DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on December 22, 2025. Claims 1, 13, 25, and 28 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are pending in the 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, 14, 16-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0130732).
Regarding Claim 1, Ibrahim teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (“One or more processors 1304 in the processing system may execute software. Software shall be construed broadly to mean instructions, instruction sets, code, code segments, program code, programs, subprograms, software modules, applications, software applications, software packages, routines, subroutines, objects, executables, threads of execution, procedures, functions, etc., whether referred to as software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description language, or otherwise. The software may reside on a computer-readable medium 1306” – See [0163]) to cause the UE to:
receive control information that comprises a first configuration for a first channel state information measurement and a second configuration for a second channel state information measurement, wherein the first channel state information measurement is associated with self-interference from full-duplex communications of the UE and the second channel state information measurement is associated with a channel measurement and interference measurements other than self-interference of the UE (“At 1008 of FIG. 10, the BS 1002 configures the UE 1004 for FD CSI and HD CSI measurement and reporting. For example, the BS 1002 may send an RRC message or some other type of message to the UE 1004, where the message specifies a first set of resources and other information to be used by the UE 1004 for FD CSI-RS measurements and associated CSI reporting. In addition, this message or another message sent by the BS 1002 may specify a second set of resources and other information to be used by the UE 1004 for HD CSI-RS measurements and associated CSI reporting” – See [0119]; “In addition, at 1108, the BS 1102 may configure the UE 1104 to generate a combined FD CSI and HD CSI report in contrast with 1008” – See [0128]; “a base station may use this FD CSI and HD CSI to estimate the impact of different types of interference on a UE” – See [0113]; “the BS may determine, based on the differences between the channel quality on the full-duplex slots and the half-duplex slots” – See [0157]; “the half-duplex UE 406 receives no self-interference” – See [0088]; “the UE 1204 may measure CSI-RS on a full-duplex slot (e.g., using one antenna panel) while concurrently transmitting on the full-duplex slot (e.g., using another antenna panel). Thus, the CSI-RS measurement may include self-interference effects and/or CLI effects” – See [0151]; See also Fig. 11; The UE receives an FD measurement configuration which is a first configuration for a first channel state information measurement, wherein the first channel state information measurement is associated with self-interference from full duplex communications. The UE also receives an HD measurement configuration which is a second channel state information measurement for channel quality/interference measurements other than self-interference);
perform the first channel state information measurement and the second channel state information measurement, wherein the first channel state information measurement is performed in accordance with the first configuration and the second channel state information measurement is performed in accordance with the second configuration (“the UE 1104 generates a combined FD CSI and HD CSI report based on the measurements of 1116 and the measurements of 1118” – See [0129]; The UE measures the FD CSI-RS (first channel state information measurement in accordance with the first configuration) and the HD CSI-RS (second channel state information measurement in accordance with the second configuration)); and
transmit, based at least in part on the performing, a channel state information report comprising one or more first channel state information metrics, wherein each channel state information metric of the one or more first channel state information metrics comprises a combination of both of the first channel state information measurement and the second channel state information measurement (“The UE 1104 then sends the combined FD CSI and HD CSI report to the BS 1102 at 1122” – See [0129]; “In some examples, at 1108 of FIG. 11, the base station may configure one report for the two modes (HD CSI and FD CSI), where one CSI is reported as a differential (e.g., delta) with respect to the other CSI (e.g., the baseline CSI)” – See [0130]; “For example, the HD CSI may be fixed as the baseline and the FD CSI is reported as differential from the HD CSI. Alternatively, the FD CSI may be fixed as the baseline and the HD CSI is reported as differential from the FD CSI” – See [0134]; The UE transmits a report including a first metric, wherein the metric includes a combination of a differential value associated with the FD CSI (first channel state information measurement) and a baseline value associated with the HD CSI (the second channel state information measurement)).
Regarding Claim 2, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of one or more resources for the first channel state information measurement via a field of the control information that is associated with self-interference (“the message specifies a first set of resources and other information to be used by the UE 1004 for FD CSI-RS measurements” – See [0119]; The UE receives an indication FD CSI-RS resources associated with self-interference (one or more resources for the first channel state information measurement) via a field in the control information).
Regarding Claim 4, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with self-interference, a channel measurement, and one or more of inter-cell interference, multiple user multiple input multiple output interference, and cross link interference (“the UE 1204 measures CSI-RS transmissions on at least one configured full-duplex resource. In some examples, the UE 1204 may measure CSI-RS on a full-duplex slot (e.g., using one antenna panel) while concurrently transmitting on the full-duplex slot (e.g., using another antenna panel). Thus, the CSI-RS measurement may include self-interference effects and/or CLI effects” – See [0151]; “the BS may determine, based on the differences between the channel quality on the full-duplex slots and the half-duplex slots” – See [0157]; The first channel metric is associated with an FD CSI-RS associated with self-interference, channel quality, and CLI (cross link interference)).
Regarding Claim 5, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with an identifier that indicates that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with self-interference (“the baseline may be determined based on a rule corresponding to a CSI report ID (e.g., HD CSI is the baseline for ID 1 and FD CSI is the baseline for ID 2)” – See [0137]; A CSI report ID indicates that the metrics are associated with FD CSI (self interference)).
Regarding Claim 6, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a second channel state information report that is not associated with self-interference measurements of the UE (“at 1026, the UE 1004 sends an HD CSI report including the HD CSI generated at 1022 to the BS 1002” – See [0125]; The UE may transmit a separate/second report for the HD CSI that is not associated with self-interference measurements).
Regarding Claim 7, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 6. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive second control information that is not associated with self-interference measurements of the UE, wherein transmitting the second channel state information report is based at least in part on receiving the second control information (“the operations of 1106, 1108, 1110, 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118 of FIG. 11 may be similar to the operations of 1006, 1008, 1010, 1012, 1014, 1016, and 1018 of FIG. 10” – See [0128]; “At optional 1014, in some examples, a DCI or other signaling may be used trigger CSI reporting (e.g., aperiodic CSI reporting) at the UE 1004” – See [0122]; “at 1026, the UE 1004 sends an HD CSI report including the HD CSI generated at 1022 to the BS 1002” – See [0125]; A trigger message (second control information that is not associated with self-interference measurements) is received, wherein the second report for the HD CSI is transmitted in response to the trigger).
Regarding Claim 8, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 6. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication via a downlink control information message, a medium access control-control element message, a radio resource control message, a field of the control information, or any combination thereof, of whether the UE is to transmit the channel state information report or transmit both the channel state information report and the second channel state information report, wherein transmitting the second channel state information report is based at least in part on the indication (“the BS 1002 may send an RRC message or some other type of message to the UE 1004, where the message specifies a first set of resources and other information to be used by the UE 1004 for FD CSI-RS measurements and associated CSI reporting” – See [0119]; “at 1108, the BS 1102 may configure the UE 1104 to generate a combined FD CSI and HD CSI report” – See [0128]; The indication is received via RRC (radio resource control), wherein the indication indicates that the UE is to transmit the channel state information report).
Regarding Claim 9, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit, via the channel state information report, one or more second channel state information metrics different from the one or more first channel state information metrics, wherein the one or more second channel state information metrics are associated with interference measurements other than self-interference measurements (“the HD CSI may be fixed as the baseline and the FD CSI is reported as differential from the HD CSI” – See [0134]; “the BS may determine, based on the differences between the channel quality on the full-duplex slots and the half-duplex slots” – See [0157]; “the half-duplex UE 406 receives no self-interference” – See [0088]; The report includes HD CSI (second channel state information metric), which is different from the FD CSI (first channel state information metric), wherein the HD CSI is associated with interference measurements other than self-interference measurements).
Regarding Claim 10, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that one or more uplink resources associated with the full-duplex communications do not overlap with one or more downlink resources associated with the full-duplex communications (See Fig. 9; The uplink resources associated with full-duplex communications in slot 1 do not overlap the downlink resources associated with the full-duplex communications in slot 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Ibrahim teaches the UF of Claim 1. Ibrahim further teaches that one or more uplink resources associated with the full-duplex communications at least partially overlap with one or more downlink resources associated with the full-duplex communications (See Fig. 9; The uplink resources associated with full-duplex communications in slot 1 overlap the downlink resources associated with the full-duplex communications in slot 1).
Claims 13, 25, and 28 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claims 14, 26, and 29 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claim 17 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Claim 20 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 8.
Claim 21 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 9.
Claim 22 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 10.
Claim 23 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11.
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 3, 15, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0130732) in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2022/0014954, hereinafter Ibrahim ‘954).
Regarding Claim 3, Ibrahim teaches the UE of Claim 1. Ibrahim does not explicitly teach that the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of one or more first resources for a sounding reference signal measurement via a first field of the control information, an indication of one or more second resources for a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement via a second field of the control information, or both, wherein the first field and the second field are associated with the first configuration.
However, Ibrahim ‘954 teaches receive an indication of one or more first resources for a sounding reference signal measurement via a first field of the control information, an indication of one or more second resources for a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement via a second field of the control information, or both, wherein the first field and the second field are associated with the first configuration (“The CSI-IM resources configuration may notify the UE 1502 of the CSI-IM resources that the base station 1504 may configure in the downlink BWP in the full-duplex mode and instruct the UE 1502 to measure the interference components in the configured CSI-IM resources” – See [0098]; “At 1511, the base station 1504 may configure the UE 1502 to transmit a UL reference signal concurrent with the CSI-IM resources in the time domain, and UE 1502 may receive, from the base station 1504, the configuration to transmit the UL reference signal concurrent with the CSI-IM resources in the time domain” – See [0100]; “The UE measure at least one of an RSSI, an RSRP, or an RSRQ of the interference in the CSI-IM resources in the uplink portion of the downlink BWP, based on the uplink reference signal” – See [0101]; “At 1514, the UE 1502 may measure at least one interference component (e.g., RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources configured by the base station in the downlink BWP. At least one interference component in the CSI-IM resources may be caused by the interfering UL signal and/or the interference component (e.g., RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) in the CSI-IM resources from the reference signal (e.g., SRS) in the interfering UL signal” – See [0102]; A first field of control information indicates resources for an SRS (sounding reference signal) measurement (e.g., time resources of the CSI-IM) and a second field of CSI-IM resources for RSSI measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ibrahim to receive an indication of one or more first resources for a sounding reference signal measurement via a first field of the control information, an indication of one or more second resources for a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement via a second field of the control information, or both, wherein the first field and the second field are associated with the first configuration. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the UE with the necessary configuration that enables it to transmit an uplink SRS concurrently with measurements on the CSI-IM resources in order to perform the self-interference measurement (See Ibrahim ‘954, [0073] and [0100]).
Claims 15, 27, and 30 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0130732) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0358138).
Regarding Claim 12, Ibrahim teaches the UE of Claim 1. Ibrahim does not explicitly teach that the first channel state information measurement is associated with a layer one measurement.
However, Zhang teaches that the first channel state information measurement is associated with a layer one measurement (“To perform the self-interference, a modified Layer 1 Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (L1-SINR) configuration and procedure may be utilized. L1-SINR may include two resource settings, the first resource setting (which may be provided by the higher layer parameter resourcesForChannelMeasurement) is configured to perform channel measurement (CM) via CSI-RS. The CM may measure the channel quality. The second resource (which may be provided by either higher layer parameter csi-IM-ResourcesForinterference or the higher layer parameter nzp-CSI-RS-ResourcesForinterference) is configured to perform interference measurement (IM) via CSI-RS. The modified L1-SINR may be configured to utilize SRS, instead of CSI-RS, to perform the IM procedure for SIM purposes” – See [0076]; The first channel state information measurement associated with self interference includes an L1-SINR (layer one) measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ibrahim such that the first channel state information measurement is associated with a layer one measurement. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the base station to select a beam pair for the UE that minimizes self-interference (See Zhang, [0088] and [0122]).
Claim 24 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Ibrahim does not teach “wherein each channel state information metric of the one or more first channel state information metrics comprises a combination of both of the first channel state information measurement and the second channel state information measurement,” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 28.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in paragraph [0209] of the present application’s written description, “each CSI metric may be associated with both of a first CSI measurement that is associated with self-interference and a second CSI measurement that is not associated with self-interference (e.g., the CSI metrics may account for both self-interference and other interference).” Thus, the claimed “one or mor first channel information metrics” may be interpreted as a metric comprising a first channel state information measurement value that is associated with self-interference (e.g., the FD CSI disclosed by Ibrahim) and a second channel state information measurement value that is not associated with self-interference (e.g., the HD CSI disclosed by Ibrahim), according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Furthermore, the claim does not specify the precise nature of the combination in the “combination of both of the first channel state information and second channel state information.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). According to the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “combination” may include an arrangement or sequence of elements. In the case of Ibrahim, the arrangement of both of the FD CSI and the HD CSI in a single measurement report is considered to be a “combination of both of the first channel state information and second channel state information.”
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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights