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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
(i) Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (hereinafter “Xu”), WO 2020/176667 A1, in view of Li et al (hereinafter “Li”), US Pub. 2025/0343591 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a first user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (fig. 1: a communication system 100 comprises UEs 120s), comprising: one or more memories (fig. 2, UE 120 comprises a memory 282); and one or more processors (fig. 2, UE 120 comprises a processor 280), coupled to the one or more memories (fig. 2, UE 120 comprises a processor 280 coupled to the memory 282), which are configured, individually or in any combination, to: receive, from a first network node associated with the first UE, a cross-link interference (CLI) configuration (p. [0006], [0009]: a first UE receiving a configuration identifying resources from a serving base station for transmitting a crosslink interference (CLI) sounding reference signal (SRS) to a second UE); and transmit, to a second UE, an inter-UE CLI measurement reference signal based at least in part on the CLI configuration, the inter-UE CLI measurement reference signal being transmitted to the second UE for measurement by the second UE (p. [0006], [0009]: transmitting, to the second UE, the CLI SRS in the resources according to the configuration. P. [0007], [0010]: The second UE may measure metrics related to the configured resources). Xu does not disclose wherein the CLI configuration is common to the first network node and a second network node associated with a second UE for coordinated scheduling between the first network node and the second network node for inter-UE CLI mitigation between the first UE and the second UE. Li discloses a method, device and computer readable medium for a Beam Failure Recovery (BFR) procedure under Cross Link Interference (CLI), wherein Li teaches the first network device 130 receives SRS resource configuration from the second network device 140, which is associated with the second terminal device 120, for coordinated scheduling between the first network device 130 and the second network device 140 for inter-UE CLI mitigation between the first terminal 110 and the second terminal 120 (fig. 2, p. [0050] and [0057], [0060], [0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the features disclosed by Li into Xu’s system to improve quality of service by eliminating CLI in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses wherein the first UE is an aggressor UE and the second UE is a victim UE (p. [0081]: an aggressor UE (e.g., a UE that is causing CLI) may transmit a CLI reference signal (CLI-RS) to a victim UE. The victim UE may measure the CLI-RS, i.e. the first UE is an aggressor UE and the second UE is a victim UE).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses wherein the one or more processors (fig. 2, UE 120 comprises processors 258, 280, 284, 286) are further configured, individually or in any combination, to: receive, from the first network node, an indication of an uplink transmission restriction, wherein the uplink transmission restriction is based at least in part on the measurement associated with the inter-UE CLI measurement reference signal (p. [0006], [0009]: a first UE receiving a configuration identifying resources from a serving base station for transmitting a CLI SRS. P. [0007], [0010]: The second UE may measure metrics related to the configured resources); and perform the uplink transmission restriction based at least in part on the indication received from the first network node (p. [0014]-[0015]: a BS, may determine, based at least in part on an uplink transmission schedule for a UE, one or more communications that are to be transmitted as a CLI-RS; and transmits, to the UE, an instruction to transmit the one or more communications as the CLI-RS during the time window).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the CLI configuration is via an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) node or a central unit (CU) (figs. 5-6, p. [0073]-[0077]: central unit 502 and 604), and wherein the CLI configuration is associated with a backhaul signaling or an over-the-air signaling (fig. 1, p. [0038]: Network controller 130 may communicate with the BSs via a backhaul).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses wherein the inter-UE CLI measurement reference signal indicates a transmitting UE identifier or a transmitting CLI resource identifier to distinguish between different aggressor UEs (p. [0095]: a base station may configure the multiple UEs to transmit distinctive CLI-RS signals to that a source of the CLI may be determined).
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses wherein the inter-UE CLI measurement reference signal is code division multiplexed across multiple transmitting UEs (p. [0003]: The method and system are operated with CDMA).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses wherein the CLI configuration indicates inter-UE CLI transmission parameters, and wherein the inter-UE CLI transmission parameters include one or more of: a time location, a frequency location (p. [0006]-[0010]: a configuration identifying resources for transmitting a CLI-SRS, i.e. time and frequency location of the resources), a reference signal sequence identifier, beam information, or a periodicity between different UEs of different cells or different network nodes.
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses wherein the CLI configuration indicates inter-UE CLI monitoring parameters, and wherein the inter-UE CLI monitoring parameters include a monitoring window location and periodicity between different UEs of different cells or different network nodes (p. [0014]: The method may include transmitting, to the UE, an instruction to transmit the one or more communications as the CLI-RS during the time window. P. [0048]: the BS determines and transmits, based on an uplink transmission schedule for a UE, one or more communications that are to be transmitted as a CLI-RS during a time window).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses wherein an inter-UE CLI measurement report signaled between the first network node and a second network node includes one or more of: an aggressor UE identifier, a CLI resource identifier (p. [0006]-[0007] and [0009]-[0010]: a base station, including transmitting, to a first UE, a configuration identifying resources for transmitting a CLI), upcoming UE data or control scheduling information (p. [0014]-[0017]: the BS may include determining, based at least in part on an uplink transmission schedule for a user equipment (UE), one or more communications that are to be transmitted as a CLI-RS; p. [0047]: A scheduler 246 may schedule UEs for data transmission on the downlink and/or uplink), a suggested UE power backoff value (p. [0081]: The victim UE may measure the CLI-RS and provide a feedback or measurement report so that one or more transmission parameters of the aggressor UE may be adjusted (e.g., transmit power, frame structure, and/or the like) to reduce and/or eliminate the CLI), beam information, or an indication of time- frequency resources (p. [0006]-[0007] and [0009]-[0010]: a base station, including transmitting, to a first UE, a configuration identifying resources for transmitting a CLI, i.e. time and frequency of the resources).
(ii) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Li as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al, WO 2020/032666 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Xu in view of Li does not disclose wherein a signaling of an inter-UE CLI measurement report between the first network node and a second network node is based at least in part on an event trigger, and wherein the event trigger occurs based at least in part on an inter-UE CLI level between the first network node and the second network node satisfying a threshold. Kim discloses a method for eliminating remote cross link interference, wherein the method discloses above features at steps 1-7, under section [One-way OTA based approach-2] (step 4: Aggressor gNB transmits information (e.g., cell ID, cluster/group ID, remote interference power, etc.) received by the aggressor gNB from the victim gNB through the backhaul signal to the victim gNB. Step 5: Remote based on the information Victim gNB received from the aggressor gNB (e.g., cell ID, cluster ID, remote interference power, etc.) and previously known information (e.g., distance, number of gNBs in cluster, etc.) A candidate for the technique to mitigate the CLI is sent to the aggressor gNB via a backhaul signal. Step 6: Aggressor gNB resolves interference from the aggressor gNB based on the candidate information of the technique received from the victim gNB. Step 7: The victim gNB continues steps 1 through 6 until the interference drops below the threshold); steps 1-4 under section [Two-way OTA based approach-1], and steps 1-6 under section [Two-way OTA based approach-2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the features disclosed by Kim into Xu’s system in order to control quality of services.
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 THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights