DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 12 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 25 and 26 have been added.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14, 16, 18-22, and 24-26 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 14 (pages 7-9) in a reply filed 12/22/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 objected to because of the following informalities: “one of more signals” should be “one or more signals” and “second based station” should be “second base station”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl et al. US 20230018959 (hereinafter “Abotabl”) in view of Haustein et al. US 20230189315 (hereinafter “Haustein”)
As to claim 1 and 14 (claim 14 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 1):
Abotabl discloses:
User equipment, comprising: a receiver; a transmitter; and processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the receiver and the transmitter, (FIG. 3, Abotabl)
cause the transmitter to send first user data to the second base station and the receiver to receive second user data from the first base station concurrently based on the level of interference not exceeding a threshold; and cause the transmitter to send the first user data to the second base station and the receiver to receive the second user data from the first base station at non-overlapping times based on the level of interference exceeding the threshold. (“FIG. 3 illustrates examples of wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 that support multiple thresholds for unlicensed channel access for full-duplex nodes in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may implement aspects of or may be implemented by aspects of wireless communications system 100, wireless communications system 200, or both. For example, wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may each include one or more UEs 115 and one or more base stations 105, which may be examples of UEs 115 and base stations 105 described with reference to FIGS. 1-2. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may support half-duplex communications or full-duplex communications or both.”, Abotabl [0123]) (“Additionally, for a partial overlap of resources between the reception of the downlink message 215 and the transmission of the arbitrary signal 225, UE 115-a may autonomously adjust the amount of overlap based on self-interference levels at UE 115-a. For example, UE 115-a may determine an amount of self-interference at itself arising from full-duplex communications and may increase or decrease the amount of resource overlap between transmission and reception based on that amount of self-interference (e.g., compared to one or more self-interference thresholds). In some examples, if the amount of self-interference is high (e.g., above a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may decrease the amount of resource overlap to potentially decrease the self-interference. Additionally or alternatively, if the amount of self-interference is low (e.g., below a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may increase the amount of resource overlap for more efficient utilization of communication resources while still managing the self-interference. In some examples, the amount of overlap for the resources used for receiving the downlink message 215 and for transmitting the arbitrary signal 225 may be indicated via signaling between UE 115-a and base station 105-a (e.g., based on resources indicated or configured for the downlink message 215, the arbitrary signal 225, or both).”, Abotabl [0121]) (“In the example of wireless communications system 302, a UE 115-f may be configured for full-duplex communications. UE 115-f may experience uplink-to-downlink self-interference. For example, UE 115-f may transmit uplink communications to a base station 105-f, as well as receive downlink communications from a base station 105-g. Base station 105-g may transmit downlink signaling to both UE 115-f and a UE 115-g. The simultaneous transmission and reception may cause self-interference at UE 115-f. For example, simultaneously transmitting the uplink signaling to base station 105-f and receiving the downlink signaling from base station 105-g may result in energy from the transmitting antennas interfering with the receiving antennas.”, Abotabl [0127])
Abotabl as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processing circuitry configured to determine a level of interference to the receiver caused by the transmitter based on a ratio of a signal strength of one or more signals received from a first base station at the receiver to an output power of one or more signals to be transmitted by the transmitter to a second base station;
However, Haustein further teaches determining the level of interference based on a signal to interference ratio at the UE which includes:
the processing circuitry configured to determine a level of interference to the receiver caused by the transmitter based on a ratio of a signal strength of one or more signals received from a first base station at the receiver to an output power of one or more signals to be transmitted by the transmitter to a second base station; (“The device 40 may be configured for qualifying or quantifying or classifying or categorizing the reception of wireless energy, e.g., when receiving or expecting the interfering signal 34 based on at least one of: [0220] a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) degradation; [0221] a signal-to-interference (SIR) ratio; [0222] an interference level; [0223] a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) or negative ACK (NACK); [0224] an SINR/SIR level analysis, e.g., per (HARQ) retransmission packet or per receive beam pattern; [0225] an SIR/SINR margin with respect to a targeted SINR; and [0226] an SINR margin with adaptive beamforming considering reception (RX) nulling.” Haustein [0219]) (“Depending on the implemented antenna isolation between the TX and the RX antenna in a device, the transmitter power used in UL and implemented Interference mitigation schemes the effective Signal-to-Interference-Ratio (SIR) will significantly depend on the frequency gap between the bandwidth part of the transmitted signal and the bandwidth part of the received signal(s).”, Haustein [1397]) (“Plot 3000 in the bottom of FIG. 30b depicts the relationship between SIR under self-interference conditions and the frequency gap between the transmit and receive BWP. The solid line 3002 represents a scenario alpha/a, where the UE is far away from the BS, therefore receiving a low receive signal power and needing a high transmit power in UL to bridge the pathloss, resulting in a unfavorable low SIR for the receive band. The curve shows that with sufficient gap between the UL and DL BWP the SIR will be above a threshold, representing a sufficiently high channel quality for successful data transmission (communication) in DL.”, Haustein [1398]) (FIG. 9, FIG. 11, FIG. 12, FIG. 13, and FIG. 29b show a UE receiving a signal which is interference signal from one base station and transmitting to another base station, Haustein)
Abotabl and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the level of interference based on a signal to interference ratio as described in Haustein into Abotabl. By modifying the method to include determining the level of interference based on a signal to interference ratio as taught by Haustein, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
As to claim 2:
Abotabl discloses:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data concurrently by causing the transmitter to send the first user data on a first component carrier while causing the receiver to receive the second user data on a second component carrier. (“A UE 115 may be configured with multiple downlink component carriers and one or more uplink component carriers according to a carrier aggregation configuration. Carrier aggregation may be used with both frequency division duplexing (FDD) and time division duplexing (TDD) component carriers.”, Abotabl [0068]) (“FIG. 3 illustrates examples of wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 that support multiple thresholds for unlicensed channel access for full-duplex nodes in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may implement aspects of or may be implemented by aspects of wireless communications system 100, wireless communications system 200, or both. For example, wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may each include one or more UEs 115 and one or more base stations 105, which may be examples of UEs 115 and base stations 105 described with reference to FIGS. 1-2. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may support half-duplex communications or full-duplex communications or both.”, Abotabl [0123]) (“Additionally, for a partial overlap of resources between the reception of the downlink message 215 and the transmission of the arbitrary signal 225, UE 115-a may autonomously adjust the amount of overlap based on self-interference levels at UE 115-a. For example, UE 115-a may determine an amount of self-interference at itself arising from full-duplex communications and may increase or decrease the amount of resource overlap between transmission and reception based on that amount of self-interference (e.g., compared to one or more self-interference thresholds). In some examples, if the amount of self-interference is high (e.g., above a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may decrease the amount of resource overlap to potentially decrease the self-interference. Additionally or alternatively, if the amount of self-interference is low (e.g., below a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may increase the amount of resource overlap for more efficient utilization of communication resources while still managing the self-interference. In some examples, the amount of overlap for the resources used for receiving the downlink message 215 and for transmitting the arbitrary signal 225 may be indicated via signaling between UE 115-a and base station 105-a (e.g., based on resources indicated or configured for the downlink message 215, the arbitrary signal 225, or both).”, Abotabl [0121]) (“In the example of wireless communications system 302, a UE 115-f may be configured for full-duplex communications. UE 115-f may experience uplink-to-downlink self-interference. For example, UE 115-f may transmit uplink communications to a base station 105-f, as well as receive downlink communications from a base station 105-g. Base station 105-g may transmit downlink signaling to both UE 115-f and a UE 115-g. The simultaneous transmission and reception may cause self-interference at UE 115-f. For example, simultaneously transmitting the uplink signaling to base station 105-f and receiving the downlink signaling from base station 105-g may result in energy from the transmitting antennas interfering with the receiving antennas.”, Abotabl [0127])
As to claim 3:
Abotabl discloses:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data concurrently by causing the transmitter to send the first user data on a first component carrier and third user data on a second component carrier while causing the receiver to receive the second user data on the first component carrier and receive fourth user data on the second component carrier. (“A UE 115 may be configured with multiple downlink component carriers and one or more uplink component carriers according to a carrier aggregation configuration. Carrier aggregation may be used with both frequency division duplexing (FDD) and time division duplexing (TDD) component carriers.”, Abotabl [0068]) (“FIG. 3 illustrates examples of wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 that support multiple thresholds for unlicensed channel access for full-duplex nodes in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may implement aspects of or may be implemented by aspects of wireless communications system 100, wireless communications system 200, or both. For example, wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may each include one or more UEs 115 and one or more base stations 105, which may be examples of UEs 115 and base stations 105 described with reference to FIGS. 1-2. Wireless communications systems 300, 301, and 302 may support half-duplex communications or full-duplex communications or both.”, Abotabl [0123]) (“Additionally, for a partial overlap of resources between the reception of the downlink message 215 and the transmission of the arbitrary signal 225, UE 115-a may autonomously adjust the amount of overlap based on self-interference levels at UE 115-a. For example, UE 115-a may determine an amount of self-interference at itself arising from full-duplex communications and may increase or decrease the amount of resource overlap between transmission and reception based on that amount of self-interference (e.g., compared to one or more self-interference thresholds). In some examples, if the amount of self-interference is high (e.g., above a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may decrease the amount of resource overlap to potentially decrease the self-interference. Additionally or alternatively, if the amount of self-interference is low (e.g., below a self-interference threshold), UE 115-a may increase the amount of resource overlap for more efficient utilization of communication resources while still managing the self-interference. In some examples, the amount of overlap for the resources used for receiving the downlink message 215 and for transmitting the arbitrary signal 225 may be indicated via signaling between UE 115-a and base station 105-a (e.g., based on resources indicated or configured for the downlink message 215, the arbitrary signal 225, or both).”, Abotabl [0121]) (“In the example of wireless communications system 302, a UE 115-f may be configured for full-duplex communications. UE 115-f may experience uplink-to-downlink self-interference. For example, UE 115-f may transmit uplink communications to a base station 105-f, as well as receive downlink communications from a base station 105-g. Base station 105-g may transmit downlink signaling to both UE 115-f and a UE 115-g. The simultaneous transmission and reception may cause self-interference at UE 115-f. For example, simultaneously transmitting the uplink signaling to base station 105-f and receiving the downlink signaling from base station 105-g may result in energy from the transmitting antennas interfering with the receiving antennas.”, Abotabl [0127])
As to claim 24:
Abotabl as described above does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a maximum sensitivity degradation of the user equipment based on an amount by which the ratio exceeds the threshold.
However, Haustein further teaches determining the level of interference based on the signal to interference ratio exceeding a threshold which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a maximum sensitivity degradation of the user equipment based on an amount by which the ratio exceeds the threshold. (“evaluating an interference power based on a maximum interference measured thereby.”, Haustein [1201])(“Aspect 39. The device of one of aspects 25 to 38, wherein the device is configured for determine the selected future radio resources based on at least one probability of:”, Haustein [1521])(“Signal to interference ratio, SIR, exceeding a predetermined threshold the selected future slot”, Haustein [1230])
Abotabl and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the level of interference based on the signal to interference ratio exceeding a threshold as described in Haustein into Abotabl. By modifying the method to include determining the level of interference based on the signal to interference ratio exceeding a threshold as taught by Haustein, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bontu et al. US 20160165471 (hereinafter “Bontu”)
As to claim 16:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 14, comprising configuring, from the first base station, the user equipment to transmit a channel quality information report and receiving, at the first base station, the channel quality information report, wherein determining, at the first base station, the signal strength of the one or more signals received from the second base station at the receiver of the user equipment is based on the channel quality information report.
However, Bontu further teaches determining signal strength of serving and neighboring cells based on channel quality report which includes:
The method of claim 14, comprising configuring, from the first base station, the user equipment to transmit a channel quality information report and receiving, at the first base station, the channel quality information report, wherein determining, at the first base station, the signal strength of the one or more signals received from the second base station at the receiver of the user equipment is based on the channel quality information report. (“According to one aspect, a method includes performing received signal quality measurements of the serving cell and a plurality of neighboring cells. The method also includes calculating a UE metric based on the received signal quality measurements of a plurality of interfering cells and based on a scaling parameter. The method further includes comparing the calculated UE metric to a UE threshold to determine whether to send the measurement report to the serving cell.”, Bontu [0012])
Abotabl, Bontu, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining signal quality of UE and base stations.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining signal strength of serving and neighboring cells based on channel quality report as described in Bontu into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include determining signal strength of serving and neighboring cells based on channel quality report as taught by Bontu, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Bontu [0033], and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. US 20210021399 (hereinafter “Liu”)
As to claim 18:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 14, wherein determining, at the first base station, the self- interference of the transmitter and the receiver of the user equipment comprises determining, at the first base station, a transmission power at the transmitter of the user equipment.
However, Liu further teaches determining self-interference which includes:
The method of claim 14, wherein determining, at the first base station, the self- interference of the transmitter and the receiver of the user equipment comprises determining, at the first base station, a transmission power at the transmitter of the user equipment. (“the CQI offset is set to o when the UE transmission power level is below the TX power break point. The CQI offset may be estimated in accordance with measurements of a FD downlink reference signal or derived in accordance with the TX transmit power level and a FD self-cancellation gain (CG) table that includes cancellation gains for different FD configuration conditions (such as TX/RX bandwidth, TX power level, beamforming modes, and so forth) at the UE while FD operation is active”, Liu [0046])
Abotabl, Liu, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining self-interference as described in Liu into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include determining self-interference as taught by Liu, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Liu [0032], and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
As to claim 19:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 18, comprising configuring, from the first base station, the user equipment to transmit a power headroom report and receiving the power headroom report, wherein determining, at the first base station, the transmission power at the transmitter of the user equipment is based on the power headroom report.
However, Liu further teaches determining self-interference which includes:
The method of claim 18, comprising configuring, from the first base station, the user equipment to transmit a power headroom report and receiving the power headroom report, wherein determining, at the first base station, the transmission power at the transmitter of the user equipment is based on the power headroom report. (“A first power margin UL_Free_LA_HR is a TX power headroom margin and indicates how much power margin is left or needed for the eNB to conduct uplink power control without impacting FD downlink performance”, Liu [0048])
Abotabl, Liu, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining self-interference as described in Liu into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include determining self-interference as taught by Liu, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Liu [0032], and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
As to claim 20:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 14, wherein determining, at the first base station, the self- interference of the transmitter and the receiver of the user equipment comprises receiving and determining, at the user equipment, a power of a signal including a desired signal and co- channel interference, deactivating, at the user equipment, the transmitter, receiving and determining, at the user equipment, a power of the desired signal, and comparing, at the user equipment, the power of the signal to the power of the desired signal.
However, Liu further teaches determining self-interference which includes:
The method of claim 14, wherein determining, at the first base station, the self- interference of the transmitter and the receiver of the user equipment comprises receiving and determining, at the user equipment, a power of a signal including a desired signal and co- channel interference, deactivating, at the user equipment, the transmitter, receiving and determining, at the user equipment, a power of the desired signal, and comparing, at the user equipment, the power of the signal to the power of the desired signal. (“Based on a self-interference noise floor 830 and a transmit power level 835, the UE is able to determine a FD_Pwr_HR 840, which is equal to a difference between maximum tolerable TX power level 825 and TX transmit power level 835. A total cancellation gain 845 is a difference between TX power level 835 and self-interference noise floor 830. Alternatively, the measurement report includes maximum tolerable TX power level 825 instead of FD_Pwr_HR 840 in a situation when absolute power control is used.”, Liu [0049])
Abotabl, Liu, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining self-interference as described in Liu into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include determining self-interference as taught by Liu, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Liu [0032], and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 20210091918 (hereinafter “Lee”)
As to claim 4:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein as described above does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data concurrently using carrier aggregation.
However, Lee further teaches carrier aggregation which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data concurrently (“The WTRU 102 may include a full duplex radio for which transmission and reception of some or all of the signals (e.g., associated with particular subframes for both the UL (e.g., for transmission) and DL (e.g. for reception) may be, for example partially or fully, concurrent and/or simultaneous.”, Lee [0057]) using carrier aggregation. (“an Activation/Deactivation CE (e.g., the Activation/Deactivation CE may be included in the PDSCH for a WTRU configured for carrier aggregation to activate or deactivate certain secondary serving cells”, Lee [0123])
Abotabl, Haustein, and Lee are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carrier aggregation as described in Lee into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include carrier aggregation as taught by Lee, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) and improved reception of simultaneous transmissions (Lee [0268]) are achieved.
As to claim 5:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein as described above does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data at the non-overlapping times using carrier aggregation.
However, Lee further teaches carrier aggregation which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data at the non-overlapping times (“The WTRU 102 may include a full duplex radio for which transmission and reception of some or all of the signals (e.g., associated with particular subframes for both the UL (e.g., for transmission) and DL (e.g. for reception) may be, for example partially or fully, concurrent and/or simultaneous.”, Lee [0057]) using carrier aggregation. (“an Activation/Deactivation CE (e.g., the Activation/Deactivation CE may be included in the PDSCH for a WTRU configured for carrier aggregation to activate or deactivate certain secondary serving cells”, Lee [0123])
Abotabl, Haustein, and Lee are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carrier aggregation as described in Lee into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include carrier aggregation as taught by Lee, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) and improved reception of simultaneous transmissions (Lee [0268]) are achieved.
As to claim 6:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein as described above does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data using frequency division duplexing.
However, Lee further teaches FDD which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data using frequency division duplexing. (“In a frequency division duplex (FDD) communication system”, Lee [0079])
Abotabl, Haustein, and Lee are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include FDD as described in Lee into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include FDD as taught by Lee, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) and improved reception of simultaneous transmissions (Lee [0268]) are achieved.
As to claim 7:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein as described above does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data using time division duplexing.
However, Lee further teaches TDD which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the transmitter to send the first user data and the receiver to receive the second user data using time division duplexing. (“In a time division duplex (TDD) system”, Lee [0080])
Abotabl, Haustein, and Lee are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TDD as described in Lee into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include TDD as taught by Lee, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) and improved reception of simultaneous transmissions (Lee [0268]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 20230224970 (hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Lin et al. US 20250007681 (hereinafter “Lin”) and in further view of Haustein et al. US 20230189315 (hereinafter “Haustein”)
As to claim 8:
Zhang discloses:
One or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media, storing machine-readable instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to (“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication at a first UE is described. The code may include instructions executable by a processor”, Zhang [0010]):n; receive a configuration to perform the simultaneous receive-transmit operation or the non-simultaneous receive-transmit operation based on the indication of receiver sensitivity degradation; and perform the simultaneous receive-transmit operation or the non-simultaneous receive- transmit operation. (“the downlink UE may be configured to report (to the base station) high interference detected in ongoing downlink reception from a full-duplex base station to avoid potential future CLI from the RACH UE (e.g., interference caused by RACH retransmission, Msg3, or other RACH message). A CLI indication may be transmitted to the full-duplex base station via physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) which, in some examples, additionally may include HARQ ACK/NACK feedback, a scheduling request, or other uplink control information. Based on receiving the indication the base station may avoid using full-duplex downlink occasions or may update one or more parameters for configuring full-duplex downlink communications. In some examples, the base station may identify the RACH UE based on a preamble received in the RO associated with the CLI indication, and may avoid scheduling full-duplex communications between the RACH UE and the downlink UE.”, Zhang [0110])
Zhang as described above does not explicitly teach:
One or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media, storing machine-readable instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to: transmit an indication that user equipment is capable of dynamically switching between a simultaneous receive-transmit operation and a non-simultaneous receive-transmit operation;
However, Lin further teaches dynamically switching between full duplex and half duplex operation which includes:
One or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media, storing machine-readable instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to (“communication apparatus 310 may also include a transceiver 316 coupled to processor 312 and capable of wirelessly transmitting and receiving data. In some implementations, communication apparatus 310 may further include a memory 314 coupled to processor 312”, Lin [0036]): transmit an indication that user equipment is capable of dynamically switching between a simultaneous receive-transmit operation and a non-simultaneous receive-transmit operation; (“The UE may transmit a request to switch an operation mode (e.g., HD-FDD mode or FD-FDD mode) to the network node. The UE may transmit such request based on some trigger conditions. For example, when the UE battery is lower than a threshold or the UE is operated in a power saving mode, the UE may switch to the HD-DD mode to extend the battery life. After transmitting the mode-switch request, the UE may receive a response from the network node configuring the operation mode. For example, the network node may acknowledge whether the request is enforced/executed. The network node may also indicate which operation mode (e.g., HD-FDD mode or FD-FDD mode) is in use. Then, the UE may prepare for and operate in the requested mode (e.g., HD-FDD mode or FD-FDD mode) according to the response.”, Lin, [0030])
Zhang and Lin are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include dynamically switching between full duplex and half duplex operation as described in Lin into Zhang. By modifying the method to include dynamically switching between full duplex and half duplex operation as taught by Lin, the benefits of power efficiency (Lin [0005]) and improved reliability (Zhang [0170]) are achieved.
The combination of Zhang and Lin as described above does not explicitly teach:
transmit an indication of receiver sensitivity degradation to a first base station based on a ratio of a signal strength of one or more signals received from the first base station at a receiver of the user equipment to an output power of one or more signals to be transmitted by a transmitter of the user equipment to a second base station;
However, Haustein further teaches transmitting a reporting to a base station indicating signal to interference ratio which includes:
transmit an indication of receiver sensitivity degradation to a first base station based on a ratio of a signal strength of one or more signals received from the first base station at a receiver of the user equipment to an output power of one or more signals to be transmitted by a transmitter of the user equipment to a second base station; (“wherein the base station is configured for receiving a report generated by the reporting device, the measurement report indicating an amount of interference perceived by the reporting device through a reference signal of a set of reference signals used in the wireless communication system; and wherein the base station is configured for using the measurement report and information about other devices communicating in the wireless communication system and information about reference signals used by the other devices for adapting the communications configuration of at least one device of the plurality of devices for mitigating interference.”, Haustein [0043]) (“The device 40 may be configured for reporting the reception, i.e., to include information into the report 32, based on at least one of: [0254] a full set, a sub-set, a compressed/reduced set of parameters; the reception report parameters may, for example, include one or more of the following: [0255] Received power (also per beam, per component carrier) [0256] Received channel [0257] Received direction [0258] Received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [0259] Received signal-to-interference ratio (SIR)”, Haustein [0253]) (“Depending on the implemented antenna isolation between the TX and the RX antenna in a device, the transmitter power used in UL and implemented Interference mitigation schemes the effective Signal-to-Interference-Ratio (SIR) will significantly depend on the frequency gap between the bandwidth part of the transmitted signal and the bandwidth part of the received signal(s).”, Haustein [1397]) (“Plot 3000 in the bottom of FIG. 30b depicts the relationship between SIR under self-interference conditions and the frequency gap between the transmit and receive BWP. The solid line 3002 represents a scenario alpha/a, where the UE is far away from the BS, therefore receiving a low receive signal power and needing a high transmit power in UL to bridge the pathloss, resulting in a unfavorable low SIR for the receive band. The curve shows that with sufficient gap between the UL and DL BWP the SIR will be above a threshold, representing a sufficiently high channel quality for successful data transmission (communication) in DL.”, Haustein [1398]) (FIG. 9, FIG. 11, FIG. 12, FIG. 13, and FIG. 29b show a UE receiving a signal which could be the interference signal from one base station and transmitting to another base station, Haustein)
Zhang, Haustein, and Lin are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting a reporting to a base station indicating signal to interference ratio as described in Haustein into Zhang as modified by Lin. By modifying the method to include transmitting a reporting to a base station indicating signal to interference ratio as taught by Haustein, the benefits of power efficiency (Lin [0005]), improved performance (Haustein [1398]), and improved reliability (Zhang [0170]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lin and Haustein, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Liu et al. US 20210021399 (hereinafter “Liu”)
As to claim 10:
The combination of Zhang, Lin, and Haustein as described above does not teach:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 8, wherein the machine-readable instructions configured to cause the processing circuitry to determine the indication of the receiver sensitivity degradation based on comparing the receiver sensitivity degradation to a threshold.
However, Liu further teaches comparing receiver sensitivity to a threshold which includes:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 8, wherein the machine-readable instructions configured to cause the processing circuitry to determine the indication of the receiver sensitivity degradation based on comparing the receiver sensitivity degradation to a threshold. (“When a self-interference noise floor (the interference at a receiver (RX) of a UE due to transmissions at a transmitter (TX) of the UE) is lower than a RX noise floor (the minimum noise level at the RX of the UE, generally related to a noise figure of the RX and a bandwidth of the RX, as well as other environmental sources of interference (other than self-interference))”, Liu [0037])
Zhang, Haustein, Liu, and Lin are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing receiver sensitivity to a threshold as described in Liu into Zhang as modified by Lin and Haustein. By modifying the method to include comparing receiver sensitivity to a threshold as taught by Liu, the benefits of power efficiency (Lin [0005]), improved performance (Liu [0032] and Haustein [1398]), and improved reliability (Zhang [0170]) are achieved.
As to claim 11:
The combination of Zhang, Lin, and Haustein as described above does not teach:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 8, wherein the simultaneous receive-transmit operation and the non-simultaneous receive-transmit operation are associated with a plurality of component carriers.
However, Liu further teaches simultaneous and non-simultaneous operation for component carriers which includes:
The one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 8, wherein the simultaneous receive-transmit operation and the non-simultaneous receive-transmit operation (“Both eNB 205 and UE 215 are capable of FD operation, where they simultaneously transmit and receive on a downlink 225 and an uplink 230 in a single frequency band. As an illustrative example, eNB 205 transmits on downlink 225 and receives on uplink 230 while UE 215 receives on downlink 225 and transmits on uplink 230. Both eNB 205 and UE 215 are also capable of half duplex (HD) operation, where the devices either transmit or receive on downlink 225 and uplink 230 in a single frequency band”, Liu [0036])
are associated with a plurality of component carriers. (“the transceiver 1500 may be a wireless transceiver adapted to communicate in accordance with a wireless telecommunications protocol, such as a cellular protocol (e.g., long-term evolution (LTE), etc.), a wireless local area network (WLAN) protocol (e.g., Wi-Fi, etc.), or any other type of wireless protocol (e.g., Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), etc.)”, Liu [0078])
Zhang, Haustein, Liu, and Lin are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include simultaneous and non-simultaneous operation for component carriers as described in Liu into Zhang as modified by Lin and Haustein. By modifying the method to include simultaneous and non-simultaneous operation for component carriers as taught by Liu, the benefits of power efficiency (Lin [0005]), improved performance (Liu [0032] and Haustein [1398]), and improved reliability (Zhang [0170]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comsa et al. WO 2012021879 (hereinafter “Comsa”)
As to claim 21:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein as described above does not teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the level of interference based on a power headroom report, Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) report, and Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) and negative acknowledgement (NACK) statistics.
However, Comsa further teaches determining the level of interference based on PHR, CQI, and HARQ ACK/NACK which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the level of interference based on a power headroom report (“Since it is difficult to predict interference affecting other RATs in advance, it may be necessary to provide a specific trigger to provide PHR quickly upon detection of interference affecting other RATs.”, Comsa [0297]), Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) report (“the wireless device may detect an interference situation (e.g. at 302) when in-device knowledge that an interfering technology may be activated may be recognized and/or that the RSRQ, RSRP, and/or CQI being below a threshold for a period of time (e.g. during interfered subframes or an average of interfered and non-interfered subframes).”, Comsa [0076]), and Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) and negative acknowledgement (NACK) statistics.(“ To avoid interference when the WTRU receives ACK/NACK from the network (e.g. at 310), processes the ACK/NACK (e.g. at 312), and retransmits the WTRU data, one or a combination of the following methods may be used.”, Comsa [0175]) (“This means that even if the wireless device may not be in Active Time, there is still a risk it may receive acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) on physical HARQ indicator channel (PHICH) and transmit ACK/NACK on physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).”, Comsa [0153])
Abotabl, Haustein, and Comsa are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the level of interference based on PHR, CQI, and HARQ ACK/NACK as described in Comsa into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include determining the level of interference based on PHR, CQI, and HARQ ACK/NACK as taught by Comsa, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]) and improved interference management (Comsa [0299]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein and Comsa as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Han et al. US 20240188005 (hereinafter “Han”) and Hoehne et al. US 20150085657 (hereinafter “Hoehne”)
The combination of Abotabl, Haustein, and Comsa as described above does not teach:
The user equipment of claim 21, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the output power of the transmitter based on the power headroom report, and determine a signal strength of the receiver based on the CQI report and the HARQ ACK and NACK statistics.
However, Han further teaches determining power based on PHR which includes:
The user equipment of claim 21, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the output power of the transmitter based on the power headroom report, (“For power control, each user equipment (UE) needs to report the power head room (PHR) to the network so that each gNB can determine power available (head room) for power adjustment.”, Han [0018]
Abotabl, Haustein, Comsa, and Han are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining power based on PHR as described in Han into Abotabl as modified by Haustein and Comsa. By modifying the method to include determining power based on PHR as taught by Han, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]), improved power reporting (Han [0003]), and improved interference management (Comsa [0299]) are achieved.
The combination of Abotabl, Haustein, Comsa, and Han as described above does not teach:
and determine a signal strength of the receiver based on the CQI report and the HARQ ACK and NACK statistics.
However, Han further teaches determining signal strength based on CQI and HARQ ACK/NACK which includes:
and determine a signal strength of the receiver based on the CQI report and the HARQ ACK and NACK statistics. (“the reliability measure is specified as a list of possible measures (such as those mentioned above) that the RNC can configure (for example, similar to measurement reports which can be configured to be of type RSSI or SINR)”,Hoehne [page 9, line 8]) (“the reliability measure can be e.g. an estimate of packet error rate, latency, or signal quality, e.g. in form of UE-specific filtered CQI reports or filtered HARQ ACK/NACK statistics.”, Hoehne [page 8, line 33])
Abotabl, Haustein, Comsa, Han, and Hoehne are analogous because they pertain to radio interference management.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining signal strength based on CQI and HARQ ACK/NACK as described in Hoehne into Abotabl as modified by Haustein, Comsa, and Han. By modifying the method to include determining signal strength based on CQI and HARQ ACK/NACK as taught by Hoehne, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121] and Haustein [1398]), improved power reporting (Han [0003]), improved robustness (Hoehne [0002]), and improved interference management (Comsa [0299]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pietraski et al. US 20130153298 (hereinafter “Pietraski”)
As to claim 25:
The combination of Abotabl and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive an indication of a first level of path loss associated with a first component carrier based on the signal strength of the one of more signals received from the first base station at the receiver; receive an indication of a second level of path loss associated with a second component carrier based on the output power of the one or more signals to be transmitted by the transmitter to the second based station;
However, Pietraski further teaches downlink and uplink pathloss indication which includes:
The user equipment of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive an indication of a first level of path loss associated with a first component carrier based on the signal strength of the one of more signals received from the first base station at the receiver; receive an indication of a second level of path loss associated with a second component carrier based on the output power of the one or more signals to be transmitted by the transmitter to the second based station; (“The parameter PL is the path loss estimate calculated in the WTRU 605 as PL=referenceSignalPower-higher layer filtered RSRP. When multiple UL CCs are used for UL transmission, a path loss estimate for each UL CC may be used. In one embodiment, the path loss PL.sub.0 on one of the DL CCs, for example, a CC that was defined as the anchor may be estimated. For a given UL CC k, the path loss estimate may be computed as: PL(k)=PL.sub.0+PL_offset(k), Equation (2) where PL_offset(k) may be signaled by the eNB. The offset value may be used to offset the path loss difference due to the frequency separation between different UL CCs. A linear combination of the path losses estimated on several or all of the DL CCs may be used as PL.sub.0.”, Pietraski [0130]) (FIG. 6 – FIG. 12, Pietraski)
and determine the level of interference to the receiver caused by the transmitter based on the first level of path loss and the second level of path loss. (“The WTRUs may need to feed back information to the serving transmission points, (e.g., the level of interference created by a neighbor transmission point on a CC, path losses and/or level of received power from the transmission points on each CC, and the like).”, Pietraski [0091]) (FIG. 6 – FIG. 12, Pietraski)
Abotabl, Pietraski, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include downlink and uplink pathloss indication as described in Pietraski into Abotabl as modified by Haustein. By modifying the method to include downlink and uplink pathloss indication as taught by Pietraski, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Pietraski [0005], and Haustein [1398]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Haustein and Pietraski, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Naim et al. US 9860849 (hereinafter “Naim”)
The combination of Abotabl, Pietraski, and Haustein does not explicitly teach:
The user equipment of claim 25, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to increase a reference sensitivity of the receiver based on the indication of the first level of path loss or increase a transmission power based on the indication of the second level of path loss, wherein the increase to the reference sensitivity of the receiver or the increase of the transmission power of the transmitter causes the level of interference to exceed the threshold.
However, Naim further teaches increasing transmission power which increases level of interference which includes:
The user equipment of claim 25, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to increase a reference sensitivity of the receiver based on the indication of the first level of path loss or increase a transmission power based on the indication of the second level of path loss, wherein the increase to the reference sensitivity of the receiver or the increase of the transmission power of the transmitter causes the level of interference to exceed the threshold. (“At 205, the scaled path loss associated with the one or more neighboring sectors is compared with a threshold to determine how to adjust the transmit power level. In other words, the scaled path loss(es) enable the determination of how much the transmit power of the wireless device can be increased, so as to improve a coverage area of the serving sector without generating too much interference in neighboring sectors. If the threshold is not reached, the transmit power level boost is increased at 206. If the threshold is exceeded, the transmit power level boost is decreased at 206. If the path loss(es) are approximately equal to the threshold, for instance within a +/−10% window of the threshold, then no adjustment may be needed. Consequently, at 207, a transmit power level boost is requested from the network. As described above, the boost may be an incremental increase based on device capabilities and data requirements, and can exceed a P-MAX variable if the wireless device has a power capability greater than P-MAX.”, Naim [29])
Abotabl, Naim, Pietraski, and Haustein are analogous because they pertain to determining the level of interference.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing transmission power which increases level of interference as described in Naim into Abotabl as modified by Haustein and Pietraski. By modifying the method to include increasing transmission power which increases level of interference as taught by Naim, the benefits of improved performance (Abotabl [0121], Pietraski [0005], and Haustein [1398]) and improved coverage (Naim [7]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471