DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 11/10/2025 & 12/05/2025.
Claims 2, 18 and 26-37 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-17 and 19-25 are pending for examination.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner has been unable to locate prior art that reasonably, either singularly or in combination with cited references, would result a proper rejection that would have anticipated or made obvious the subject matter claimed in dependent claims 3, 4, 19 and 20 including all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17 respectively and any intervening claims with proper motivation at or before the time it was effectively filed
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9-17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2017/0238207 A1) in view of Cui et al. (US 2016/0374099 A1) hereinafter “Hwang” and “Cui” respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang teaches A method performed at a network node (Hwang: paragraph 0044 & Fig. 1, base station or eNodeB of serving cell), comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device (Hwang: paragraph 0045 & Fig. 1, terminal or user equipment), a first report about channel state of a first frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0159-0161 & Fig. 14, UE reports first RSRP measurement result to the serving cell (measurement set 0); see also paragraph 0097, inter-frequency measurement between cells of different frequency bands or communication type) and a second report about channel state of a second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0160-0161 & Fig. 14, UE reports second measurement result to the serving cell (measurement set 1); see also paragraph 0097, inter-frequency measurement between cells of different frequency bands or communication type); and
determining whether the terminal device is interfered in any of the first frequency range or the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0162-0163 & Fig. 14, serving cell determines whether eNodeB in interfering cell causes interference to the UE) based on a comparison between the channel state of the first frequency range and the channel state of the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0163-0164 & Fig. 14, determine whether eNodeB in the interference cell causes interference by comparing the plurality of measurement results for each cell).
Hwang fails to explicitly teach the comparison is further based on at least in part on a difference in a first weighted value of a first information carrying capacity (ICC) and a second ICC that are based on a first channel quality indicator (CQI) and a second CQI associated with the first report and second report respectively. However, Cui from an analogous art similarly teaches reporting measurement results to indicate interference conditions of configured subframes (Cui: paragraph 0007) and further teaches reporting multiple weighted CQI measurement values at different downlink subframes respectively to reflect the average channel quality for a single CQI measurement due to uncertainties of channels and interference (Cui: paragraphs 0068, 0074-0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hwang to include comparing multiple CQI reports as taught by Cui so as to further identify interference between frequency ranges in the communication network.
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein whether the terminal device is interfered is determined based on a first channel quality indicator, CQI (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, measurement including channel quality indicator or CQI feedback), a first rank indication, RI (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, measurement including rank indicator (RI)), in the first report, and a second CQI (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, channel quality indicator or CQI feedback), a second RI in the second report (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, rank indicator (RI)).
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein a reference signal is transmitted in the first frequency range and/or the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0157-0161 & Fig. 14, RSRP of first measurement set and second measurement set).
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the reference signal comprises a channel state information reference signal, CSI-RS (Hwang: paragraph 0092 & Fig. 14, RSRP measurement including CSI RS).
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches determining a need to trigger a predetermined event associated with the terminal device (Hwang: paragraph 0122 & Fig. 10, check whether the neighboring cell is an aggressor cell that causes interference);
determining whether a configuration about the predetermined event has been received by the terminal device (Hwang: paragraphs 0120-0121 & Fig. 10 UE capability inquiry and capability information); and
transmitting, to the terminal device, an indicator for the configuration, in response to that the configuration has been received by the terminal device (Hwang: paragraph 0123 & Fig. 10, serving cell transmits the interference cancellation assistance information).
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches transmitting a report about channel state of a frequency range, from the terminal device to the network node (Hwang: paragraphs 0159-0161 & Fig. 14, UE reports first RSRP measurement result to the serving cell (measurement set 0)).
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the indicator is included in a field of downlink control information, DCI (Hwang: paragraph 0123 & Fig. 10, serving cell transmits the interference cancellation assistance information in the downlink).
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the indicator comprises a non-zero codepoint of a channel state information, CSI, request field (Hwang: paragraph 0123 & Fig. 10, interference cancellation assistance information).
Regarding Claim 15, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches determining a capability of the terminal device for storing configuration about the predetermined event (Hwang: paragraphs 0120-0121 & Fig. 10 UE capability inquiry and capability information); and
transmitting, to the terminal device, the configuration about the predetermined event according to the capability of the terminal device, via radio resource control, RRC, reconfiguration (Hwang: paragraph 0096, measurement configuration may be received through an RRC connection reconfiguration message) .
Regarding Claim 16, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the network node comprises a base station (Hwang: paragraph 0044 & Fig. 1, base station or eNodeB of serving cell),
Regarding Claim 17, Hwang teaches A method performed at a terminal device (Hwang: paragraph 0045 & Fig. 1, terminal or user equipment), comprising:
transmitting, to a network node (Hwang: paragraph 0044 & Fig. 1, base station or eNodeB of serving cell), a first report about channel state of a first frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0159-0161 & Fig. 14, UE reports first RSRP measurement result to the serving cell (measurement set 0)); see also paragraph 0097, inter-frequency measurement between cells of different frequency bands or communication type), and a second report about channel state of a second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0160-0161 & Fig. 14, UE reports second measurement result to the serving cell (measurement set 1)); see also paragraph 0097, inter-frequency measurement between cells of different frequency bands or communication type););
wherein the network node determines whether the terminal device is interfered in any of the first frequency range or the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0162-0163 & Fig. 14, serving cell determines whether eNodeB in interfering cell causes interference to the UE), based on a comparison between the channel state of the first frequency range and the channel state of the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0163-0164 & Fig. 14, determine whether eNodeB in the interference cell causes interference by comparing the plurality of measurement results for each cell).
Hwang fails to explicitly teach the comparison is further based on at least in part on a difference in a first weighted value of a first information carrying capacity (ICC) and a second ICC that are based on a first channel quality indicator (CQI) and a second CQI associated with the first report and second report respectively. However, Cui from an analogous art similarly teaches reporting measurement results to indicate interference conditions of configured subframes (Cui: paragraph 0007) and further teaches reporting multiple weighted CQI measurement values at different downlink subframes respectively to reflect the average channel quality for a single CQI measurement due to uncertainties of channels and interference (Cui: paragraphs 0068, 0074-0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hwang to include comparing multiple CQI reports as taught by Cui so as to further indicate interference between frequency ranges in the communication network.
Regarding Claim 18, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein whether the terminal device is interfered is determined based on a first channel quality indicator, CQI (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, measurement including channel quality indicator or CQI feedback), a first rank indication, RI, in the first report (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, measurement including rank indicator (RI)), and a second CQI (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, channel quality indicator or CQI feedback), a second RI in the second report (Hwang: paragraph 0075, 0079, 0094, rank indicator (RI)).
Regarding Claim 25, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein a reference signal is transmitted in the first frequency range and/or the second frequency range (Hwang: paragraphs 0157-0161 & Fig. 14, RSRP of first measurement set and second measurement set).
Claims 5-8 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang-Cui in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2023/0231606 A1) hereinafter “Matsumura.”
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the first frequency range is for a first communication technology or a second communication technology. However, Matsumura from an analogous art similarly teaches a terminal or user device reporting channel state information resource for a band combination to a network device of both an LTE communication and NR communication (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220) and further teaches wherein at least a part of the second frequency range is for both the first communication technology and the second communication technology (Matsumura: paragraphs 0087-0092, band combination A+B, see also paragraph 0341, bands are a combination of LTE and 5G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hwang-Cui to include multiple communications schemes as taught by Matsumura so as to provide further interoperability and connectivity between multiple communication networks.
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first communication technology is of fifth generation, 5G (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220, 5G new radio), and the second communication technology is of fourth generation, 4G (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220, LTE).
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches scheduling the terminal device to the first frequency range, if it is determined that the terminal device is interfered (Hwang: paragraph 0164, serving cell transmits the interference cancellation assistance information for the UE to remove interference from the signal/channel transmitted from a target which is determined to exert great interference).
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first frequency range is included in the second frequency range (Matsumura: paragraphs 0087-0092, band combination A+B, see also paragraph 0341, bands are a combination of LTE and 5G).
Regarding Claim 21, Hwang-Cui teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the first frequency range is for a first communication technology or a second communication technology. However, Matsumura from an analogous art similarly teaches a terminal or user device reporting channel state information resource for a band combination to a network device of both an LTE communication and NR communication (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220) and further teaches wherein at least a part of the second frequency range is for both the first communication technology and the second communication technology (Matsumura: paragraphs 0087-0092, band combination A+B, see also paragraph 0341, bands are a combination of LTE and 5G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hwang-Cui to include multiple communications schemes as taught by Matsumura so as to provide further interoperability and connectivity between multiple communication networks.
Regarding Claim 22, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first communication technology is of fifth generation, 5G (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220, 5G new radio), and the second communication technology is of fourth generation, 4G (Matsumura: paragraphs 0036, 0220-0220, LTE).
Regarding Claim 23, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the terminal device is scheduled to the first frequency range, if it is determined that the terminal device is interfered (Hwang: paragraph 0164, serving cell transmits the interference cancellation assistance information for the UE to remove interference from the signal/channel transmitted from a target which is determined to exert great interference).
Regarding Claim 24, Hwang-Cui-Matsumura teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first frequency range is included in the second frequency range (Matsumura: paragraphs 0087-0092, band combination A+B, see also paragraph 0341, bands are a combination of LTE and 5G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luo et al. (US 2015/0011167 A1) receiving measurement information including CQI of each neighboring cells by a user equipment served by a first cell to determine interference (paragraphs 0040-0042) and further teaches weighing frequency spectrum efficiency correspond to the CQI reports to obtain the processed frequency spectrum efficiency of the first cell (paragraph 0069).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 469-295-9193. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463