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 office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 05/26/2026.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered, for examiner’s response please see section Response to Arguments below. Additionally, new grounds of rejections are presented in this office action necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
In the previous office action, while rejecting the limitation “determining at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission based at least in part on the number of resource units to be omitted from the bandwidth of the APPDU”, the Examiner used secondary reference to Gulati.
Particularly, Gulati in paragraphs 0056 and 0065 teaches that the user equipment may adjust its transmit power based on the number of physical channels used for D2D communications to another user equipment. The Examiner noted that although in this embodiment of Gulati it is the power for D2D transmission which is adjusted, it still falls under claimed “transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission” as may be seen from Applicant’s claims 7 and 9.
Indeed, turning to the Applicant’s previous version of claim 7, it clearly stated that “the at least one transmit power control schemes comprises at least one of (i) a maximum transmit power setting for the second client station...” In other words, since dependent claim 7 further defines its parent independent claim 1, recited by claim 1 “at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission” includes power setting for the D2D transmission, as further defined in dependent claim 7.
Similarly, previously presented claim 9 (now canceled) stated “wherein transmitting the downlink transmission comprises transmitting, by the second client station, the peer-to-peer transmission based on the maximum transmit power setting for the second client station”. In other words, since dependent claim 9 further defines its parent claims 7 and independent claim 1, recited by claim 1 “transmitting the downlink transmission” includes maximum transmit power setting for the second client station, as further defined in dependent claim 9.
With the present amendment, the Applicant canceled claim 9 and amended claim 7 to exclude the limitation “a maximum transmit power setting for the second client station”, thus affecting interpretation of corresponding limitation of claim 1. Thus, by changing or canceling dependent claims 7 and 9, the Applicant effectively amended independent claim 1 and similar claims 15 and 18. Therefore, final rejection is proper in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 15, 18, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230030144 (Ibrahim) in view of US 20210392686 (Aboul-Magd) and US 20220369287 (ABOTABL).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, Ibrahim in FIG 18 with corresponding description teaches “A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining that a downlink transmission from an access point (AP) to a first client station is subject to an amount of adjacent channel interference from a peer-to-peer transmission from a second client station to a third client station (paragraph 0120: a method 1800 for wireless communications may be performed by the base station 105 of the wireless communication network 100. Paragraph 0157: the techniques described may be used for various wireless communication networks such as OFDMA. An OFDMA system may implement a radio technology such as IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi). Therefore, when the method is implemented in IEEE 802.11 system, the base station 105 becomes “an access point (AP)”, and the user equipment (UE) attached to the base station becomes “a first client station”. Paragraph 0121: At block 1802, the method 1800 may include receiving, from a first UE, an interference report indicating sidelink communication interference. Paragraph 0122: an interference report indicating sidelink communication interference based on interference from the sidelink communication 904 of FIG. 9A. Referring to FIG 9A and paragraph 0087, sidelink transmissions in subchannels adjacent to DL resources may cause interference to DL-receiving transmission at nearby UEs (“adjacent channel interference”). The sidelink communication 904 interferes with the DL reception at the first UE 110a. As illustrated by FIG. 9C, a sidelink resource 920 for the sidelink communication 904 from the second UE 110b may cause CLI 910 with an adjacent DL resource 922 for the DL transmissions 902 of the first UE 110a. The base station 105 corresponds to “an access point (AP)” of instant claim, “a first client station” of instant claim corresponds to the first UE 110a, and “a peer-to-peer transmission from a second client station to a third client station” corresponds to transmission 904 from UE 110b to the UE 110c), wherein the downlink transmission and the peer-to-peer transmission are concurrent transmissions (FIG 9C and paragraphs 0087 – 0088: downlink transmission DL 922 to UE 110a occupies the same time slot as sidelink transmission SL 920 from UE 110b) that occupy a same bandwidth (as may be seen from FIG 9C, both transmissions occupy the entirety of the bandwidth extending in the vertical direction, similar to the Applicant’s FIG 2)…”
“…determining a set of mitigation actions to reduce the amount of adjacent channel interference to the downlink transmission comprising: determining a number of resource units to omit from the bandwidth…” “…based at least in part on the amount of adjacent channel interference (paragraphs 0123 – 0124: At block 1804, the method 1800 may include selecting a resource pool according to the interference report. The resource pool may include at least one supplementary sidelink subchannel 1020 of FIG. 10A reserved for receiving sidelink communications and conditionally reserved for transmitting sidelink communications based on the interference report. Paragraph 0108: the base station 105 may send a DCI message to the sidelink UEs (e.g., UE 110b of FIG. 9A) with an indication to not use the supplementary sidelink subchannels. The indication may explicitly indicate the slots in which supplementary sidelink subchannels should not be used or may provide a time duration for not using the supplementary sidelink subchannels. Here, supplementary sidelink subchannels represent “a number of resource units to omit from the bandwidth”, and sending an indication to not use these subchannels represent the result of “determination”)…”
“…performing the set of mitigation actions (paragraph 0125: At block 1806, the method 1800 may include transmitting, to the first UE or a second UE causing the sidelink communication interference, configuration information indicating the resource pool.), comprises omitting the number of resource units from the bandwidth (paragraphs 0088 – 0089: the sidelink transmission interferes with the DL reception. To prevent the interference, guard bands between DL resources and SL resources can be used to prevent interference. Paragraph 0108: the base station 105 may send a DCI message to the sidelink UEs (e.g., UE 110b of FIG. 9A) with an indication to not use the supplementary sidelink subchannels. The indication may explicitly indicate the slots in which supplementary sidelink subchannels should not be used or may provide a time duration for not using the supplementary sidelink subchannels. Thus, Ibrahim teaches at least not using the supplementary sidelink subchannels to separate downlink transmissions from the sidelink transmissions. As explained above, supplementary sidelink subchannels represent “the number of resource units from the bandwidth” and not using them represents “omitting the number of resource units from the bandwidth”.)…”
Ibrahim does not explicitly teach usage of “an aggregated physical layer protocol data unit (APPDU)” so that Ibrahim’s FIG 9C actually represents an APPDU.
Aboul-Magd in FIG 1 and paragraph 0036 teaches that Aggregated Physical Layer (PHY) Protocol Data Unit (A-PPDU) has been proposed as part of the IEEE 802.11 group of protocols to enable multiple wireless devices to concurrently use different frequency segments within a larger frequency BW. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of an A-PPDU 150 that includes three respective concurrent data units (DUs) that each occupy a respective non-overlapping frequency segment within a 320 MHz BW. In FIG. 1, a first DU 210 (P1 DU) is within a primary 80 MHz (P80) BW, a second DU 212 (P2DU) is within a secondary 80 MHz (S80) BW and a third DU 214 is within a secondary 160 MHz (S160) BW. In other words, Aboul-Magd teaches that the transmissions from multiple devices “occupy a same bandwidth of an aggregated physical layer protocol data unit (APPDU)” shown as combination of P80, S80 and S160.
Comparing FIG 9C of Ibrahim with FIG 1 of Aboul-Magd, a similarity may immediately be seen. Just like in FIG 1 of Aboul-Magd, in FIG 9C of Ibrahim, multiple devices concurrently use different frequency segments within a larger frequency bandwidth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Aboul-Magd Aggregated Physical Layer (PHY) Protocol Data Unit (A-PPDU) in the system of Ibrahim and specifically for the communication between devices shown in Ibrahim’s FIG 9A, so that transmissions from different devices would “occupy a same bandwidth of an aggregated physical layer protocol data unit (APPDU)” in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C, where the “bandwidth of an aggregated physical layer protocol data unit (APPDU)” would be the total height along the frequency direction. Doing so would have simply conformed to the applicable standards.
Ibrahim does not teach “determining at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission based at least in part on the number of resource units to be omitted from the bandwidth” “and transmitting the downlink transmission in accordance with the at least one transmit power control scheme.”
ABOTABL teaches a similar case of adjust the DL transmission to mitigate the degradation of the reception of a DL transmission due to self-interference that overlaps with a SL transmission (see abstract). This is further explained in FIG 4 and paragraph 0065. FIG 5 and paragraph 0070 disclose separating the transmission frequency resources and the DL frequency resources with a guard band which may help to reduce self-interference. Transmission resources and reception resources that are immediately adjacent to each other correspond to a guard band width of 0. As an output signal, e.g., from a UE transmitter may extends outside the transmission resources, the guard band may reduce interference experienced by the UE.
Specifically, ABOTABL in FIG 10 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0097 – 0101 teaches “determining that a downlink transmission from an access point (AP) (see paragraph 0050: The base station may include and/or be referred to as a gNB, Node B, eNB, an access point) to a first client station is subject to an amount of adjacent channel interference from a peer-to-peer transmission (paragraphs 0099 - 0100: The UE 1002 may perform a selection operation 1008 to select resources for a SL communication. Next, the UE 1002 may transmit, and the base station 1003 may receive, a SL resource selection report 1010. The SL resource selection report 1010 may indicate the selected resources or a subcarrier (subchannel) associated with the selected resources. The base station 1003 may determine 1014 that a DL transmission is scheduled to overlap the SL transmission in time.)” “determining a set of mitigation actions to reduce the amount of adjacent channel interference to the downlink transmission, comprising: determining a number of resource units to omit from the bandwidth”, based at least in part on the amount of adjacent channel interference (paragraphs 0100 – 0101: Based on the determination 1014, the base station 1003 may transmit, and the UE 1002 may receive, a DL priority level report 1016. The DL priority level report 1016 may indicate a particular priority of the DL transmission. The UE 1002 may cancel 1018 the SL data transmission via the selected resources based on the received DL priority level. The DL priority level may indicate for the UE 902 to cancel the overlapping (in time) SL transmission. Alternatively, the base station may cancel the DL transmission based on an overlap with the resources selected by the UE for the SL transmission. In other words, since the entire SL transmission is canceled, it means that all of the resource units initially selected for SL transmission are “omitted” “from the bandwidth”, such as shown in FIG 6 along the vertical axis Y); and determining at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission based at least in part on the number of resource units to be omitted from the bandwidth (paragraphs 0100 – 0101: Based on the determination 1014, the base station 1003 may transmit, and the UE 1002 may receive, a DL priority level report 1016. The DL priority level report 1016 may indicate a particular priority of the DL transmission. The DL priority level may indicate a set of parameters associated with the indicated DL priority level and may further indicate for the UE 902 to cancel the overlapping (in time) SL transmission. However, as stated in paragraph 0093, a DL transmission with a first priority level may be transmitted with a power level that is associated with a first offset, while a DL transmission with a second priority may be transmitted with a power level associated with a second offset. Similarly, different priorities of DL transmissions may be associated with different (e.g., reduced) MCS or rank. In other words, each priority level defines “at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission”. Summarizing, based on the determined interference, a priority level is determined comprising “at least one transmit power control scheme for the downlink transmission” which is also based on omission of all of the resource units from the bandwidth initially allocated for sidelink transmission).” “Performing the set of mitigation actions, comprising omitting the number of resource units from the bandwidth … and transmitting the downlink transmission in accordance with the at least one transmit power control scheme (paragraph 0101: The UE 1002 may cancel 1018 the SL data transmission via the selected resources based on the received DL priority level. This means that all initially allocated for SL transmission resource units are “omitted” from the bandwidth. The base station 1003 may transmit, and the UE 1002 may receive, DL data 1020 based on the set of parameters identified based on the DL priority level report 1016.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by ABOTABL power and frequency control scheme to minimize mutual interference in various types of concurrent communications, in the system of Ibrahim. Doing so would have provided an additional capability of the base station to adjust the DL transmission to mitigate the degradation of the reception of a DL transmission due to self-interference that overlaps with a SL transmission.
In the device of combined Ibrahim, Aboul-Magd and ABOTABL’s disclosures, the resource units that would have been allocated for sidelink transmission are located within the bandwidth of the APPDU, as shown in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C or Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1, and particularly in its midportion (see Ibrahim). Therefore, when the sidelink transmission is canceled because of interference, as disclosed by ABOTABL, the resource units for the sidelink transmission (“a number of resource units”) would have been omitted from the bandwidth of the APPDU (“a number of resource units to omit from the bandwidth of the APPDU”), as is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Ibrahim in combination with Aboul-Magd and ABOTABL teaches or fairly suggests “the downlink transmission (shown in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C as downlink transmission DL 922 to UE 110a) comprises a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (shown as P1 DU 210 in Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1) that occupies a first set of resource units of the bandwidth of the APPDU (in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C the downlink transmission DL 922 to UE 110a is shown occupying upper block of frequencies in the total bandwidth; when combined with the teaching of Aboul-Magd regarding APPDU, it would correspond to P1 DU 210 in Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1);
the peer-to-peer transmission (shown in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C as sidelink transmission SL 920 from UE 110b) comprises a second PPDU (shown, for example, as P2 DU 212 in Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1) that occupies a second set of resource units of the bandwidth of the APPDU (in Ibrahim’s FIG 9C the sidelink transmission SL 920 from UE 110b is shown occupying second from the top block of frequencies in the total bandwidth; when combined with the teaching of Aboul-Magd regarding APPDU, it would correspond to P2 DU 212 in Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1); and
the number of resource units are omitted from at least one of the first set of resource units or the second set of resource units (in ABOTABL, “the number of resource units are omitted from” the sidelink transmission representing “the second set of resource units”).”
Regarding claim 29, Ibrahim in combination with Aboul-Magd and ABOTABL teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the at least one transmit power control scheme is determined based at least in part on a width of the resource units to be omitted from the bandwidth of the APPDU (ABOTABL, paragraph 0100: The base station 1003 may determine 1014 that a DL transmission is scheduled to overlap the SL transmission in time. Based on the determination 1014, the base station 1003 may transmit, and the UE 1002 may receive, a DL priority level report 1016. The DL priority level report 1016 may indicate a particular priority of the DL transmission. Paragraph 0093: a DL transmission with a first priority level may be transmitted with a power level that is associated with a first offset, while a DL transmission with a second priority may be transmitted with a power level associated with a second offset. Similarly, different priorities of DL transmissions may be associated with different (e.g., reduced) MCS or rank. In other words, each priority level defines “the at least one transmit power control scheme”.
Summarizing, determination of the priority level and corresponding power level (“the at least one transmit power control scheme”) is based on determination that the DL transmission is scheduled to overlap the SL transmission in time. In this case, the claimed “width of the resource units” is taken along the time axis of the APPDU (see Ibrahim’s FIG 9C or Aboul-Magd’s FIG 1). Since the SL transmission is going to be completely canceled, all the resource units previously allocated to SL transmission along the time axis (“width of the resource units”) will be canceled. However, as mentioned above, the determination of the priority level and corresponding power level is based on the overlap in time. This means that different amount of overlap in time may result in different determination of the priority level and corresponding power level, and since the full overlap is going to be canceled, this results in the determination of the priority level and corresponding power level based on the canceled portion of the APPDU, or based on “a width of the resource units to be omitted”, as is required by the claim.).”
Claims 11, 12, 22, 23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230030144 (Ibrahim) in view of US 20210392686 (Aboul-Magd) and US 20220369287 (ABOTABL) as applied to claims 1, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of US 20210409993 (Fakoorian).
Regarding claims 11, 22 and 26, Ibrahim teaches “determining that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises receiving an indication (see explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above)…”
While teaching performing interference measurements and reporting in paragraphs 0095 – 0098, Ibrahim does not teach that the indication is “of a signal strength of the second client station from the first client station.”
Fakoorian in FIG 3 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0075 – 0078 teaches similar interference scenario 300. When the sidelink transmitting UE 315a shares a DL resource of the direct link 310, the sidelink transmitting UE 315a can cause interference to a DL reception in the DL resource at the direct link receiving UE 315c as shown by the dashed arrow 330. FIG 4 with corresponding description describes a method of interference management. Paragraph 0094: At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration. Paragraph 0098: At action 440, the direct link receiving UE 315c determines a sidelink interference measurement as configured by the second sidelink interference measurement resource and configuration and the second instruction. Depending on the report type indicated by the second configuration, the direct link receiving UE 315c may compute an RSRP or an RSSI for a reference signal received in sidelink interference measurement resource. Paragraph 0100: At action 450, the direct link receiving UE 315c transmits a sidelink interference measurement report to the BS 305. The report may indicate an RSRP or an RSSI. In other words, Fakoorian teaches “receiving an indication of a signal strength of the second client station from the first client station.”
Therefore, since Ibrahim does not explicitly teach what kind of measurements are to be performed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Fakoorian measurement of the strength of the interfering signal, in the system of Ibrahim simply to fill in where he is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claims 12, 23 and 27, Ibrahim in combination with Fakoorian teaches “wherein determining that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises, prior to receiving the indication, transmitting a request to the first client station to measure the signal strength of the second client station (Fakoorian, paragraph 0094: At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration. This step precedes the step 440 of actually measuring the interference).”
Claims 7, 8 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230030144 (Ibrahim) in view of US 20210392686 (Aboul-Magd) and US 20220369287 (ABOTABL) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US 20240137754 (BALASUBRAMANIAN).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, Ibrahim does not teach “wherein the at least one transmit power control schemes comprises an allowed increase in a transmit power for the AP.”
BALASUBRAMANIAN in FIG 6B with corresponding description in paragraphs 0091 – 0093 teaches a similar arrangement in which sidelink transmissions interfere with downlink transmissions from the base station. Similar to Ibrahim, at 625, the first UE 120-1 may measure SL-to-DL interference and DL-to-SL interference caused by the concurrent downlink and sidelink transmissions. At 640, the first UE 120-1 may transmit, to the base station 110 information that indicates the SL-to-DL interference caused by the sidelink transmission. At 645, the base station 110 may reconfigure one or more downlink transmission parameters to overcome the SL-to-DL interference and/or to mitigate the DL-to-SL interference. The base station 110 may increase an energy per resource element (EPRE) to increase a transmit power on a downlink to compensate for the SL-to-DL interference. This corresponds to the claimed “wherein the one or more transmit power control schemes comprises an allowed increase in a transmit power for the AP.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by BALASUBRAMANIAN power control for the downlink transmission, in the system of Ibrahim. Doing so would have allowed more flexibility in controlling interference, so that in addition to the frequency control disclosed by Ibrahim, a power control for the downlink communication could also be utilized.
Regarding claim 8, Ibrahim in combination with BALASUBRAMANIAN teaches “wherein transmitting the downlink transmission comprises transmitting, by the AP, the downlink transmission based on the allowed increase in the transmit power for the AP (BALASUBRAMANIAN, paragraph 0093: At 645, The base station 110 increase an energy per resource element (EPRE) to increase a transmit power on a downlink to compensate for the SL-to-DL interference.).”
Claims 10, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230030144 (Ibrahim) in view of US 20210392686 (Aboul-Magd) and US 20220369287 (ABOTABL) as applied to claims 1, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of US 20200313824 (Barbu).
Regarding claims 10, 21 and 25, Ibrahim does not teach “wherein determining that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises measuring at least one of a leakage power or a power spectral density of the second client station.”
Barbu in FIG 4A and paragraph 0044 teaches adjacent channel interference scenario in which the transmission by the UL UE 100 on frequency band 400 may cause interference to DL UE 102 due to leakage of transmission from the first frequency band 400 to the second frequency band 402. This interference is shown with arrow 496 and can be referred to as Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI) caused by the transmission, by the UL UE 100, on the band 400. The interference 496 may be experienced by the DL UE 102 that is receiving data from network node 104 at band 402. Further, as disclosed in paragraph 0036, a method in an UE is provided, the method comprising: receiving (block 310), from network node, a request to perform at least one measurement to obtain adjacent channel leakage ratio information; performing (block 320) the at least one measurement; and transmitting (block 330), to the network node, the adjacent channel leakage ratio information obtained based on the at least one measurement. Additionally, paragraph 0077 teaches determination of interference value associated with the downlink UE 102 based on the adjacent channel leakage ratio.
In other words, Barbu teaches “determining that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises measuring … a leakage power.”
Therefore, since Ibrahim does not explicitly teach what kind of measurements are to be performed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Barbu measurement of the adjacent channel leakage ratio, in the system of Ibrahim simply to fill in where he is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 13, 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230030144 (Ibrahim) in view of US 20210392686 (Aboul-Magd) and US 20220369287 (ABOTABL) and as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of US 20240072841 (Kala).
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 24, Ibrahim does not teach “wherein determining that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises implicitly measuring the amount of adjacent channel interference, based on one or more previous downlink transmissions” (as in claims 13 and 24) and “wherein implicitly measuring the amount of adjacent channel interference comprises receiving an indication of one or more packet error rates for the one or more previous downlink transmissions” (as in claim 14).
Kala teaches in paragraph 0029 the primary mode (read: node) 302 determining that channels with a higher packet error rate, either uplink or downlink, than a threshold packet error rate may not be used for wireless communications by the network due to, for example, interference by another wireless network, thus at least suggesting using this type of measurement to infer presence of interference. It is implicit that the determination is made using “one or more previous downlink transmissions” on which the measurements were performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kala method of indirect determination of interference by using packet error rate being above the threshold in downlink transmissions, in the system of Ibrahim, for example, in addition to the method disclosed by Ibrahim. Doing so would have provided redundancy in determination thus increasing its reliability.
As shown in FIG 9C and explained in paragraph 0087 of Ibrahim, the interference 910 in the downlink in a particular slot 922 comes from adjacent channels in the sidelink transmissions 920. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that when the method of Kala is used in the system of Ibrahim, increase in the packet error rate above the threshold would have likely indicated “that the downlink transmission is subject to the amount of adjacent channel interference.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights