DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed 5 May 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-29, and 31-34 are pending in this application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13-15, 21, 24-25, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) in view of Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181).
For Claims 1 and 21, Levy teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraphs 81-83: UE hardware), configured to cause the UE to:
transmit information indicating predicted noise information associated with a plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraphs 6-8, 71, 75: measurement resources; paragraphs 50-51, 60-61: frequencies of measurement resources);
receive a communication configuration associated with the plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraphs 72, 87); and
perform a communication in accordance with the communication configuration (see Figure 8, item 816).
Levy as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ryden teaches that the predicted noise information is based at least in part on:
a noise spectrum measurement (see abstract, paragraphs 71, 83), and
noise information for a time window that follows a time associated with the noise spectrum measurement (see abstract, paragraphs 56: measurements over time; also paragraphs 99-100: communication configuration adjusted accordingly).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to predict future interference based on measurements as in Ryden when implementing the system of Levy. The motivation would be to improve performance (see Ryden, paragraph 15).
For Claims 10 and 25, Levy teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraphs 64-66: BS hardware), configured to cause the network node to:
receive information indicating predicted noise information associated with a plurality of bandwidth regions of a cell (see paragraphs 6-8, 71, 75: measurement resources; paragraphs 50-51, 60-61: frequencies of measurement resources);
transmit a communication configuration associated with the plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraphs 72, 87); and
perform a communication in accordance with the communication configuration (see Figure 8, item 816).
Levy as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ryden teaches that the predicted noise information is based at least in part on:
a noise spectrum measurement (see abstract, paragraphs 71, 83), and
noise information for a time window that follows a time associated with the noise spectrum measurement (see abstract, paragraphs 56: measurements over time; also paragraphs 99-100: communication configuration adjusted accordingly).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to predict future interference based on measurements as in Ryden when implementing the system of Levy. The motivation would be to improve performance (see Ryden, paragraph 15).
For Claims 2, 11, 22, and 26, Levy teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information includes a plurality of respective predicted noise values corresponding to the plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraph 75: respective reports of the measured resources).
For Claims 4, 13, 24, and 28, Levy teaches the apparatus, wherein the communication configuration indicates a first modulation order for a first bandwidth region of the plurality of bandwidth regions and a second modulation order, different from the first modulation order, for a second bandwidth region of the plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraphs 75: respective MCS for respective RIs corresponding to bandwidth resources).
For Claims 5, 14, and 29, Levy teaches the apparatus, wherein the first modulation order is based at least in part on a predicted noise value, of the predicted noise information, corresponding to the first bandwidth region (see paragraphs 58, 75: MCS based on reported predicted values).
For Claims 6, 15, 30, and 32, Levy teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to perform the noise spectrum measurement (see paragraphs 113, 117: RSRP and SINR, report configuration from BS).
For Claims 9 and 31, Levy teaches the apparatus, wherein the plurality of bandwidth regions are bandwidth regions of a cell (see paragraphs 42, 43: resources measured and interference predicted in cellular system).
Claim(s) 3, 12, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claims 1-2, 10, 21, and 25 above, and further in view of Korobkov et al. (US 2009/0316766).
For Claims 3, 12, 23, and 27, while respective predicted noise values corresponding to different bandwidth regions are at least inherent to the cited portions of Levy, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Korobkov teaches the apparatus, wherein each predicted noise value of the plurality of respective predicted noise values corresponds to a different bandwidth region of the plurality of bandwidth regions (see paragraphs 9-10: respective estimates for a plurality of subchannels).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to collected predicted noise values of respectively different bandwidth regions as in Korobkov when evaluating and predicting noise information as in Levy. The motivation would be to predict activity across the spectrum to make an optimum resource assignment.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0250982).
For Claims 8 and 20, Levy further teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information relates to the time window (see paragraphs 6, 71: future, prediction).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Sun teaches a length of the time window being based at least in part on a correlation time associated with the UE (see paragraph 72: interference measure correlated to time slots, interference predicted for next number of time slots accordingly).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to establish the length of the prediction in accord with the evaluation time as in Sun when implementing the method of Levy. The motivation would be to improve the accuracy and pertinence of the predictions.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Elshafie et al. (US 2022/0131588).
For Claim 17, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Elshafie teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information is based at least in part on an autocovariance function (see paragraph 86).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to select a known measure of interference when predicting noise levels on a resource. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a method appropriate for the conditions being measured.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rosu et al. (US 2023/0408632).
For Claim 18, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Rosu teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information is based at least in part on an autoregressive-moving-average model (see abstract, paragraphs 5 and 19).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to select a known measure of interference when predicting noise levels on a resource. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a method appropriate for the conditions being measured.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2021/0143883).
For Claim 19, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yerramalli teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information is based at least in part on a machine learning model (see paragraphs 7, 66, 80).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to select a known measure of interference when predicting noise levels on a resource. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a method appropriate for the conditions being measured.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US 2021/0344399) and Ryden et al. (US 2023/0370181) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2007/0042784).
For Claims 33 and 34, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Anderson teaches the apparatus, wherein the predicted noise information is based at least in part on a thermal noise value and a cross-cell interference value (see paragraphs 50, 52-53: UE makes estimate based on cross cell interference and thermal noise, reports to base station).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to report noise information determined as in Anderson when implementing the system of Levy. The motivation would be to provide the network with the information needed to improve throughput.
Response to Arguments
The RCE filed 5 May 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 UC 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siomina et al. (US 2019/0123840) teaches a system in which a noise measurement is used to predict future interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 5/28/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights