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 Applicant’s remarks and claims filed on March 16,2026. Claims 1-30 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
3. The amendments to the specification received on March 16, 2026. These amendments to the specification are accepted.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarian Yazdi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0323887 A1) in view of Sundararajan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0170936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus for wireless communication by a first base station (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9), comprising:
memory (Fig.5 @ 516); and
one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) coupled to the memory (Fig.5 @ 516),
the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to:
assess expected interference from a second base station (BS) to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot (read as Interference Management Component that measures cross-link interference (Fig(s).1 @ 150, 4, 5 @ 150, and 9 @ 950; Paragraph(s) [0037], [0060], [0061], [0104], and [0105])),
the at least the portion of the first slot being configured for downlink (read as “Method 900 also includes, at Block 950, measuring, based on determining the portion of the slot, cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal. In an aspect, interference management component 150, e.g., in conjunction with processor(s) 512, memory 516, transceiver 502, etc., can measure, based on determining the portion of the slot, the cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal.”(Paragraph [0105])); and
receive signaling from a user equipment (UE) via the at least the portion of the first slot in accordance with the determination. (Fig(s).1, 5 @ 502, and 9 @ 970)
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. fail to explicitly teach determine whether to convert the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot from the downlink to uplink based on the assessment of the expected interference;
Sundararajan et al. teach a method to determine whether to convert the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot from the downlink to uplink based on the assessment of the expected interference (read as “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 29, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach a method for wireless communication by a first base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9), comprising:
assessing expected interference from a second BS to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot (read as Interference Management Component that measures cross-link interference (Fig(s).1 @ 150, 4, 5 @ 150, and 9 @ 950; Paragraph(s) [0037], [0060], [0061], [0104], and [0105])),
the at least the portion of the first slot being configured for downlink (read as “Method 900 also includes, at Block 950, measuring, based on determining the portion of the slot, cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal. In an aspect, interference management component 150, e.g., in conjunction with processor(s) 512, memory 516, transceiver 502, etc., can measure, based on determining the portion of the slot, the cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal.”(Paragraph [0105])); and
receiving signaling from a user equipment (UE) via the at least the portion of the first slot in accordance with the determination. (Fig(s).1, 5 @ 502, and 9 @ 970)
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. fail to explicitly teach the step for determining whether to convert the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot from the downlink to uplink based on the assessment of the expected interference;
Sundararajan et al. teach a method for determining whether to convert the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot from the downlink to uplink based on the assessment of the expected interference (read as “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to assess the expected interference (Fig.5 @ 150) comprises
the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to
assess whether at least a portion of a second slot is configured for downlink or uplink at the second BS. (Fig(s).5 @ 150 and 9 @ 920)
Regarding claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the first slot and the second slot are on full overlapping bands, partially overlapping bands, or adjacent bands.(read as “The downlink and uplink reference signals may overlap in at least a portion of the slot (e.g., in time and/or in utilized frequency resources).”(Paragraph [0104]))
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to assess the expected interference (Fig.5 @ 150) comprises the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to
sense at least a portion of a second slot associated with the at least the portion of the first slot. (Fig.9 @ 920)
Regarding claim 7, and as applied to claim 6 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein:
the second slot is one of multiple slots associated with a slot format pattern configured at the second BS (read as slot pattern (Fig.9; Paragraph(s) [0101]-[0102])); and
wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 516) are further configured to
determine the at least the portion of the second slot to be sensed based on the slot format pattern such that the sensing indicates the expected interference on the at least the portion of the first slot if the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot is converted to uplink.(read as “the base stations can compare their spectral efficiency during convertible slots (e.g., slots 1 and 4 in the examples above) and/or non-convertible slots (e.g., slots 2 and 3 in the examples above) to assess the experienced cross-link interference.”(Paragraph [0102]))
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to claim 6 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the at least the portion of the first slot comprises a subset of symbols of the first slot. (read as one or more symbols of a slot (Paragraph [0107]))
Regarding claim 9, and as applied to claim 6 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) are further configured to
detect whether an energy level associated with the sensing of the at least the portion of the second slot is greater than a threshold (read as “the base station can schedule the resources around resources used by the other base stations based on determining the cross-link interference from the other base stations achieves a threshold.”(Paragraph [0113])),
wherein the assessing of the expected interference is based on the detection. (Fig.5 @ 150)
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to claim 6 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the sensing of the at least the portion of the second slot is performed for one or more beams (read as “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124])),
the at least the portion of the first slot being converted to uplink for communication using at least one of the one or more beams. (read as “The cross-link or mixed interference described above may be managed, for example, by identifying pairs of BSs and/or UEs with excessive interference, which may, for example, be determined by jamming graphs or request to send (RTS)/clear to send (CTS) messages.”(Paragraph [0061]) For example, “A RTS/CTS mechanism may be used by a BS that is planning to convert, e.g., from transmitting to receiving such as BS2 (425), by sending a RTS message and receiving a CTS message from a UE (e.g., UE2 (420)). Thus, the UE is aware that the BS is going to transmit, and can avoid also transmitting uplink communications that may otherwise cause cross-link interference.”(Paragraph [0061]) Also, “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124]))
Regarding claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) are further configured to receive an indication of a slot format pattern configured at the second BS (Fig(s).1, 4, and 5 @ 502),
wherein the assessment of the expected interference is based on the indication of the slot format pattern. (Fig(s).5 @ 150, 9, and 10)
Regarding claim 12, and as applied to claim 11 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the indication is received from the second BS or a central unit. (Fig(s).1, 4, and 5)
Regarding claim 13, and as applied to claim 11 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9)
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the indication of the slot format pattern is received via a system information block (SIB).
Sundararajan et al. teach a method wherein the indication of the slot format pattern is received via a system information block (SIB).(read as system information (Paragraph [0061]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and sending system information as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 14, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) are further configured to:
transmit, to one or more UEs, an indication to report results of one or more measurements performed on at least a portion of a second slot associated with the at least the portion of the first slot (Fig.5 @ 502, 508 and 9 @ 910); and
receive the results of the one or more measurements (Fig.5 @ 502, 506 9 @ 960),
wherein the assessing of the expected interference is based on the indication from the one or more UEs (Fig.5 @ 150),
wherein the results of the one or more measurements comprises:
a reference signal received power (RSRP) (read as RSRP (Paragraph [0066]));
a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) (read as SNR (Paragraph [0066]));
a received signal strength indication (RSSI) (read as RSSI (Paragraph [0066]));
sensed energy level (read as “may obtain measurements of the signals, such as, but not limited to, Ec/Io, SNR, RSRP, RSSI, etc.” (Paragraph [0066])); or
any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, and as applied to claim 14 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the one or more measurements are performed on one or more beams. (read as “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124]))
Regarding claim 16, and as applied to claim 14 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the one or more measurements are performed on one or more subbands.(read as “The base stations 105 and UEs 110 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., Y=5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x=number of component carriers) used for transmission in each direction. The carriers may or may not be adjacent to each other. Allocation of carriers may be asymmetric with respect to DL and UL (e.g., more or less carriers may be allocated for DL than for UL).”(Paragraph [0048]))
Regarding claim 19, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) are further configured to
transmit, to the UE (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7), an indication that the at least the portion of the first slot has been converted from downlink to uplink. (Fig(s).1, 4, and 5 @ 502, 508)
Regarding claim 20, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al., as modified by Sundararajan et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) wherein the at least the portion of the first slot comprises one or more sub-bands of a component carrier for the first slot. (read as “The base stations 105 and UEs 110 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., Y=5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x=number of component carriers) used for transmission in each direction. The carriers may or may not be adjacent to each other. Allocation of carriers may be asymmetric with respect to DL and UL (e.g., more or less carriers may be allocated for DL than for UL).”(Paragraph [0048]))
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarian Yazdi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0323887 A1), in view of Sundararajan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0170936 A1), and Fakoorian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0351591 A1).
Regarding claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (read as a base station (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9))
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092])
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. and Sundararajan et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein:
the first BS and the second BS are associated with different operators.
Fakoorian teach a method wherein:
the first BS and the second BS are associated with different operators. (read as “gNB 105 would execute adjacent channel interference logic 1003 to create an execution environment that allows gNB 105 to consider operations in a co-site location among neighboring base stations of one or more different network operators.”(Paragraph [0084]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for one or more neighboring operate with one or more different network operators as taught by Fakoorian et al. and the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (read as a base station (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9))
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092])
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. and Sundararajan et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein:
the first BS and the second BS are associated with same operators.
Fakoorian et al. teach a method wherein:
the first BS and the second BS are associated with same operators. (read as “gNB 105 would execute adjacent channel interference logic 1003 to create an execution environment that allows gNB 105 to consider operations in a co-site location among neighboring base stations of one or more different network operators.”(Paragraph [0084]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for one or more neighboring operate with one or more different network operators as taught by Fakoorian et al. and the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarian Yazdi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0323887 A1), in view of Sundararajan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0170936 A1), and Stirling-Gallacher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0033916 A1).
Regarding claim 17, and as applied to claim 1 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (read as a base station (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9)) wherein the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512) being configured to determine whether to convert (read as switch transmission direction ()) comprises the memory (Fig.5 @ 516) and the one or more processors (Fig.5 @ 512)
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092])
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. and Sundararajan et al. fail to explicitly teach being configured to
determine whether to convert the configuration of the first slot from downlink only to full duplex slot with simultaneous uplink and downlink operation within a component carrier bandwidth.
Stirling-Gallacher et al. teach a method being configured to
determine whether to convert the configuration of the first slot from downlink only to full duplex slot with simultaneous uplink and downlink operation within a component carrier bandwidth. (Fig(s).5 and 12A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for scheduling users for full duplex time periods as taught by Stirling-Gallacher et al. and the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 18, and as applied to claim 17 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (read as a base station (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9))
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092])
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. and Sundararajan et al. fail to explicitly teach clearly shows and discloses an apparatus wherein the full duplex comprises in-band full duplex (IBFD) or sub-band full duplex (SBFD).
Stirling-Gallacher et al. teach a method wherein the full duplex comprises in-band full duplex (IBFD) or sub-band full duplex (SBFD). (read as in-band full duplex scheme(s)(Fig.5; Paragraph [0043]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for using in-band full duplex scheme(s) as taught by Stirling-Gallacher et al. and the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Claims 21-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarian Yazdi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0323887 A1) in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0279334 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7), comprising:
memory (Fig.6 @ 616); and
one or more processors (Fig.6 @ 612) coupled to the memory (Fig.6 @ 616),
the memory (Fig.6 @ 616) and the one or more processors (Fig.6 @ 612) being configured to:
receive, from a base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105), an indication to report results of one or more measurements on at least a portion of a first slot associated with at least the portion of a second slot configured for downlink (Fig(s).1, 6 @ 602, and 7 @ 710, 715);
report the results of the one or more measurements to the BS (Fig.7 @ 760); and
transmit signaling to the BS via the at least the portion of the second slot in accordance with the indication that the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted. (Fig(s).1, 6 @ 602, and 7 @ 780)
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. fail to explicitly teach receive, from the BS, an indication that the configuration of the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted from the downlink to uplink based on the reporting of the results of the one or more measurements;
Lim et al. teach a method to receive, from the BS, an indication that the configuration of the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted from the downlink to uplink based on the reporting of the results of the one or more measurements (read as “a terminal may receive transmission direction change information from a base station. The transmission direction change information may correspond to a case where a subframe or a slot is changed from a downlink to an uplink. ”(Fig.10 @ 1010; Paragraph [0038]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) change information as taught by Lim et al. with the terminal as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 30, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach a method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7), comprising:
receiving, from a base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105), an indication to report results of one or more measurements on at least a portion of a first slot associated with at least the portion of a second slot configured for downlink (Fig(s).1, 6 @ 602, and 7 @ 710, 715);
reporting the results of the one or more measurements to the BS (Fig.7 @ 760); and
transmitting signaling to the BS via the at least the portion of the second slot in accordance with the indication that the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted. (Fig(s).1, 6 @ 602, and 7 @ 780)
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. fail to explicitly teach the step to receiving, from the BS, an indication that the configuration of the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted from the downlink to uplink based on the reporting of the results of the one or more measurements;
Lim et al. teach a method for receiving, from the BS (read as base station), an indication that the configuration of the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted from the downlink to uplink based on the reporting of the results of the one or more measurements (read as “a terminal may receive transmission direction change information from a base station. The transmission direction change information may correspond to a case where a subframe or a slot is changed from a downlink to an uplink. ”(Fig.10 @ 1010; Paragraph [0038]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) change information as taught by Lim et al. with the terminal as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 22, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) wherein the results of the one or more measurements comprises:
a reference signal received power (RSRP) (read as RSRP (Paragraph [0066]));
a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) (read as SNR (Paragraph [0066]));
a received signal strength indication (RSSI) (read as RSSI (Paragraph [0066]));
sensed energy level (read as “may obtain measurements of the signals, such as, but not limited to, Ec/Io, SNR, RSRP, RSSI, etc.” (Paragraph [0066])); or
any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 23, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) wherein the at least the portion of the second slot comprises a subset of symbols of the second slot. (read as one or more symbols of a slot (Paragraph [0107]))
Regarding claim 24, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) clearly shows and discloses an apparatus wherein the at least the portion of the second slot comprises one or more sub-bands of a component carrier for the second slot. (read as “The base stations 105 and UEs 110 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., Y=5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x=number of component carriers) used for transmission in each direction. The carriers may or may not be adjacent to each other. Allocation of carriers may be asymmetric with respect to DL and UL (e.g., more or less carriers may be allocated for DL than for UL).”(Paragraph [0048]))
Regarding claim 25, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) wherein the at least the portion of the first slot comprises a subset of symbols of the second slot. (read as one or more symbols of a slot (Paragraph [0107]))
Regarding claim 26, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) wherein the at least the portion of the first slot comprises one or more sub-bands of a component carrier for the second slot. (read as “The base stations 105 and UEs 110 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., Y=5, 10, 15, or 20 MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x=number of component carriers) used for transmission in each direction. The carriers may or may not be adjacent to each other. Allocation of carriers may be asymmetric with respect to DL and UL (e.g., more or less carriers may be allocated for DL than for UL).”(Paragraph [0048]))
Regarding claim 27, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. , as modified by Lim et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7) wherein the one or more measurements are performed for one or more beams (read as “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124])), and
wherein the at least the portion of the second slot being converted to uplink is for communication using at least one of the one or more beams. (read as “The cross-link or mixed interference described above may be managed, for example, by identifying pairs of BSs and/or UEs with excessive interference, which may, for example, be determined by jamming graphs or request to send (RTS)/clear to send (CTS) messages.”(Paragraph [0061]) For example, “A RTS/CTS mechanism may be used by a BS that is planning to convert, e.g., from transmitting to receiving such as BS2 (425), by sending a RTS message and receiving a CTS message from a UE (e.g., UE2 (420)). Thus, the UE is aware that the BS is going to transmit, and can avoid also transmitting uplink communications that may otherwise cause cross-link interference.”(Paragraph [0061]) Also, “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124]))
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azarian Yazdi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0323887 A1), in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0279334 A1), and Stirling-Gallacher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0033916 A1).
Regarding claim 28, and as applied to claim 21 above, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach an apparatus (read as UE (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7))
Lim et al. teach “a terminal may receive transmission direction change information from a base station. The transmission direction change information may correspond to a case where a subframe or a slot is changed from a downlink to an uplink. ”(Fig.10 @ 1010; Paragraph [0038])
However, Azarian Yazdi et al. and Lim et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the indication that the configuration is to be converted comprises an indication that the second slot is to be converted from downlink only to full duplex slot with simultaneous uplink and downlink operation within a component carrier bandwidth.
Stirling-Gallacher et al. teach a method wherein the indication that the configuration is to be converted comprises an indication that the second slot is to be converted from downlink only to full duplex slot with simultaneous uplink and downlink operation within a component carrier bandwidth. (Fig(s).5 and 12A)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for scheduling users for full duplex time periods as taught by Stirling-Gallacher et al. and the function for generating and transmitting transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) change information as taught by Lim et al. with the terminal as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, see Page 10 states “Applicant submits that the Office Action has failed to adequately show that Azarian and Sundararajan teaches or suggests "assess expected interference from a second base station (BS) to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot, the at least the portion of the first slot being configured for downlink" as recited in claim 1 and similar features recited in claim 29.” Also, The Applicant argues, see Page 10 states “Azarian does not disclose assessing expected interference from a second base station to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot configured for downlink.” Also, The Applicant argues, see Page 10 states “Azarian does not disclose assessing interference to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot configured for downlink.” Also, The Applicant argues, see Page 11 states “Azarian fails to teach or even suggest "assess expected interference from a second base station (BS) to uplink communications on at least a portion of a first slot, the at least the portion of the first slot being configured for downlink" as recited in claim 1 and similar features recited in claim 29.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Azarian Yazdi et al. teach a wireless communication network comprising one or more base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) capable to communicate to one or more User Equipment(s) (UE (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7)). Also, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach either the base station(s) or User Equipment(s) capable of executing cross-link interference measurements (Abstract; Fig.1 @ 150, 182) For example, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach “A portion of a slot that includes a downlink reference signal transmitted by a base station and an uplink reference signal transmitted by a user equipment (UE) can be determined, where the uplink reference signal and the downlink reference signal at least partially overlap within the portion of the slot.”(Abstract) Further, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach “Method 900 also includes, at Block 950, measuring, based on determining the portion of the slot, cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal. In an aspect, interference management component 150, e.g., in conjunction with processor(s) 512, memory 516, transceiver 502, etc., can measure, based on determining the portion of the slot, the cross-link interference between the downlink reference signal and the uplink reference signal.”(Paragraph [0105])) Also, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach “dynamic measurement of cross-link interference that can take into account both pathloss and beam directionality as well as relevant base stations and UEs (e.g., the BS/UEs that are within a threshold range and/or are about to be scheduled).”(Paragraph [0124])
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
The Applicant argues, see Page 11 states “Applicant submits the cited references fail to teach or suggest "determine whether to convert the configuration of the at least the portion of the first slot from the downlink to uplink based on the assessment of the expected interference" as recited in claim 1 and similar features recited in claim 29 (emphasis added).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since The examiner respectfully disagrees since Azarian Yazdi et al. teach a wireless communication network comprising one or more base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) capable to communicate to one or more User Equipment(s) (UE (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7)). Also, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach either the base station(s) or User Equipment(s) capable of executing cross-link interference measurements (Abstract; Fig.1 @ 150, 182)
Sundararajan et al. teach “the node may determine if it may be able to overcome the interference and evaluate the impact of a decision to convert the direction of a nominally downlink subframe to uplink or vice versa.”(Paragraph [0092]) Also, Sundararajan et al. teach the node executing a determination to convert the direction for a subframe is based on jamming graph. (Paragraph [0092]) For example, “A node (e.g., BS or UE) may use the jamming graph to determine or learn which other nodes may cause interference to the node as well as the transmit power of each of the other nodes.”(Paragraph [0092])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for converting the transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) of a subframe as taught by Sundararajan et al. with the base station as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
The Applicant argues, see Page 13 states “Applicant submits that the Office Action has failed to adequately show that Azarian and Lim teaches or suggests "report the results of the one or more measurements to the BS; [and] receive, from the BS, an indication that the configuration of the at least the portion of the second slot is to be converted from the downlink to uplink based on the reporting of the results of the one or more measurements (on at least a portion of a first slot associated with at least a portion of a second slot configured for downlink)" as recited in claim 21 and similar features recited in claim 30 (emphasis added).” Also, the Applicant argues, see Page 13 states “Lim does not disclose receiving an indication that a slot portion is to be converted from downlink to uplink based on reported measurement results.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Azarian Yazdi et al. teach a wireless communication network comprising one or more base station (BS) (Fig(s).1 @ 105, 4 @ 415, 5 @ 105, 9) capable to communicate to one or more User Equipment(s) (UE (Fig(s).1 @ 110, 4 @ 410, 6 @ 110, 7)). Also, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach either the base station(s) or User Equipment(s) capable of executing cross-link interference measurements (Abstract; Fig.1 @ 150, 182) For example, Azarian Yazdi et al. teach “interference management component 180 can report the cross-link interference as a signal strength or other metric of the uplink reference signal, a signal strength or other metric of the downlink reference signal, a comparison between the uplink and downlink reference signals, etc.”(Paragraph [0092])
Lim et al. teach “a terminal may receive transmission direction change information from a base station. The transmission direction change information may correspond to a case where a subframe or a slot is changed from a downlink to an uplink. ”(Fig.10 @ 1010; Paragraph [0038]) The examiner equates Lim et al. receiving at a terminal a transmission direction change information with Applicant’s concept of “receiving an indication that a slot portion is to be converted …”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting transmission direction (e.g.: UL/DL) change information as taught by Lim et al. with the terminal as taught by Azarian Yazdi et al. for the purpose of improving interference management by devices in a communication network.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/00374903 A1) teach “The status of interference caused by the non-serving cell in the target slot to the target slot in the serving cell is determined by using the SFI that dynamically changes in the non-serving cell so that the power control parameter set used by the terminal device in the target slot in the serving cell is further determined based on the status of the interference.”(Paragraph [0100])
Jabandzic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0304007 A1) teach “if for example in the situation of FIG. 7a the slot 602 is being allocated for transmission from A to D, and due to moving nodes the situation changes to the one of FIG. 8a, then internal interferences will be detected, e.g. by measuring a high packet error rate within this slot 602.” (Paragraph [0080])
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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights