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 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Li et al. (CN 115378447 hereinafter Li ‘447) in view of Jeon et al. (US 20230076874 hereinafter Jeon), and further in view of Ghozlan et al. (US 20220131630 hereinafter Ghozlan).
Regarding claim 1, Li ‘447 teaches A first network entity for wireless communications, the first network entity comprising (fig 6 [illustrates multiple base stations]):
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (p.6 “In yet another aspect, the present disclosure further provides an air-ground same frequency system interference suppression device, comprising a first processing module, a second processing module and a third processing module,”):
receive, from a second network entity (Abstract “determining the base station set of the ground wireless communication system corresponding to the first base station of the ATG system, the second base station in the base station set and the first base station generate interference with each other”),(claim 6 “receiving a first base station identifier reported by each second base station of the ground wireless communication system, the first base station identification is sent when the second base station receives the remote base station interference management reference signal RIM-RS”);
Li ‘447 does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jeon teaches
receive, from a second network entity, (Jeon 0013 “In an embodiment, an indication may be received of configuration information for resource pools allocated for sharing of resources between communication and radar sensing. The configuration information may comprise one or more of time/frequency resources,”; 0258 “To mitigate remote interference, the network enables RIM frameworks for coordination between victim and aggressor gNBs. The coordination communication in RIM frameworks can be wireless- or backhaul-based.”; 0259 “In both frameworks, all gNBs in a victim set simultaneously transmit an identical RIM reference signal carrying the victim set ID over the air.”);
a reflection of a sensing reference signal transmitted into an environment and reflected from a target (0210 “Radar sensing is achieved by sending a suitable sounding waveform and receiving and analyzing reflections or echoes of the sounding waveform.”; fig 1)
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 Jeon with the teachings of Li ‘447. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce remote interference (Jeon 0258). 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, Jeon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RI processing. Since both Li ‘447 and Jeon 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.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ghozlan teaches
receive, from a second network entity, an indication of a measurement window for the first network entity to use one or more sensing reference signals for remote interference measurements (Ghozlan 0063 “FIG. 4 illustrates a RIM-RS resource configuration configured with Reference Time Offset pointing to a maximum DL boundary (referred to as the 1st Reference Point). The RIM-RS resource configured as such enables the detection of a RIM-RS transmitted from a gNB”; 0070 “As discussed herein, the Reference Time Offset is used to enable the estimation of the number of UL symbols impacted by remote interference at the victim device for different distance ranges”)
receive, during the measurement window, a reflection of a sensing reference signal transmitted into an environment and reflected from a target (Ghozlan 0037 “After transmitting the reference signal, victim device 202 may then start an RS monitoring operation where it monitors for any returned signals from aggressor device 204 relating to the resource signal.”); and
in response to the indication of the measurement window, detect and measure remote interference during the measurement window based on the reflection of the sensing reference signal from the target (Ghozlan 0037 “The reference signal can also be used by the aggressor(s) to estimate how many UL resources of the victim are impacted by the aggressor(s).”).
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 Ghozlan with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce signaling overhead (Ghozlan 0079). 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, Ghozlan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RI processing. Since both the cited prior art and Ghozlan 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 (Li ‘447 p.15 “the NR system base station supports the transmission and detection of the RIM-RS (Remote Interference Management ReferenceSignal, remote base station interference management reference signal), Therefore, the first base station of the ATG system can acquire the set of the ground base station with high interference generated by detecting RIM-RS.”).
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 (Li ‘447 p.25 “receiving a first base station identifier reported by each second base station of the ground wireless communication system, the first base station identification is sent when the second base station receives the remote base station interference management reference signal RIM-RS sent by the first base station and the receiving power of the RIM-RS is greater than the third threshold value”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 3, wherein the second network entity is a network server (Li ‘447 fig 7b [the gNBs is providing resources and services to the ATG corresponding to a network server]).
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 (Jeon 0015 “In an embodiment, an indication may be transmitted to or received by the base station of one or more of: one of an ambient power or signal level on the shared time/frequency resource pools allocated for radar sensing; or a quality of at least one received return radar sensing signal.”; 0017 “The transceiver is configured to transmit, to a user equipment (UE), one or more of: an indication of a set of valid/allowed spatial relations configured for radar sensing by the user equipment; an indication of a set of a valid/allowed set of spatial filters for a sensing reference signal;”).
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 Jeon with the teachings of Li ‘447. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce remote interference (Jeon 0258). 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, Jeon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RI processing. Since both Li ‘447 and Jeon 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 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 Li et al. (CN 115378447 hereinafter Li ‘447) in view of Jeon et al. (US 20230076874 hereinafter Jeon further in view of Ghozlan et al. (US 20220131630 hereinafter Ghozlan), 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 Li et al. (CN 115378447 hereinafter Li ‘447) in view of Jeon et al. (US 20230076874 hereinafter Jeon) further in view of Ghozlan et al. (US 20220131630 hereinafter Ghozlan), 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, 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 9, the cited prior art teach The first network entity of claim 7, 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.”).
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 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 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.
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
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)”
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights