Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/002,597

RESOURCE CONFIGURATION FOR RECIPROCAL CROSS-LINK INTERFERENCE MEASUREMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
RIVAS, RAUL
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
391 granted / 471 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 471 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is in response to the communication filed on 01/23/2026. The claim 23 have been newly added by the applicant. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2020 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the configuration information includes information identifying a resource pattern with reciprocal characteristics. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Wang teach “optionally, resource configuration information of one NZP CSI-RS resource may include more than one antenna port group…, the terminal device may perform channel measurement by using one antenna port group/time-frequency resource pattern in one CSI-RS resource, and perform interference measurement by using another antenna port group/time-frequency resource pattern in the CSI-RS resource” (See para. 322-323); for further clarification Wang teach, “A specific selected antenna port group/time-frequency resource pattern may be notified by the network device to the terminal device via signaling, or may be predefined. This is not specifically limited herein. For example, one time-frequency resource pattern or one antenna port group is selected via physical layer signaling or higher layer signaling, to perform interference measurement” (See para. 325-326 and Fig. 3). The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no defined reciprocal characteristics, in fact the Applicant defines that a resource pattern with reciprocal characteristics is configured by the base station for measure potential interference but not “ a network entity can schedule a potential aggressor UE to perform a CLI measurement in the UE downlink reception and may configure the resource for reciprocal CLI measurement (leveraging, as discussed above, the reciprocal characteristics of channels between different wireless communication devices). A reciprocal resource pattern can be scheduled to measure potential interference.” (applicant’s specification para 58-60). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s pattern with “reciprocal characteristics” the examiner equates the resource pattern notified by the network device to perform interference measurement configured by the network teaches “reciprocal characteristics” of a configurable resource block for the same kind of purpose, therefore Wang teaches this concept. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220159596) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200119797). Regarding claim 1 Kim disclose, a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a network entity, configuration information identifying a cross link interference (CLI) resource para. 14-17, “receiving second configuration information including SRS configuration from the base station… The SRS configuration may include an indicator indicating that the SRS is for UE-to-UE interference measurement”; measuring interference with respect to one or more other UEs on the identified CLI resource para. 162, “The present invention also proposes examples of designing a reference signal (RS) for measuring cross-link interference”; and transmitting, to the network entity, a measurement report based on the measured interference para. 277, “After performing the CLI, the UE may report an RSRP/RSSI result to the BS”, where the interference measured by the UE indicates interference caused by the UE to the one or more other UEs para. 377, “A UE-to-UE CLI measurement and reporting procedure may be implicitly activated/deactivated based on a signal quality measured from a serving cell”. Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration information includes information identifying a resource pattern with reciprocal characteristics. However, Wang teach “optionally, resource configuration information of one NZP CSI-RS resource may include more than one antenna port group…, the terminal device may perform channel measurement by using one antenna port group/time-frequency resource pattern in one CSI-RS resource, and perform interference measurement by using another antenna port group/time-frequency resource pattern in the CSI-RS resource”, see para. 322-323. Kim and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang in the system of Kim to instruct the user equipment to perform measurements and report the results of the interference levels. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quality of the channel transmissions. Regarding claim 2 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information is based on a reciprocity pattern associated with one of scheduled uplink slots for the UE conflicting with scheduled downlink slots for the one or more other UEs para. 230, “Interference Measurement Resource (IMR) resources configured for some UEs may need to be ‘rate-matched’ for PDSCH transmission of another UE” or scheduled downlink slots for the UE conflicting with scheduled uplink slots for the one or more other UEs. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives. Regarding claim 4 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information is received in a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or in downlink control information (DCI) para. 119, “Control information transmitted on PDCCH is called DCI (downlink control information)”. Regarding claim 5 Kim disclose, wherein the measured interference comprises one or both of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement or a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement para. 234, “For RSRP (or RSSI)-based UE-to-UE CLI measurement, the transmission timing of the SRS may be changed”. Regarding claim 6 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information includes information identifying whether the measurement report includes an RSSI measurement, an RSRP measurement, or both an RSSI and an RSRP measurement para. 277, “Based on the information configured in Proposal 6 above… After performing the CLI, the UE may report an RSRP/RSSI result to the BS”. Regarding claim 7 Kim disclose, wherein the identified CLI resource comprises one or more identified slots in which the UE is to measure interference para. 261, “SRS transmission for CLI measurement is configured in the last symbol of a slot”. Regarding claim 8 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information comprises a list of resource indices associated with the identified CLI resource in which the UE is to measure interference para. 18, “The indicator indicating that the SRS is for UE-to-UE interference measurement may be included in each of SRS resource sets included in the SRS configuration”. Regarding claim 9 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information includes an identification of a type of measurement to report for each of a plurality of resources on which an interference condition may exist between the UE and one or more other UEs para. 17, “The SRS configuration may include an indicator indicating that the SRS is for UE-to-UE interference measurement”. Claim 10 recites a method corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 11 and 13-18 the limitations of claims 11 and 13-18, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2 and 4-9, respectively. Regarding claim 19 Kim disclose, wireless network device comprising: one or more processors para. 31, Fig. 3, “a processor 310,”; a wireless transmitter/receiver para. 33, Fig. 3, “interface 340 may include any transceiver like mechanism”; furthermore claim 9 recites an apparatus corresponding to the system of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 19 Kim disclose, an apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor para. 66, Fig. 2b, “a processor 102,” furthermore claim 19 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 20 Kim disclose, an apparatus for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising: a processor para. 66, Fig. 2b, “a processor 102,” furthermore claim 20 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 10 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10. Regarding claims 21-22 the limitations of claims 21-22, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 19-20, respectively. Regarding claim 23 Kim disclose, wherein the configuration information is received in response to the TE being identified as a potential aggressor UE that may cause interference to the one or more other TEs based on a time division duplex (TDD) uplink and downlink symbol configurations, para. 351, “interference between DL and UL, interference among a plurality of aggressors and the like can be distinguished. Yet, such a gain is obtained by RSSI appropriately configured in a specific range. For example, in order for a network to measure interference from UL aggressors only, blank resources may be configured in IMR”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chi Pham can be reached on (571) 272–3179. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000. /R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604324
BASE STATION, TERMINAL AND COMMUNICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12580619
CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION ACQUISITION FOR LINE-OF-SIGHT MIMO FEEDER LINKS IN MULTIBEAM SATELLITE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574952
MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12543172
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ACCESS NETWORK CONTROL CHANNELS BASED ON NETWORK SLICE REQUIREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538160
REPORTING DELAY FOR CELL ACTIVATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 471 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month