DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on June 11, 2026. Claims 1, 13, 19, 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 11, 2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, 14, 17-23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazmi et al. (US 2017/0054544).
Regarding Claim 1, Kazmi 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 (“some or all of the functionality described above as being provided by UEs, MTC or M2M devices, and/or any other types of wireless communication devices may be provided by the device processor 1201 executing instructions stored on a computer-readable medium, such as the device memory 1202” – See [0140]) 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 (“the UE shall estimate CSI-FD and CSI-HD over a first set of resources and a second set of resources respectively” – See [0109]; “The network node may by default or explicitly configure the UE with the same or different set of resources for estimating and reporting of CSI-FD and CSI-HD as part of E-CSI-FD reporting” – See [0110]; “the CSI-FD is generated to be indicative of an estimated, predicted and/or calculated impact of self-interference, SI, at the receiver of the UE due to the UL transmission of the UE” – See [0021]; “half duplex CSI, CSI-HD, may be derived by the UE in HD mode with no impact of SI due to the UE's own transmission” – See [0087]; The UE receives control information indicating first resources for CSI-FD measurement (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) and second resources for CSI-HD measurement (second configuration for a second channel state information measurement, wherein the second channel state information measurement is associated with a channel measurement and interference measurements other than self-interference of the UE));
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 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 individually indicates both the first channel state information measurement and the second channel state information measurement (“The SINR values may be estimated as fast as very time resource e.g. time slot, subframe, or scheduling time interval. The SINR values may be measured on reference signals (RS) such as common or dedicated reference signals. Examples of common RS are cell specific RS (CRS), discovery RS (DRS), channel state indicator RS (CSI-RS). An example of a dedicated reference signal, also being referred to as UE specific RS, is the so-called demodulation RS (DMRS)” – See [0076]; “the UE 12 sends a CSI report indicative of the SSIR in accordance with the received CSI configuration message back to the base station 14” – See [0077]; “the CSI report may be indicative of the SINRFD and SINRHD, so that the network may determine the SSIR based on the CSI report” – See [0079]; The UE performs, in accordance with the first and second configurations, the first and second measurements to respectively derive the CSI-FD and CSI-HD. The UE reports one or more first channel state information metrics, wherein each metric individually indicates both the first and second channel state information measurement. For example, the first channel state information metric individually indicates a full duplex CSI value (first channel state information measurement) and a half duplex CSI value (second channel state information measurement), wherein the full duplex and half duplex CSI values are individual/independent from one another).
Regarding Claim 2, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 network node may by default or explicitly configure the UE with the same or different set of resources for estimating and reporting of CSI-FD and CSI-HD as part of E-CSI-FD reporting” – See [0110]; The UE receives an explicit 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 5, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 UE 12 may measure the SINR from the received signal and check which entry of the table the estimated SINR falls into. Then the UE may report the index of this entry to the network” – See [0082]; The one or more first channel state information metrics are associated an index/identifier that indicates an entry of a self-interference value in a table).
Regarding Claim 6, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 (“The UE sends both CSI-FD and CSI-HD, if the difference between them is above a threshold. Otherwise the UE may report either CSI-FD or CSI-HD, which may be pre-defined or configured by the network node” – See [0115]; The UE may transmit a second report which includes only the HD CSI that is not associated with self-interference measurements).
Regarding Claim 7, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 6. Kazmi 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 UE sends both CSI-FD and CSI-HD, if the difference between them is above a threshold. Otherwise the UE may report either CSI-FD or CSI-HD, which may be pre-defined or configured by the network node” – See [0115]; The UE receives second control information that includes criteria for determining whether to transmit the HD CSI (not associated with self-interference measurements of the UE), wherein the UE transmitting the second report is based on the second control information).
Regarding Claim 8, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 6. Kazmi 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 UE sends both CSI-FD and CSI-HD, if the difference between them is above a threshold. Otherwise the UE may report either CSI-FD or CSI-HD, which may be pre-defined or configured by the network node” – See [0115]; The indication is received in a control information field, wherein the indication indicates criteria for determining whether the UE transmits both the CSI-FD and CSI-HD (channel state information report) or transmits only CSI-HD (second channel state information report)).
Regarding Claim 9, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 (“an extended CSI report may be generated by the UE comprises the following indicators: CQI-HD providing information about (or specifying a range of) DL SINR assuming no self-interference” – See [0030]-[0031]; “the CSI report comprises a first set of information indicative of channel state information associated to half HD transmission mode and/or a second set of information indicative of channel state information associated to FD transmission mode: the first set, being referred to as half duplex CSI, CSI-HD, may be derived by the UE in HD mode with no impact of SI due to the UE's own transmission; this set may correspond to currently specified CSI information (e.g. CQI, PMI, RI etc.)” – See [0086]-[0087]; The report includes HD CQI/PMI/RI (second channel state information metric) which 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 (“Full duplex frequency division duplexing (FD FDD) enables simultaneous transmission and reception of radio signals but the transmission and reception of radio signals take place on different carrier frequencies” – See [0014]; For Full duplex frequency division duplexing, the uplink and downlink resources are on different frequencies and thus do not overlap).
Regarding Claim 11, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 (“full-duplex (FD) communication enables simultaneous transmission and reception of radio signals on the same carrier frequency” – See [0015]; The uplink and downlink resources for full-duplex communication are the same time/frequency resources (i.e., overlapping)).
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 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 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2017/0054544) in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2023/0130732).
Regarding Claim 4, Kazmi teaches the UF of Claim 1. Kazmi further teaches that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with self-interference and a channel measurement (“the CSI report comprises a first set of information indicative of channel state information associated to half HD transmission mode and/or a second set of information indicative of channel state information associated to FD transmission mode: the first set, being referred to as half duplex CSI, CSI-HD, may be derived by the UE in HD mode with no impact of SI due to the UE's own transmission; this set may correspond to currently specified CSI information (e.g. CQI, PMI, RI etc.), and the second set being referred to as full duplex CSI, CSI-FD, that corresponds to the CSI derived by the UE in FD mode where the UE reception includes an estimated, predicted and/or calculated impact of SI due to the own UL transmission of the UE, e.g. taking into account FD related capabilities (e.g. SI suppression) of the UE. The CSI-FD may comprise one or more of full duplex indicators, comprising a channel quality indicator, CQI-FD, rank indicator, RI-FD, and/or a pre-coding matrix indicator, PMI-FD, as being described in more detail in the following” – See [0086]-[0088]; “the UE 12 sends a CSI report indicative of the SSIR in accordance with the received CSI configuration message back to the base station 14” – See [0077]; “the CSI report may be indicative of the SINRFD and SINRHD, so that the network may determine the SSIR based on the CSI report” – See [0079]; The first channel information state metric is associated with self interference and a channel measurement (e.g., CQI)).
Kazmi does not explicitly teach that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with one or more of inter-cell interference, multiple user multiple input multiple output interference, and cross link interference.
However, Ibrahim teaches that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with 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]; “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate that a wireless communication device (e.g., a base station, a UE, etc.) may use multiple antenna panels to support full-duplex communication” – See [0094]; The first channel metric is associated CLI (cross link interference). Furthermore, the first channel metric is a MIMO interference that involves measurement of channel state information for signals transmitted/received on multiple antenna panels at the UE and base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kazmi such that the one or more first channel state information metrics are associated with one or more of inter-cell interference, multiple user multiple input multiple output interference, and cross link interference. Motivation for doing so would be to account for additional types of interference that are caused by full-duplex transmissions (See Ibrahim, [0112]).
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claims 3, 15, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al. (US 2017/0054544) in view of Ibrahim et al. (US 2022/0014954, hereinafter Ibrahim ‘954).
Regarding Claim 3, Kazmi teaches the UE of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 Kazmi 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 Kazmi et al. (US 2017/0054544) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0358138).
Regarding Claim 12, Kazmi teaches the UE of Claim 1. Kazmi 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 Kazmi 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
On pages 11-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Ibrahim does not teach “transmit[ting], 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 individually indicates both the first channel state information measurement and the second channel state information measurement,” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 28. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner relies upon the newly-cited Kazmi reference.
Conclusion
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