DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 01/07/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application After Final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-21 and 23-32 are pending
Claims 1, 16, 24 and 29 are amended
Claims 6, 12 and 22 are canceled
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-21 and 23-32 remain rejected.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 20180123719 A1), hereinafter referenced as Venkata, in view of Frank et al. (US 20120236736 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frank.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Venkata teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1, Para. [0008-0010]-Venkata discloses example implementation, a method may include receiving, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals, the first signal being received based on a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) ... example implementation, an apparatus may include at least one processor and at least one memory including computer instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals, the first signal being received based on a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS)), to cause the apparatus to:
indicate, to an aggressor network node, a capability to cancel interference from the aggressor network node (Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses sending, by the victim base station to one or more neighbor base stations, an interference cancellation signaling message including at least, for each of the one or more interfering signals, an interference cancellation capability indication that indicates whether or not the victim base station can perform interference cancellation for the interfering signal);
perform, based on indicating the capability and during the training phase, channel estimation of the one or more reference signals received from the aggressor network node in the time and frequency locations (Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses the first (or initial) MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example. Fig. 3, Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses victim BS 134 may perform channel estimation or otherwise calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the victim BS 134 is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals, e.g., a SINR greater than a threshold may indicate that the BS 134 can decode an interfering signal. Or, the victim BS 134 may determine if it can perform interference cancellation based on whether the BS 134 can decode the interfering signal. If the victim BS 134 can decode an interfering signal, then the victim BS 134 may then perform interference cancellation by subtracting the decoded interfering signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources);
receive, after the training phase, one or more uplink signals from a device along with one or more downlink signals from the aggressor network node in a same time period (Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses the victim BS 134 can decode an interfering signal, then the victim BS 134 may then perform interference cancellation by subtracting the decoded interfering signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses receiving, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals); and
cancel, based on the capability and based on the channel estimation of the one or more reference signals, the one or more downlink signals received from the aggressor network node from the one or more uplink signals received from the device (Fig. 3, Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses victim BS 134 may perform channel estimation or otherwise calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the victim BS 134 is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals, e.g., a SINR greater than a threshold may indicate that the BS 134 can decode an interfering signal. Or, the victim BS 134 may determine if it can perform interference cancellation based on whether the BS 134 can decode the interfering signal. If the victim BS 134 can decode an interfering signal, then the victim BS 134 may then perform interference cancellation by subtracting the decoded interfering signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses receiving, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals … determining, by the victim base station, whether the victim base station can perform interference cancellation for the one or more interfering signals ... at least one of a signal muting or an interference cancellation is performed for at least one of the interfering signals).
Venkata fails to teach receive, from the aggressor network node and based on indicating the capability, an indication of time and frequency locations associated with a training phase during which the aggressor network node transmits one or more reference signals.
However, Frank teaches receive, from the aggressor network node and based on indicating the capability, an indication of time and frequency locations associated with a training phase during which the aggressor network node transmits for one or more reference signals (Fig. 3, Para. [0056]-Frank discloses the x-axis 498 is time and the y-axis 499 is frequency ... timing offset {indicating capability to cancel interference} may be known to one or more UEs (e.g., when the aggressor UE and the victim UE are collocated) or one or more base stations (e.g., when the aggressor UE's eNB and the victim UE's eNB are co-sited or share a backbone interface that communicates timing offset information) (See also Para. [0070]). Para. [0050]-Frank discloses victim FDD device 282 might acquire information regarding the TDD network configuration (e.g., from Table 1) ... receive information directly from the aggressor eNB's transmissions. Para. [0098]-Frank discloses an aggressor UE transmits a periodic or aperiodic, known signal which is referred to here as an Aggressor Reference Waveform (ARW). The ARW is designed to indicate the presence of an aggressor UE to proximal, potential victim UEs. The ARW may be used to train a spatial equalizer of the victim UE to steer an antenna null to point toward the ARW source (i.e., the aggressor UE) and thus reduce measured interference at the victim UE. Additionally, the ARW may include information regarding the aggressor base station and/or the aggressor UE. Para. [0099]-Frank discloses the victim UE attempts to receive 610 an aggressor reference waveform (ARW). Generally speaking, a received signal at the victim UE is y=f(s.sub.desired, s.sub.aggressor, H, z), where s.sub.desired is the desired signal from the victim UE's serving base station, s.sub.aggressor is the aggressor waveform from at least one proximate UE operating in an adjacent frequency band, H is the channel process corresponding to the desired signal, and z is the interference process. Para. [0018]-Frank discloses victim UE optionally storing a high-low interference pattern based on a time-dependent configuration (including a time and frequency dependent configuration) of a potentially interfering second transceiver on an adjacent frequency band. The victim UE receives a sequence of subframes from its serving base station. Then, the victim UE measures channel state on at least two subframes to obtain channel state measurements. Based on the channel state measurements, the victim UE determines a high-low interference pattern with a periodicity. The high-low interference pattern may be matched to a stored high-low interference pattern. The victim UE then transmits a report to its serving base station, with the report indicating the high-low interference pattern. The method can alternately or also include the victim UE receiving an aggressor reference waveform (ARW) from the second transceiver, determining spatial characteristics of the second transceiver from the aggressor reference waveform, and configuring its antenna system spatial processing based on the spatial characteristics of the second transceiver. It is possible for the victim UE to determine second transceiver characteristics from the aggressor reference waveform and transmit information regarding the second transceiver characteristics to its serving base station).
Venkata and Frank are both considered to be analogous claimed inventions because they are in the same field of communication networks, dealing with improving coexistence among radios operating in adjacent frequency spectrum or bands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata to incorporate the teachings of Frank on interference cancellation, with a motivation to train victim nodes using aggressors time and frequency datasets, and subsequent enables communication between two or more nodes or devices, (Venvkata, Para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Venkata teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1, Para. [0008-0010]-Venkata discloses example implementation, a method may include receiving, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals, the first signal being received based on a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) ... example implementation, an apparatus may include at least one processor and at least one memory including computer instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive, by a victim base station, a first signal from a user device and one or more interfering signals, the first signal being received based on a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS)), to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a victim network node, a capability to cancel interference from the apparatus (Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses sending, by the victim base station to one or more neighbor base stations, an interference cancellation signaling message including at least, for each of the one or more interfering signals, an interference cancellation capability indication that indicates whether or not the victim base station can perform interference cancellation for the interfering signal); and
transmit, to the victim network node and based on the capability, an indication of time and frequency locations for one or more reference signals (Para. [0035]-Venkata discloses If the user device 132 can decode a signal, then the user device can then subtract the decoded (interfering) signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. In order to decode an interfering signal(s), the user device may receive the MCS (modulation and coding scheme), scheduling information, spatial layers, etc. for one or more interfering signals. For example, the serving BS (victim BS 134) for user device 132 may request and obtain MCS and scheduling information for one or more interfering signals from one or more aggressor BSs/cells. Fig. 5, Para. [0116]-Venkata discloses At 516, each neighbor/aggressor cell, e.g., in response to the request at 514, may send a reply (e.g., specifically to the requesting BS or to all nearby/neighbor B Ss) that may include a list of interfering signals generated by or within the neighbor/aggressor cell, and various information for each interfering signal, e.g., which may include a MCS for the interfering signal, spatial layers for the interfering signal, scheduling information (e.g., what time/frequency resources are scheduled for such interfering signals). Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example. Para. [0068]-Venkata discloses MCS for use in communicating with the user device 132, e.g., which may be a higher MCS, allowing greater data throughput for example (based on the expected muting and/or cancellation of one or more interfering signals for one or more scheduled time/frequency resources)); and
transmit, based on receiving the capability and after the training phase, one or more downlink signals in an uplink symbol for the victim network node over which one or more devices transmit uplink signals to the victim network node (Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses an interference cancellation capability indication that indicates whether or not the victim base station can perform interference cancellation for the interfering signal; determining an updated MCS; and receiving, by the victim base station based on the updated MCS, at least a second signal, in which at least one of a signal muting or an interference cancellation is performed for at least one of the interfering signals),
the one or more downlink signals are based on a channel indicated by the one or more reference signals (Fig. 2, Para. [0033-0034]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example … cancel (via interference cancellation performed by the receiving network node within the victim cell) one or more of the interfering signals).
Venkata fails to teach transmit, to the victim network node and based on receiving the capability, an indication of time and frequency locations associated with a training phase during which the apparatus transmits one or more reference signals; transmit, to the victim network node and during the training phase, the one or more reference signals in the time and frequency locations.
However, Frank teaches transmit, to the victim network node and based on receiving the capability, an indication of time and frequency locations associated with a training phase during which the apparatus transmits one or more reference signals (Fig. 3, Para. [0056]-Frank discloses the x-axis 498 is time and the y-axis 499 is frequency ... timing offset {indicating capability to cancel interference} may be known to one or more UEs (e.g., when the aggressor UE and the victim UE are collocated) or one or more base stations (e.g., when the aggressor UE's eNB and the victim UE's eNB are co-sited or share a backbone interface that communicates timing offset information) (See also Para. [0070]). Para. [0050]-Frank discloses victim FDD device 282 might acquire information regarding the TDD network configuration (e.g., from Table 1) ... receive information directly from the aggressor eNB's transmissions. Para. [0098]-Frank discloses an aggressor UE transmits a periodic or aperiodic, known signal which is referred to here as an Aggressor Reference Waveform (ARW). The ARW is designed to indicate the presence of an aggressor UE to proximal, potential victim UEs. The ARW may be used to train a spatial equalizer of the victim UE to steer an antenna null to point toward the ARW source (i.e., the aggressor UE) and thus reduce measured interference at the victim UE. Additionally, the ARW may include information regarding the aggressor base station and/or the aggressor UE. Para. [0099]-Frank discloses the victim UE attempts to receive 610 an aggressor reference waveform (ARW). Generally speaking, a received signal at the victim UE is y=f(s.sub.desired, s.sub.aggressor, H, z), where s.sub.desired is the desired signal from the victim UE's serving base station, s.sub.aggressor is the aggressor waveform from at least one proximate UE operating in an adjacent frequency band, H is the channel process corresponding to the desired signal, and z is the interference process. Para. [0018]-Frank discloses victim UE optionally storing a high-low interference pattern based on a time-dependent configuration (including a time and frequency dependent configuration) of a potentially interfering second transceiver on an adjacent frequency band. The victim UE receives a sequence of subframes from its serving base station. Then, the victim UE measures channel state on at least two subframes to obtain channel state measurements. Based on the channel state measurements, the victim UE determines a high-low interference pattern with a periodicity. The high-low interference pattern may be matched to a stored high-low interference pattern. The victim UE then transmits a report to its serving base station, with the report indicating the high-low interference pattern. The method can alternately or also include the victim UE receiving an aggressor reference waveform (ARW) from the second transceiver, determining spatial characteristics of the second transceiver from the aggressor reference waveform, and configuring its antenna system spatial processing based on the spatial characteristics of the second transceiver. It is possible for the victim UE to determine second transceiver characteristics from the aggressor reference waveform and transmit information regarding the second transceiver characteristics to its serving base station).
transmit, to the victim network node and during the training phase, the one or more reference signals in the time and frequency locations (Fig. 3, Para. [0056]-Frank discloses the x-axis 498 is time and the y-axis 499 is frequency ... timing offset {indicating capability to cancel interference} may be known to one or more UEs (e.g., when the aggressor UE and the victim UE are collocated) or one or more base stations (e.g., when the aggressor UE's eNB and the victim UE's eNB are co-sited or share a backbone interface that communicates timing offset information) (See also Para. [0070]). Para. [0050]-Frank discloses victim FDD device 282 might acquire information regarding the TDD network configuration (e.g., from Table 1) ... receive information directly from the aggressor eNB's transmissions. Para. [0098]-Frank discloses an aggressor UE transmits a periodic or aperiodic, known signal which is referred to here as an Aggressor Reference Waveform (ARW). The ARW is designed to indicate the presence of an aggressor UE to proximal, potential victim UEs. The ARW may be used to train a spatial equalizer of the victim UE to steer an antenna null to point toward the ARW source (i.e., the aggressor UE) and thus reduce measured interference at the victim UE. Additionally, the ARW may include information regarding the aggressor base station and/or the aggressor UE. Para. [0099]-Frank discloses the victim UE attempts to receive 610 an aggressor reference waveform (ARW). Generally speaking, a received signal at the victim UE is y=f(s.sub.desired, s.sub.aggressor, H, z), where s.sub.desired is the desired signal from the victim UE's serving base station, s.sub.aggressor is the aggressor waveform from at least one proximate UE operating in an adjacent frequency band, H is the channel process corresponding to the desired signal, and z is the interference process. Para. [0018]-Frank discloses victim UE optionally storing a high-low interference pattern based on a time-dependent configuration (including a time and frequency dependent configuration) of a potentially interfering second transceiver on an adjacent frequency band. The victim UE receives a sequence of subframes from its serving base station. Then, the victim UE measures channel state on at least two subframes to obtain channel state measurements. Based on the channel state measurements, the victim UE determines a high-low interference pattern with a periodicity. The high-low interference pattern may be matched to a stored high-low interference pattern. The victim UE then transmits a report to its serving base station, with the report indicating the high-low interference pattern. The method can alternately or also include the victim UE receiving an aggressor reference waveform (ARW) from the second transceiver, determining spatial characteristics of the second transceiver from the aggressor reference waveform, and configuring its antenna system spatial processing based on the spatial characteristics of the second transceiver. It is possible for the victim UE to determine second transceiver characteristics from the aggressor reference waveform and transmit information regarding the second transceiver characteristics to its serving base station).
Venkata and Frank are both considered to be analogous claimed inventions because they are in the same field of communication networks, dealing with improving coexistence among radios operating in adjacent frequency spectrum or bands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata to incorporate the teachings of Frank on interference cancellation, with a motivation to train victim nodes using aggressors time and frequency datasets, and subsequent enables communication between two or more nodes or devices, (Venvkata, Para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 2, 17, 25 and 30, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 16 and the method of claims 24 and 29 respectively.
Venkata further teaches to indicate the capability at least in part by transmitting the capability to the aggressor network node using backhaul signaling or over-the-air signaling (Fig. 1, Para. [0026]-Venkata discloses Aggressor BS 138 may be connected via an X2 (or a BS-BS) interface 153 to victim BS 134. In this illustrative example, only two BSs/cells are shown, and only one user device/UE per cell, but any number of cells/BSs and/or user devices may be provided. {The Instant Appl. in Fig. 1, Para. [0035]-discloses the base stations 102 may communicate directly or indirectly (e.g., through the EPC 160 or 5GC 190) with each other over backhaul links 134 (e.g., using an X2 interface).}).
Regarding claims 4, 19 and 27, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 16 and the method of claim 24 respectively.
Venkata further teaches to indicate the capability at least in part by transmitting one or more parameters related to the capability that allows the aggressor network node to transmit the one or more downlink signals over an uplink symbol over which the one or more uplink signals are received from the device (Para. [0008]-Venkata discloses sending, by the victim base station to one or more neighbor base stations {aggressors}, ... an interference cancellation capability indication. Para. [0066]-Venkata discloses an aggressor BS may determine whether or not to mute an interfering signal based on various criteria or parameters, such as the interference capability indication (e.g., indicating IC not capable, which is interpreted as a muting request from victim BS 134), the priority of the victim cell vs. the priority of the aggressor cell for such resource, the delay of packets/data within the victim cell and the aggressor cell, and the channel quality (e.g., CQI/channel quality indication) or MCS increase or signal gains that may be obtained by the victim cell/victim BS 134 if muting is performed, or based on other criteria).
Regarding claims 5, 20 and 28, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claims 4, 19 and the method of claim 27 respectively.
Venkata further teaches the one or more parameters indicate a transmit power limit for transmitting the one or more downlink signals or a time offset for transmitting the one or more downlink signals (Fig. 1, Para. [0029-0030]-Venkata discloses two or more cells (including network nodes, e.g., BSs, user devices within those cells) may use one or more common time/frequency resources (e.g., resource blocks) to transmit information ... the signal transmitted from user device 139, if sufficiently near (or close) to cell 136 and/or having sufficient transmission power, may be received by user device 132 as inter-cell interference. Thus, in such case, the signal 162A/162B from the aggressor cell may be received by user device 132 as interference and may reduce the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of the signal received by user device 132 from its BS 134. Para. [0072]-Venkata discloses one or more interfering signals being muted (by aggressor BS(s)), for a time/frequency resource. Fig. 5, Para. [0113-0000]-Venkata discloses {each BS} schedule UL/DL (uplink or downlink) transmissions on a MCS (modulation and coding scheme) in accordance with the determined channel quality/CQI for each wireless link ... QoS/priority information for each cell (for a particular resource {Time/Frequency}) may be used by neighbor/aggressor BSs to make muting decisions, e.g., based on relative priorities between an aggressor BS and victim BS for the same resource ... At 512, a database of strong interferers is created or established, and updated from time to time, e.g., at a BS(s), or at a core network location/function. A strong interferer may be an interfering signal that has a received signal strength {corresponding to transmit power} that is greater than a threshold ... victim BS, and may identify a further/future time slot or subframe for a transmission between the victim BS 134 and the user device for which the identified MCS will be used ... At 526, the neighbor/aggressor BSs may make muting decisions for one or more interfering signals, e.g., based on the On/Off indication for each of one or more interfering signals ... At 532, for any non-muted strong interferers/interfering signals, the aggressor/neighbor BS/cell will use the same MCS as before to transmit the interfering signal ... during a subsequent transmission or subsequent scheduled time/frequency resource for the interfering signal, for example).
Regarding claim 10, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Venkata further teaches the one or more reference signals include a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal block (SSB), a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) of a control resource set (CORESET), or a training reference signal (Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses the first (or initial) MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example. Fig. 3, Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses victim BS 134 may perform channel estimation or otherwise calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the victim BS 134 is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals), and
to perform the channel estimation based on the time and frequency locations determined for the CSI-RS, SSB, DMRS, or training reference signal (Fig. 3, Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses victim BS 134 may perform channel estimation or otherwise calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the victim BS 134 is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals, e.g., a SINR greater than a threshold may indicate that the BS 134 can decode an interfering signal. Or, the victim BS 134 may determine if it can perform interference cancellation based on whether the BS 134 can decode the interfering signal. If the victim BS 134 can decode an interfering signal, then the victim BS 134 may then perform interference cancellation by subtracting the decoded interfering signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses the first (or initial) MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example).
Regarding claim 11, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Venkata further teaches to request, from the aggressor network node, the time and frequency locations for the one or more reference signals (Para. [0035]-Venkata discloses If the user device 132 can decode a signal, then the user device can then subtract the decoded (interfering) signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. In order to decode an interfering signal(s), the user device may receive the MCS (modulation and coding scheme), scheduling information, spatial layers, etc. for one or more interfering signals. For example, the serving BS (victim BS 134) for user device 132 may request and obtain MCS and scheduling information for one or more interfering signals from one or more aggressor BSs/cells. Fig. 5, Para. [0116]-Venkata discloses At 516, each neighbor/aggressor cell, e.g., in response to the request at 514, may send a reply (e.g., specifically to the requesting BS or to all nearby/neighbor B Ss) that may include a list of interfering signals generated by or within the neighbor/aggressor cell, and various information for each interfering signal, e.g., which may include a MCS for the interfering signal, spatial layers for the interfering signal, scheduling information (e.g., what time/frequency resources are scheduled for such interfering signals). Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example).
Regarding claim 13, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Venkata further teaches to refrain from scheduling devices for transmitting during time and frequency locations of the one or more reference signals (Fig. 2, Para. [0033-0034]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example … the aggressor cell to mute (e.g., cause the aggressor cell to turn Off, cease transmission, or not to transmit) one or more of the interfering signals).
Regarding claim 14, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Venkata further teaches to perform the channel estimation using a first occasion of a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal block (SSB), a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) of a control resource set (CORESET), or a training reference signal (Fig. 3, Para. [0062]-Venkata discloses victim BS 134 may perform channel estimation or otherwise calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the victim BS 134 is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals, e.g., a SINR greater than a threshold may indicate that the BS 134 can decode an interfering signal. Or, the victim BS 134 may determine if it can perform interference cancellation based on whether the BS 134 can decode the interfering signal. If the victim BS 134 can decode an interfering signal, then the victim BS 134 may then perform interference cancellation by subtracting the decoded interfering signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses the first (or initial) MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example),
to cancel the one or more downlink signals at least in part by cancelling, based on the channel estimation, a second occasion of the CSI-RS, SSB, or DMRS of the CORESET (Fig. 2, Para. [0033-0034]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example … cancel (via interference cancellation performed by the receiving network node within the victim cell) one or more of the interfering signals).
Regarding claims 15 and 23, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 16.
Venkata further teaches to receive, from the aggressor network node, an indication of resources for data scheduling including resources for the one or more downlink signals (Para. [0035]-Venkata discloses If the user device 132 can decode a signal, then the user device can then subtract the decoded (interfering) signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. In order to decode an interfering signal(s), the user device may receive the MCS (modulation and coding scheme), scheduling information, spatial layers, etc. for one or more interfering signals. For example, the serving BS (victim BS 134) for user device 132 may request and obtain MCS and scheduling information for one or more interfering signals from one or more aggressor BSs/cells. Fig. 5, Para. [0116]-Venkata discloses At 516, each neighbor/aggressor cell, e.g., in response to the request at 514, may send a reply (e.g., specifically to the requesting BS or to all nearby/neighbor B Ss) that may include a list of interfering signals generated by or within the neighbor/aggressor cell, and various information for each interfering signal, e.g., which may include a MCS for the interfering signal, spatial layers for the interfering signal, scheduling information (e.g., what time/frequency resources are scheduled for such interfering signals). Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example),
to cancel the one or more downlink signals based on the indication of resources (Fig. 2, Para. [0033-0034]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example … cancel (via interference cancellation performed by the receiving network node within the victim cell) one or more of the interfering signals. Para. [0068]-Venkata discloses MCS for use in communicating with the user device 132, e.g., which may be a higher MCS, allowing greater data throughput for example (based on the expected muting and/or cancellation of one or more interfering signals for one or more scheduled time/frequency resources)).
Regarding claim 21, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Venkata further teaches to receive, from the victim network node, a request to indicate the time and frequency locations for one or more reference signals used in a training phase to cancel the one or more downlink signals from the uplink symbol (Para. [0035]-Venkata discloses If the user device 132 can decode a signal, then the user device can then subtract the decoded (interfering) signal from the signal(s) it received at the same time or via the same time-frequency resources. In order to decode an interfering signal(s), the user device may receive the MCS (modulation and coding scheme), scheduling information, spatial layers, etc. for one or more interfering signals. For example, the serving BS (victim BS 134) for user device 132 may request and obtain MCS and scheduling information for one or more interfering signals from one or more aggressor BSs/cells. Fig. 5, Para. [0116]-Venkata discloses At 516, each neighbor/aggressor cell, e.g., in response to the request at 514, may send a reply (e.g., specifically to the requesting BS or to all nearby/neighbor B Ss) that may include a list of interfering signals generated by or within the neighbor/aggressor cell, and various information for each interfering signal, e.g., which may include a MCS for the interfering signal, spatial layers for the interfering signal, scheduling information (e.g., what time/frequency resources are scheduled for such interfering signals). Fig. 2, Para. [0033]-Venkata discloses MCS may be the MCS used by BS 134 to transmit data, pilot signals, reference signals (or other signals) to user device 132, for example. Para. [0068]-Venkata discloses MCS for use in communicating with the user device 132, e.g., which may be a higher MCS, allowing greater data throughput for example (based on the expected muting and/or cancellation of one or more interfering signals for one or more scheduled time/frequency resources)).
Claims 3, 7, 18, 26 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 20180123719 A1), hereinafter referenced as Venkata, in view of Frank et al. (US 20120236736 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frank, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 20210320760 A1), hereinafter referenced as Rastegardoost.
Regarding claims 3, 18 and 26, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claims 2, 17 and the method of claim 25 respectively.
Venkata fails to teach to transmit the capability to the aggressor network node using F 1 signaling where the apparatus and the aggressor network node correspond to the same centralized unit or using F 1 and Xn signaling where the apparatus and the aggressor network node correspond to different centralized units.
However, Rastegardoost teaches to transmit the capability to the aggressor network node using F 1 signaling where the apparatus and the aggressor network node correspond to the same centralized unit or using F 1 and Xn signaling where the apparatus and the aggressor network node correspond to different centralized units (Para. [0105]-Rastegardoost discloses A gNB, such as gNBs 160 in FIG. 1B, may be split in two parts: a central unit (gNB-CU), and one or more distributed units (gNB-DU). A gNB-CU may be coupled to one or more gNB-DUs using an F1 interface. The gNB-CU may comprise the RRC, the PDCP, and the SDAP. A gNB-DU may comprise the RLC, the MAC, and the PHY. Fig. 1B, Para. [0055]-Rastegardoost discloses the gNBs 160 and/or the ng-eNBs 162 may be connected to the 5G-CN 152 by means of an NG interface and to other base stations by an Xn interface. The NG and Xn interfaces may be established using direct physical connections and/or indirect connections over an underlying transport network, such as an internet protocol (IP) transport network. The gNBs 160 and/or the ng-eNBs 162 may be connected to the UEs 156 by means of a Uu interface. Para. [0223]-Rastegardoost discloses A wireless devices may support a baseline processing time/capability. Some wireless devices may support additional aggressive/faster processing time/capability. A wireless device may report to a base station a processing capability, e.g. per sub-carrier spacing).
Venkata and Rastegardoost are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication, dealing with signal interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata in view of Frank to incorporate the teachings of Rastegardoost on F1 and Xn signalling, with a motivation to transmit the capability to the aggressor network node, and guarantee global standardization of specifications for mobile communication networks, (Rastegardoost, Para. [0048]).
Regarding claims 7 and 31, Venkata in view of Frank teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 24 respectively.
Venkata fails to teach the one or more reference signals include a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), and … to perform the channel estimation based on the time and frequency locations determined for the DMRS.
However, Rastegardoost teaches the one or more reference signals include a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (Para. [0093]-Rastegardoost discloses the physical layer signals defined by NR include: primary synchronization signals (PSS), secondary synchronization signals (SSS), channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS), demodulation reference signals (DMRS). Figs. 5A-5B, Para. [0093]-Rastegardoost discloses In the downlink, a base station may transmit (e.g., unicast, multicast, and/or broadcast) one or more Reference Signals (RSs) to a UE (e.g., PSS, SSS, CSI-RS, DMRS, and/or PT-RS, as shown in FIG. 5A)), and
to perform the channel estimation based on the time and frequency locations determined for the DMRS (Para. [0146]-Rastegardoost discloses Downlink DMRSs may be transmitted by a base station and used by a UE for channel estimation).
Rastegardoost is considered to be analogous because it is in the same field of wireless communication, dealing with signal interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata in view of Frank to incorporate the teachings of Rastegardoost on DMRS, with a motivation to include DMRS and perform channel state estimation, and guarantee global standardization of specifications for mobile communication networks, (Rastegardoost, Para. [0048]).
Claims 8-9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 20180123719 A1), hereinafter referenced as Venkata, in view of Frank et al. (US 20120236736 A1), hereinafter referenced as Frank, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 20210320760 A1), hereinafter referenced as Rastegardoost, and further in view of Rico Alvarino et al. (US 20190342057 A1), hereinafter referenced as Rico.
Regarding claims 8 and 32, Venkata in view of Frank and Rastegardoost teaches the apparatus of claim 7 and the method of claim 31 respectively.
Venkata fails to teach the one or more reference signals includes an aperiodic, periodic, or semi-persistent DMRS.
However, Rico teaches the one or more reference signals includes an aperiodic, periodic, or semi-persistent DMRS (Fig. 5A, Para. [0149-0150]-Rico discloses If a transmission is in a mini-slot (e.g., a few symbol periods) that is heavily impacted by interference, the UE 115 may increase power for those symbol periods ... demodulation reference signal (DMRS) symbols may be added to the first symbol, or to symbols after the power changes, to estimate the channel).
Rico is considered to be analogous because it is in the same field of wireless communications, dealing with management of remote interference in time division duplexing networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata in view of Frank and Rastegardoost to incorporate the teachings of Rico on DMRS, with a motivation to include aperiodic, periodic, or semi-persistent DMRS, and guarantee supporting multiple base stations operating according to time-aligned time division duplexing (TDD) configurations, (Rico, Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Venkata in view of Frank and Rastegardoost teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Venkata further teach the channel estimation is multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel estimation (Fig. 2, Para. [0033-0035]-Venkata discloses a signal transmitted from BS 134 to user device 132 that may include user device-specific precoding and/or user device-specific multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) weights applied to the signal, where the precoding and/or MIMO weights are specific to user device 132 (e.g., specific to the channel between BS 134 and user device 132), for example ... user device may perform channel estimation and calculate a SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio) in order to estimate whether the user device is capable of decoding one or more of the interfering signals).
Venkata fails to teach to receive, from the aggressor network node, an indication of the time and frequency locations as a resource element (RE) pattern including one or more of a number of code division multiplexing (CDM) groups, per- CDM group RE allocation, or associated DMRS ports for the MIMO channel estimation using the DMRS.
However, Rico teaches to receive, from the aggressor network node, an indication of the time and frequency locations as a resource element (RE) pattern including one or more of a number of code division multiplexing (CDM) groups, per- CDM group RE allocation, or associated DMRS ports for the MIMO channel estimation using the DMRS (Para. [0024]-Rico discloses receiving an overload indication from the second base station, the overload indication including an indication of interfered time-frequency resources of the second cell, determining remote interference of the first cell to the second cell for the interfered time-frequency resources, and sending an indication of the remote interference to the second base station. Para. [0150]-Rico discloses demodulation reference signal (DMRS) symbols may be added to the first symbol, or to symbols after the power changes, to estimate the channel).
Rico is considered to be analogous because it is in the same field of wireless communications, dealing with management of remote interference in time division duplexing networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Venkata in view of Frank and Rastegardoost to incorporate the teachings of Rico on DMRS, with a motivation to receive an indication of the time and frequency locations, and guarantee supporting multiple base stations operating according to time-aligned time division duplexing (TDD) configurations, (Rico, Para. [0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference (Frank et al. (US 20120236736 A1)) being used in the current rejection, which teaches victim nodes’ training phase.
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
ZHOU et al. (US 20220190995 A1)-discloses embodiments regarding interference cancellation are described. In one embodiment, an electronic device for a first base station includes a processing circuit, and the processing circuit is configured to: obtain channel information of a channel from a second base station to the first base station; process the channel information to divide the channel; and provide at least portion of processed channel information to the second base station, where at least one of the first base station or the second base station cancels, based on the at least portion of the processed channel information, interference caused from downlink transmission of the second base station to uplink reception of the first base station…. …Fig. 1-5
Abrishamkar et al. (US 20160071009 A1)-discloses methods and apparatuses for canceling nonlinear interference during concurrent communication of multi-technology wireless communication devices. Nonlinear interference may be estimated using a radial basis function neural network with Hammerstein structure by executing a radial basis function on aggressor signals at a hidden layer of the radial basis function neural network with Hammerstein structure to obtain hidden layer outputs, augmenting aggressor signal(s) by weight factors and, executing a linear combination of the augmented output, at an intermediate layer to produce a combined hidden layer outputs. At an output layer, a linear filter function may be executed on the hidden layer outputs to produce an estimated nonlinear interference used to cancel the nonlinear interference of a victim signal…. …Fig. 1-5
TU et al. (US 20160072649 A1)-discloses methods and apparatuses for cancelling nonlinear interference during concurrent communication of multi-technology wireless communication devices. Nonlinear interference may be estimated using a minimum mean squares interference filter by generating aggressor kernels from the aggressor signals, augmenting the aggressor kernels by weight factors and executing a linear combination of the augmented output, at an intermediate layer to produce intermediate layer outputs. At an output layer, a linear filter function may be executed on the intermediate layer outputs to produce an estimated nonlinear interference used to cancel the nonlinear interference of a victim signal.… …Fig. 1-5
Lei et al. (US 20180167848 A1)-discloses Channel reservation systems and methods are disclosed herein, which schedule transmissions on a shared radio medium that is shared by a plurality of licensed network operators. In embodiments, priority access is pre-assigned to the network and the method determines whether to send a transmission based at least on the transmitter's priority class as compared to another transmitter's priority class and to which transmitter the time slot of a signal is dedicated. In embodiments, priority access may not be preassigned to the network and pre-grants may be used in conjunction with CR-Ts and CR-Rs to determine whether a transmitter transmits…. …Fig. 1-5
Huang et al. (US 20230300652 A1)-discloses wireless user equipment (UE) configured to receive a downlink in a network configured for full duplex communication. The UE receives from the network an indication of one or more candidate two-dimensional hypotheses for channel state information (CSI) reporting. The UE measures interference of a signal from the aggressor UE, and based on the measurement, determines one or more preferred two-dimensional hypotheses, from the candidate two-dimensional hypotheses. The UE may further determine one or more downlink transmission parameters for a downlink the UE receives, corresponding to the preferred two-dimensional hypotheses. The UE then transmits a CSI report that includes an indication of preferred two-dimensional hypotheses. The CSI report may further include the determined downlink transmission parameters. Other aspects, embodiments, and features are also claimed and described…. …Fig. 1-5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLADIRAN GIDEON OLALEYE whose telephone number is (571)272-5377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 07:30am - 05:30pm.
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 SPE, NICHOLAS A. JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/OO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472