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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 07/11/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/07/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bayesteh et al. (US 20240137976 hereinafter Bayesteh) in view of Ren et al. (US 20200059943 hereinafter Ren).
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-15, 21-23, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US 20240137976 hereinafter Bayesteh) in view of Ren et al. (US 20200059943 hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claim 1, Bayesteh teaches A first network entity for wireless communications (0069 “Sensing nodes are network entities that perform sensing by transmitting and/or receiving sensing signals.”),
the first network entity comprising (0069 “Sensing nodes are network entities that perform sensing by transmitting and/or receiving sensing signals.”):
at least one memory (0081 “memory 208”); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (0081 “processing unit(s) 200”):
receive, from a second network entity (0159 “the UE can be configured by the corresponding TRP to perform the passive sensing by sensing a “passive_sensing_request” through L1 signalling or higher layer signalling including RRC or MAC CE.”),
an indication of a measurement window for the first network entity to use one or more sensing reference signals (fig 8; 0189 “FIG. 8 is a flow chart 800 describing a method for use in a telecommunication system. Step 810 involves a sensing agent receiving configuration information for configuring passive sensing of a reflection of a SeRS by one or more TRP during a transmission resource of the one or more TRP. Step 820 involves the sensing agent detecting the reflected SeRS based on the configuration information.”),
wherein the indication identifies at least one sensing reference signal to be monitored for a reflection from a target during the measurement window (0159 “the corresponding TRP performs active sensing simultaneously with data transmission in downlink. In this case, a sensing beam is swept by the corresponding TRP to cover an area of interest and the UE as sensing agent can detect and process the reflected signal as sensing information. The UE can forward the sensing information to the TRP for further processing. The sensing information can be related to range, shape, and velocity of targets over the direction in which the sensing signal is transmitted by the corresponding TRP”; 0189 “Step 810 involves a sensing agent receiving configuration information for configuring passive sensing of a reflection of a SeRS by one or more TRP during a transmission resource of the one or more TRP. Step 820 involves the sensing agent detecting the reflected SeRS based on the configuration information.”);
receive, during the measurement window, a reflection of the at least one sensing reference signal transmitted into an environment and reflected from the target based on the indication identifying the at least one sensing reference signal (0189 “Step 810 involves a sensing agent receiving configuration information for configuring passive sensing of a reflection of a SeRS by one or more TRP during a transmission resource of the one or more TRP. Step 820 involves the sensing agent detecting the reflected SeRS based on the configuration information.”; 0164 “the primary TRP(s) perform active sensing, i.e. they send sensing signal (SeRS) and the helpers perform passive sensing, i.e. listen to the reflection of SeRS from targets and try to estimate the sensing parameters.”); and
Bayesteh does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ren teaches
an indication of a measurement window for the first network entity to use one or more sensing reference signals for remote interference measurements (Abstract “a first base station (BS) may detect remote interference, with one or more uplink communications on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) associated with the first BS, caused by propagation of one or more reference signal (RS) communications, transmitted by a second BS, out of a coverage area of the second BS and into a coverage area of the first BS due to reflection of the one or more RS communications.”; 0079 “the downlink signal may cause interference in the coverage area of the other base station and/or in the coverage area of the base station. For example, propagation delay as a result of the distance between the base station and the other base station being large (e.g., on the order of tens or hundreds of kilometers) may cause the downlink signal to enter the coverage area of the other base station during scheduled uplink transmissions in the coverage area, and may interfere with, and/or entirely block, the uplink transmissions. As another example, the downlink signal may cause interference with other downlink signals transmitted in the coverage area of the base station.”)
in response to the indication of the measurement window, detect and measure remote interference during the measurement window based on the reflection of the at least one sensing reference signal from the target (0078 “the transmission of the downlink signal may reach another base station due to signal reflection caused by various environmental factors, such as reflection off of mountains, reflection off of a surface of a body of water (e.g., a lake, an ocean, and/or the like), reflection due to atmospheric ducting, and/or the like.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ren with the teachings of Bayesteh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency and costs (Ren 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ren merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular remote interference features. Since both the Ren and Bayesteh disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 1, wherein the first network entity is a remote base station (Bayesteh 0003 “In some wireless communication networks, user equipments (UEs) wirelessly communicate with a base station to send data to the base station and/or to receive data from the base station.”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, from a second network entity, a request to detect and measure the sensing reference signal for detecting and measuring the remote interference (Bayesteh 0159 “the UE can be configured by the corresponding TRP to perform the passive sensing by sensing a “passive_sensing_request” through L1 signalling or higher layer signalling including RRC or MAC CE.”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 3, wherein the second network entity is a network server (Bayesteh 0002 “The present disclosure relates generally to wireless communications, and in particular embodiments, for sensing in half duplex networks.”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, from the second network entity, parameters of the sensing reference signal (Bayesteh 0164 “the primary TRPs and the helpers roles are reversed in that the primary TRP(s) perform passive sensing and the helpers perform active sensing. In such a case, the sensing command (e.g. “passive_sense_enable”) and configuration parameters of sensing signal(s) should be conveyed to the helpers to simplify reception. These configuration parameters may include, but are not limited to: SeN IDs; SeRS length and sequences; resource mapping pattern; and beam sweeping pattern.”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 21. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 21.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 6, 16, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US 20240137976 hereinafter Bayesteh) in view of Ren et al. (US 20200059943 hereinafter Ren), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 111600687 hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Liu teaches from the second network entity, a time and frequency allocation of the sensing reference signal (Liu p.22 “the network side device by detecting RIM RS, obtaining RIM RS receiving time slot position information in the current uplink and downlink conversion period, and obtaining RIM RS frequency domain configuration information”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Liu with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (Liu p.6). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Liu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the reference signal processing. Since both the previous combination and Liu disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7-10, 17-20, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US 20240137976 hereinafter Bayesteh) in view of Ren et al. (US 20200059943 hereinafter Ren), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2020197360 hereinafter Li ‘360).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Li ‘360 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare measurements of the remote interference with a maximum interference threshold (p.38 “When the DU of the aggressor base station detects the RIM-RS for the first time at the air interface, if the RIM-RS measurement result of the DU exceeds a reporting threshold (this threshold may be an absolute value of the RIM-RS power such as in unit of dBm), the DU reports to the CU information on the monitored RIM-RS, and then the CU interacts with the OAM to obtain the configured interference mitigation scheme and the allocated aggressor base station Set ID”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li ‘360 with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal transmission (Li ‘360 p.55). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li ‘360 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular thresholding. Since both the previous combination and Li ‘360 disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 7,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Li ‘360 teaches wherein the maximum interference threshold is defined by one of standards or by an operator of the first network entity (Li ‘360 “a reporting threshold or a reporting condition, if the remote interference measurement result of the DU exceeds the threshold, the DU needs to report the measurement result to the CU, or according to the reporting condition, the DU reports the remote interference measurement result to the CU;”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li ‘360 with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal transmission (Li ‘360 p.55). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li ‘360 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular thresholding. Since both the previous combination and Li ‘360 disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 7, wherein a power of the sensing reference signal is based on the measurements of the remote interference with respect to a maximum interference threshold (Li ‘360 “a threshold for transmitting RIM-RS, if the measurement result of the DU satisfies the threshold, the DU may initiate transmission of the RIM-RS; and”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li ‘360 with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal transmission (Li ‘360 p.55). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li ‘360 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular thresholding. Since both the previous combination and Li ‘360 disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 9, 19, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US 20240137976 hereinafter Bayesteh) in view of Ren et al. (US 20200059943 hereinafter Ren), and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2020197360 hereinafter Li ‘360) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 115378447 hereinafter Li ‘447).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 7,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Li ‘447 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to report, to a second network entity, the measurements of the remote interference (Li ‘447 p.15 “step 21, receiving the first base station identifier reported by each second base station of the ground wireless communication system, the first base station identifier is sent when the second base station receives the RIM-RS sent by the first base station and the receiving power of RIM-RS is greater than the third threshold value.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li ‘447 with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Li ‘447 p.9). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li ‘447 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular thresholding. Since both the previous combination and Li ‘447 disclose similar remote interference processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Conclusion
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 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.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Cao et al. (CN 112889336) discloses “The invention claims an improved method for supporting interference mitigation for remote device, a system, a device and a device. The first wireless device (e.g., base station) can based on the measured thermal noise level interference exceeds a threshold to detect the second wireless device (e.g., a second remote base station) caused by the remote interference of the communication of the first wireless device. (See abstract)”
Ren et al (CN 112771798) discloses “Various aspects of the present disclosure generally relate to wireless communication. In some aspects, a first base station (BS) can detect a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) associated with the first BS of the one or more uplink communication of remote interference, the remote interference is sent by the second BS of one or more reference signal (RS) communication caused by propagation (See abstract)”
GHOZLAN et al (US 20220131630) discloses “The present disclosure is directed to systems and methods for conveying remote interference management information via a reference signal. For example, an interference management method may include receiving, at a first device, an interference signal from a second device (See abstract)”
Jeon et al (US 20230076874) discloses “Methods and apparatuses for power control and beam management to enable coexistence of radar sensing and wireless communication (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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,
Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights