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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 5-6-2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JACK W KEITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-6-2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that neither Chen nor Ying teach performing an RTT measurement for intra-cell UEs. The examiner agrees that Chen discloses RTT measurements for reducing interference for inter-cell UEs and uses sideband communications to determine timing offsets for intra-cell UEs.
The disclosure of Chen provides for CLI measurements and RTT measurements, both in support or reducing or removing interference between UEs. While Chen uses sideband communications to determine offsets for intra-cell UEs, there is nothing in the disclosure of Chen that would prevent the use of RTT measurements instead. RTT measurements are well-known in the art and are shown to be useful in reducing interference as discussed by Chen regarding inter-cell interference. The examiner submits it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use RTT, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Chen in providing interference reduction.
The applicant has provided no evidence or reasoning as to why RTT for intra-cell is an improvement or in any way better than the sideband communication used by Chen. Both methods are known in the art and as discussed above, there is nothing in the disclosure of Chen that would prevent use of RTT for intra-cell UEs.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0102807, published April 12, 2018 in view of Ying, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 12,082,228, filed February 11, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 30, Chen discloses a method of operating a first user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a reciprocal cross-link interference (CLI) measurement resource configuration associated with the first UE and a second UE (Chen, ¶107);
and performing both a CLI measurement procedure and a round-trip time (RTT) measurement procedure with the second UE based on resources associated with the reciprocal CLI measurement resource configuration (Chen, ¶109-110).
Chen fails to expressly disclose receiving a measured CLI and using RTT for UEs on the same network component.
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use RTT, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Chen in providing interference reduction.
Ying teaches communicating of CLI with the UEs (Fig. 8 and Col. 14, 7-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to communicate CLI with the UEs in order to gain the benefit of allowing each UE to adapt to any interference.
As per claim 2, Chen as modified by Ying discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RTT measurement procedure comprises: transmitting, on a first resource associated with the reciprocal CLI measurement resource configuration, a first reference signal for positioning to the second UE; measuring a first time associated with the transmission of the first reference signal for positioning; receiving, in response to the transmitting on a second resource associated with the reciprocal CLI measurement resource configuration, a second reference signal for positioning from the second UE; and measuring a second time associated with the reception of the second reference signal for positioning (Chen, ¶107 using a reference signal and ¶109 measuring RTT and Ying, Col. 46, lines 21-27)).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to calculate RTT in this manner, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Chen. RTT is well-known in the art and it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how and when to calculate a given value.
As per claims 3-6, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses reporting of information between UEs and base stations (Chen, ¶111-112 and Ying, Fig. 8).
As per claim 7, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, from the second UE, timing measurement information associated with a delay from a third time at which the first reference signal for positioning is received at the second UE and a fourth time at which the second reference signal for positioning is transmitted from the second UE; and calculating an RTT between the first UE and the second UE based on the first time, the second time, and the timing measurement information (Chen, Fig. 1 showing multiple devices and wherein the calculations remain the same as discussed above).
As per the limitations of claim 8, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 2 above where it is understood that either UE is capable of performing RTT.
As per the limitations of claims 9-12, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 3-6 above.
As per claim 13, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RTT measurement procedure is associated with an exchange of reference signals between the first and second UEs (Chen, ¶41 and Ying, Col. 46, lines 21-27).
As per claim 14, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the reference signals comprise a sounding reference signal (SRS), sounding reference signal for positioning (SRS-P), a sidelink reference signal (SL-RS), or a combination thereof (Chen, ¶51 providing a reference signal and Ying, Col. 6, lines 27-31)).
As per claim 15, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the RTT measurement procedure comprises a plurality of RTT measurements, wherein each of the plurality of RTT measurements is associated with a pair of resources (Chen, Fig. 1 showing multiple resources).
As per claim 16, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein, for each pair of resources, the pair of resources is paired based on being adjacent resources associated with a different configured receive-transmit direction (Chen, ¶108 where pairs are part of the same cell).
As per claim 17, Chen as modified by Ying further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein, for each pair of resources, the pair of resources is paired based on a first resource being associated with an anchor time and a second resource being associated with an offset from the anchor time (Chen, ¶110 lead time).
As per the limitations of claims 18 and 31, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1 above as they are obvious variants of each other. A communications base station can perform the same analysis as a UE and it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine which resource does what.
As per the limitations of claim 19 and 20, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 2 and 3 above.
As per the limitations of claims 21-25, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 13-17 respectively.
As per the limitations of claim 26, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1 above.
As per the limitations of claim 27, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 18 above.
As per the limitations of claim 28, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1 above including Chen, ¶34 describing the hardware.
As per the limitations of claim 29, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 18 above including Chen, ¶35 describing the hardware.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights