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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14-22, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by YANG et al PG PUB 2018/03239160.
Re Claims 1, 17 and 30, YANG et al teaches figure 1, UE1 (a memory and processor) and UE2 receiving CLI measurement configuration from TRP1 (a network node comprising a memory and processor) and TRP2 respectively; based on the CLI measurement configuration, UE 1 can be configured with a time interval (reception timing) to receive CLI-RS to perform CLI measurement (LI/L2 CLI measurement) between UE1 and UE2 [0029].
Re Claims 2, 18, YANG et al the CLI measurement configuration (a configuration) associated one or more resources, See figure 2, for the CLI measurement is based on the RRC message or DCI from the TRP 1 (a first cell) [0034].
Re Claim 14, YANG et al teaches measuring the CLI-RS (a reference signal) from the UE2 based on the CLI measurement configuration indicating the time interval (identified reception timing) wherein the CLI measurement is based on RSRP (CLI-RSRP) from the UE2 (the second UE) [0035].
Re Claims 15, 22, 28, YANG et al teaches the CLI measurement can be periodic [0072].
Re Claims 16, 29, YANG et al teaches UE1 includes a transceiver for performing CLI measurement with UE2.
Re Claim 19, YANG et al teaches TRP can be a serving cell for UE1 and UE2.
Re Claims 20, 21, YANG et al teaches the DMRS use to measure the CLI can be configured a downlink DMRS and uplink DMRS [0032] for the UE2.
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, 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.
Claims 10, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al PG PUB 2018/03239160 in view of Masal et al PG PUB 2020/0228213.
Re Claims 10, 27, YANG et al teaches the dynamic DCI triggering CLI measurement [0034] but fails to explicitly teach the DCI message triggering an aperiodic L1/L2 CLI measurement. However, Masal et al teaches a DCI triggering an aperiodic CLI measurement [0105]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to support dynamically mitigation of the CLI via the aperiodic CLI measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 11-12, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al PG PUB 2018/03239160 in view of CAO PG PUB 2022/0021507.
Re Claims 11-12, 24-25, YANG et al teaches UE1 (first UE) and UE2 (second UE) whereby a UE-UE interference measurement is performed [0029]. YANG et al fails to explicitly teach “transmit, for a first cell, a CLI measurement report based on the L1/L2 CLI measurement, the CLI measurement report to be forward to the second UE.”. However, CAO teaches an aggressor UE transmit a CLI-RS to a victim UE and the victim UE may measure the CLI-RS and provide a feedback report to the aggressor UE so the aggressor BS adjust one or more parameters to mitigate the CLI [0086].
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to mitigate for the CLI in Yang et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al PG PUB 2018/03239160 in view of JIN et al PG PUB 2021/0006997.
Re Claim 23, YANG et al teaches figure 1, the TRP1 is a serving cell for UE1 for determining the CLI measurement configuration for the UE1. Figure 1 further teaches TRP2 (a second network node) for determining the second CLI measurement configuration (the configuration) for the UE2. YANG et al fails to explicitly teach “the configuration includes …a cell indication…corresponding to a serving cell of the second UE.1”. However, JIN et al teaches a CLI configuration includes MO configuration indicating serving cell information [0171]. By combining the teachings, based on the MO configuration indicating the serving cell information, the UE2 can ascertain its serving cell for transmitting a feedback or CLI report when requested. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to ascertain its serving cell information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 13 and 26 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:
Re Claim 3, Prior art fails to teaches based on receiving a first and second DL-RSs, identifying a time delta between the first reception of the DL-RS and the reception of the second DL-RS as claimed.
Re Claim 26, Prior art fails to teaches the CLI measurement report includes an indication of a time delta.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472