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 06/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20180323916).
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 identifying the CLI resource includes information identifying a resource pattern with reciprocal characteristics. However, Yang teach wherein the configuration information identifying the CLI resource includes information identifying a resource pattern with reciprocal characteristics “In some implementation, the location of the CLI-RS (e.g., SRS) region may also be configured in middle of a slot. Accordingly, the location of the CLI-RS region may be flexible and depend on practical requirements. In some implementation, TRP-TRP interference measurements may be performed to identify the CLI victim and to have transmission direction coordination for the nodes which cause or suffer severe CLI”, see para. 43-44.
Kim and Yang 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 Yang in the system of Kim to perform measurements precisely identifying resources configurations and allocations that are relevant for the communication channel being inquired to obtain the results of the interference levels that affect both terminals communication processes. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce the interference network to improve the quality of the channel transmission.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200092744) which disclose(s) channel state information measurement method and user equipment.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (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 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights