DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final action for application number 18/339,213 in response to an amendment filed on 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 01/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at 571-270-1921 to schedule an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0179382 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0007117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, a method, comprising: performing a measurement, by a first network node (gNB), of a reference signal transmitted by a second gNB, [Figure 4, wherein first base station 105-C receives reference signal from second base station 105-D and first base station performs reference signal measurement, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 119)],
sending, by the first gNB, a report, to the second gNB, the report being based on the measurement, [Figure 4, wherein the first base station 105-C transmits the measurements report to the second base station 105-D, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 120)],
to enable the second gNB to mitigate interference by the second gNB, the report being based on the measurement, [Figure 4, wherein the second base station 105-D performs cross-link interference mitigation, Steps 430 and 435, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraphs 121 & 122)],
Ibrahim et al. fails to explicitly teach that the report comprises a preference status of a beam,
Park et al. teaches that the interference coordination region may be configured based on long-term information for the base stations and may include one or both of a set of beam-avoidance sub-regions or a set of beam-preference sub-regions for a base station, where each sub-region is associated with a beam index, (Park et al., Abstract),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Ibrahim et al. by including that the report comprises a preference status of a beam, (Park et al., Abstract), in order to mitigate unexpected interference, (Park et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the report indicates a preferred beam or a nonpreferred beam, and the mitigating of interference comprises selecting the preferred beam, or avoiding the nonpreferred beam, for a subsequent transmission, [The victim base station and the dominant aggressor base station may use the CLI channel measurements to perform interference mitigation, which may include beamforming nulling, digital interference cancellation, among other mitigation techniques, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraphs 4 & 38)].
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1, further comprising indicating, by the second gNB, to the first gNB, a power offset between a Channel State Information reference signal (CSI-RS) and a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), [the aggressor base station 105 and the victim base station 105 may determine to use coordinated directional beams (e.g., coordination between neighboring cells and sectors) to reduce CLI (e.g., co-channel interference, dynamic TDD), which may include beam restriction, power back-off, dynamic zoning, slot conversion, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 97)].
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1, further comprising indicating, by the second gNB, to the first gNB, a source quasi-colocation (QCL) of a Channel State Information reference signal (CSI-RS), the indicating of the source QCL comprising indicating an index of a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) with which the CSI-RS is QCLed, [A QCL relationship between one or more transmissions or signals may refer to a relationship between the antenna ports (and the corresponding signaling beams) of the respective transmissions. For example, one or more antenna ports may be implemented by a base station 105 for transmitting at least one or more reference signals (such as a downlink reference signal, a synchronization signal block (SSB), (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 91)].
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a periodic Channel State Information reference signal (CSI-RS) or a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), [the first set of reference signals include one or more types of reference signals, the one or more types of reference signals including a channel state information (CSI) reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal block (SSB), a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), or any combination thereof, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 25)].
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1, wherein the report indicates a measure of signal strength, [the indication of the CLI channel measurements includes one or more channel statistics, one or more CLI metrics, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a reference signal received power (RSRP), or any combination thereof, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 16)].
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, wherein the measure of signal strength is selected from the group consisting of an RSSI, an RSRP, and a SINR, [the indication of the CLI channel measurements includes one or more channel statistics, one or more CLI metrics, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a reference signal received power (RSRP), or any combination thereof, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 16)].
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, wherein the report indicates whether a beam associated with the reference signal is preferred or nonpreferred, [the aggressor base station 105 and the victim base station 105 may determine to use coordinated directional beams (e.g., coordination between neighboring cells and sectors) to reduce CLI (e.g., co-channel interference, dynamic TDD), which may include beam restriction, power back-off, dynamic zoning, slot conversion, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 97)].
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 1, wherein the report indicates a degree of preferability or non-preferability of a beam associated with the reference signal, [the aggressor base station 105 and the victim base station 105 may determine to use coordinated directional beams (e.g., coordination between neighboring cells and sectors) to reduce CLI (e.g., co-channel interference, dynamic TDD), which may include beam restriction, power back-off, dynamic zoning, slot conversion, or any combination thereof, (Ibrahim et al., Paragraph 97)].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shukri Taha whose telephone number is 571-270-1921. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHUKRI TAHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights