the sender station to the interfering station based on a transmit power level and a received power level of the request), or that transmitting a second downlink message to the first UE is done during a transmission time interval included within the time duration, or that receiving from the second UE a second uplink message is done during the transmission time interval included within the time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request. Therefore, when the transmit power is reduced during the entire duration, it will encompass the duration when the second downlink message is transmitted to the first UE as well as when the second uplink message is received from the second UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the request for reduced interference teachings of Palanki into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying and Perez, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Palanki: ¶ 8).
Ying in view of Perez and Palanki do not explicitly disclose one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both;
selecting an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both; and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both.
Referring to the invention of Park, Park teaches cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range));
selecting an uplink power limit associated with a full-duplex operational mode based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power (i.e., selecting an uplink power limit) based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound); and … the one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters including the cross- link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uplink power limit for reduced interference teachings of Park into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, and Park, in order to directly reduce interference, improve coverage and capacity, benefit cell-edge users, lower UE power consumption, and to integrate well with adaptive resource allocation.
In view of the combined teachings of cross-link interference mitigation as taught by Ying, of full-duplex mode of operation between the devices as taught by Perez, of requests for CLI mitigation during time durations and CLI control parameters as taught by Palanki, and of selecting uplink power limit, CLI limits and rages as taught by Park, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that all of the limitations of claim 1 would be obviously met.
Regarding claim 30, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the uplink power limit is selected (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power (i.e., selecting an uplink power limit) based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound) such that cross-link interference measured at the first UE that is attributable to uplink communications transmitted by the second UE during the full-duplex operational mode is less than or equal to the cross-link interference limit, an upper bound of the cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Regarding claim 31, Ying teaches a method for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
performing one or more cross-link interference measurements associated with uplink communications transmitted by a second UE to a network entity (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE performs CLI measurement, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402, (as a part of resolving the interference experienced at the victim UE when trying to communicate with the aggressor UE 405 (i.e., a second UE)));
transmitting, to the network entity, an uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message) indicating the one or more cross-link interference measurements and a set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (also known as the gNB 403 (Ying: ¶ 42)), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402), wherein the one or more cross-link interference measurements, the set of cross-link interference parameters, or both, are usable by the network entity for determining an uplink power limit associated with uplink communications performed by the second UE (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters); and
receiving a downlink message from the network entity based at least in part on the uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the UE sends a CLI mitigation message to the first UE (i.e., the victim UE) based on the CLI report (i.e., the uplink message) that the UE received from the victim UE).
Ying does not explicitly teach that that transmitting to the network entity is based at least in part on the full-duplex operational mode, and that uplink communications performed by the second UE are done during the full duplex operational mode, or that receive, within the time duration, a downlink message from the network entity during the full-duplex operational mode; and wherein the uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE during a time duration; and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both, usable by the network entity for determining the uplink power limit.
Referring to the invention of Perez, Perez teaches that a base station operating in full-duplex mode communicates with multiple UEs (Perez: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, ¶ 23-24; wherein UE 109 forms one UE of a pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101, UE 111 forms the other UE of the pair of half-duplex UEs in full-duplex communication with node 101. UE 109 and UE 111 transmit in the same frequency resource, the former in UL and the latter in DL).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the full-duplex operational mode of the network entity teachings of Perez into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Perez: ¶ 25-26).
Referring to the invention of Palanki, Palanki teaches wherein the first uplink message indicates a request for reduced cross-link interference at the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein a UE may request interfering eNBs to reduce interference on the primary control segment of its desired eNBs on the downlink. The desired eNB may request interfering UEs to reduce interference on its primary control segment on the uplink) during a time duration (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request), and wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters comprises a requested cross-link interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request, e.g., the control channel, the operating scenario, etc. Therefore, the at least one parameter for the request upon which the duration may be based upon is a interference control parameter that is requested by the first UE); or that receive, within the time duration, a downlink message from the network entity (Palanki: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, ¶ 62, ¶ 65 – 67, ¶ 70, ¶ 91; wherein the reduce interference request may be valid for a particular duration, the interfering station may then reduce its transmit power on the radio resources used for the control channel during the entire duration, and also, wherein the interfering station may reduce its transmit power for a predetermined duration, a duration indicated by the request, or a duration determined based on at least one parameter for the request. Therefore, when the transmit power is reduced during the entire duration, it will encompass the duration when the downlink message from the network entity is transmitted to the first UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the request for reduced interference teachings of Palanki into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying and Perez, in order to effectively mitigate interference and to improve the quality of the communication (Palanki: ¶ 8).
Ying in view of Perez and Palanki do not explicitly disclose wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters indicated by the uplink message comprises one or more requested cross-link interference control parameters that are requested by the first UE including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both.
Referring to the invention of Park, Park teaches cross-link interference control parameters including a cross-link interference limit, a cross-link interference range, or both (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI) to determine a transmit power… determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)), usable by the network entity for determining the uplink power limit (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uplink power limit for reduced interference teachings of Park into the cross-link interference mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, and Park, in order to directly reduce interference, improve coverage and capacity, benefit cell-edge users, lower UE power consumption, and to integrate well with adaptive resource allocation.
In view of the combined teachings of cross-link interference mitigation as taught by Ying, of full-duplex mode of operation between the devices as taught by Perez, of requests for CLI mitigation during time durations and CLI control parameters as taught by Palanki, and of selecting uplink power limit, CLI limits and rages as taught by Park, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that all of the limitations of claim 1 would be obviously met.
Regarding claim 36, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE comprise a cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI)), and wherein receiving the downlink message is based at least in part on the cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range). Therefore, the downlink message will be received based on the cross-link interference reduction value since the uplink transmit power limit is based on the reduction value).
Regarding claim 37, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE comprises a plurality of requested cross-link interference control parameters comprising the cross-link interference limit and the cross-link interference range (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Regarding claim 38, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE comprises a plurality of requested cross-link interference control parameters comprising the cross-link interference limit and the cross-link interference range (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)), and a cross-link interference reduction value (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of an additional reduction value (e.g., P.sub.CLI)), and wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the cross-link interference limit, the cross-link interference range, the cross-link interference reduction value, or any combination thereof (Park: Fig. 8, ¶ 151 – 159, claims 1, 5, and 9; in view of determining the uplink transmit power based on the additional reduction value, wherein the additional reduction value is used to reduce a cross link interference (CLI) (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference limit), wherein the uplink transmit power is determined within a lower bound and an upper bound, the additional reduction value is applied to one or both of the lower bound and the upper bound (i.e., the cross-link interference control parameter includes a cross-link interference range)).
Claims 4 – 5, 7 – 9, 22 – 23, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., Lopez-Perez et al., Palanki et al., and Park et al., as applied to claims 1, 20, 28, and 31 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [US PG PUB 20210321417] hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, and the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:
receive, via the first uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message), and set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402 (i.e., associated with the first UE)); and a half-duplex operational mode at the network entity (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the victim UE is a half-duplex device and when it is communicating with the UE (gNB), the communication is in half-duplex mode); and
transmit, to the second UE based at least in part on the set of cross-link interference parameters, an uplink power limit associated with uplink communications transmitted by the second UE during the half-duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 270; wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE; and transmitting to the second UE based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters, an additional uplink power limit.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park, and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE and transmitting to the second UE based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters, an additional uplink power limit will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE, and an additional uplink power limit.
Regarding claim 5, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with a first set of resources usable during the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 923; wherein “the term “UE” refers to a device with radio communication capabilities and may describe a remote user of network resources”. Thus, every communication between devices in this network system are associated with set of resources usable during the different operational modes), and the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:
receive, via the first uplink message, set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a set of resources usable during the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the set of cross-link interference parameters (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters (that are associated with a set of resources) and wherein the UE transmits a transmission information exchange request to the aggressor UE, and the transmission information exchange is based on the CLI report received from the victim UE, and wherein the transmission information exchange message includes an information type such as power control parameters).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a different set of resources.
Regarding claim 7, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:
receive, from the second UE, an uplink message indicating available uplink power information associated with uplink communications transmitted by the second UE during the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the aggressor UE transmits to the UE (i.e., gNB 403) a transmission information exchange accept response message which includes power control parameters (i.e., the uplink power information) during the time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608)), wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the available uplink power information (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the power control parameters included in the transmission information exchange accept response message will include the required uplink power information necessary for the mitigation of the CLI and successful communication between the devices).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message.
Regarding claim 8, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, Park and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the network entity to:
receive, via the second uplink message, an indication of one or more parameters associated with the available uplink power information (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the aggressor UE transmits to the UE (i.e., gNB 403) a transmission information exchange accept response message which includes power control parameters (i.e., the uplink power information) during the time interval (i.e., time period of the steps 1602 – 1608)), the one or more parameters comprising a transmit beam at the second UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE (i.e., gNB 403) in step 406, identifies the aggressor TX beam and the transmission information exchange accept response message (i.e., the second uplink message) includes TX beam information of the aggressor UE), a sub-band, a symbol, a resource pattern, or any combination thereof, wherein the uplink power limit is based at least in part on the one or more parameters (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the power control parameters included in the transmission information exchange accept response message will include the required uplink power information necessary for the mitigation of the CLI and successful communication between the devices).
Regarding claim 9, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not teach wherein the uplink power limit comprises an indication of a power spectral density, a power backoff value, a maximum absolute power value, or any combination thereof.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that from the information transmitted between the victim gNB/UE and the aggressor gNB/UE is power control information (Kim: ¶ 244, and ¶ 249; wherein if the victim gNB is aware of the ID of the aggressor gNB, specific information may be transmitted through backhaul signaling. The specific information transmitted through backhaul signaling may include the following information; Power control information (a power backoff level and/or power boosting level)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference uplink power limit teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, and Palanki, in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
Regarding claim 22, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, and the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the first UE to:
transmit, via the uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message), set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402 (i.e., associated with the first UE)); and a half-duplex operational mode at the network entity (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the victim UE is a half-duplex device and when it is communicating with the UE (gNB), the communication is in half-duplex mode); and
receive downlink message from the network entity during the half-duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation message to the victim UE).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE; and receiving an additional downlink message form the network entity, based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park, and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE and receiving an additional downlink message, based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE, and an additional downlink message.
Regarding claim 23, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with a first set of resources usable during the full- duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 923; wherein “the term “UE” refers to a device with radio communication capabilities and may describe a remote user of network resources”. Thus, every communication between devices in this network system are associated with set of resources usable during the different operational modes), and the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the first UE to:
transmit, via the uplink message, set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a set of resources usable during the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the set of cross-link interference parameters (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters (that are associated with a set of resources) and wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation message to the victim UE, and the CLI mitigation message is based on the CLI report received from the victim UE).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park, and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a different set of resources.
Regarding claim 33, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, and the method further comprising:
transmitting, via the uplink message (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the CLI measurement report (404) is a first uplink message), set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE (Ying: Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters, based on the CLI measurement configuration parameters that were previously sent to the victim UE in step 402 (i.e., associated with the first UE)); and a half-duplex operational mode at the network entity (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the victim UE is a half-duplex device and when it is communicating with the UE (gNB), the communication is in half-duplex mode); and
receiving downlink message from the network entity during the half-duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-274; wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation message to the victim UE).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE; and receiving an additional downlink message form the network entity, based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park, and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE and receiving an additional downlink message, based on additional set of cross-link interference parameters will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with the first UE, and an additional downlink message.
Regarding claim 34, Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the set of cross-link interference parameters is associated with a first set of resources usable during the full-duplex operational mode (Ying: ¶ 923; wherein “the term “UE” refers to a device with radio communication capabilities and may describe a remote user of network resources”. Thus, every communication between devices in this network system are associated with set of resources usable during the different operational modes), and the method further comprising:
transmitting, via the uplink message, set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a set of resources usable during the full-duplex operational mode at the network entity, wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the set of cross-link interference parameters (Ying: ¶ 33-36, Fig. 4, ¶ 61-67, and Fig. 16, ¶ 268-269; wherein the victim UE transmits CLI measurement report (404) to a UE (gNB 403), wherein the measurement in the report are a set of cross-link interference parameters (that are associated with a set of resources) and wherein the UE transmits a CLI mitigation message to the victim UE, and the CLI mitigation message is based on the CLI report received from the victim UE).
Ying in view of Perez, Palanki, and Park does not explicitly disclose an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches that cross-link interference has a threshold and that the victim device will repeat the steps required to mitigate the CLI until the interference at the victim device decreases below the threshold, so that the aggressor device may mitigate or cancel the CLI (Kim: ¶ 185-194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cross-link interference limit or range teachings of Kim into the combined CLI mitigation teachings of Ying, Perez, Palanki, and Park in order to effectively mitigate interference in communication between devices (Kim: ¶ 194).
In view of the combined invention of Ying, Perez, Palanki, Park, and Kim above, the limitations regarding an additional uplink message, or both, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a second set of resources; and wherein the downlink message is based at least in part on the additional set of cross-link interference parameters, or both will obviously be met when the victim device repeats the process as taught by Ying. So, for each iteration of the procedures, there will be an additional uplink message, and an additional set of cross-link interference parameters associated with a different set of resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. [US 20150110068 A1]: Serving Cell and Neighbor Cell Pathloss Ratio Reporting.
Luo et al. [US 20240406882 A1]: Network Device e.g. Base Station For Supporting Uplink Metrics Based On Cross-link Interference While Performing Wireless Communications.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights