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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 20:
The recitation of “a sub-band full-duplexing (SBFD) slot” is not a common term and does not have a well known meaning in the field which makes the claim unclear.
Regarding claim 6:
The recitation of “negligible” is vague/indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to.
Claims 2-17, and 19 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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)(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 1-5, 12-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ibrahim et al (US 2024/0298198). Hereinafter referred to as Ibrahim.
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20. Ibrahim discloses a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a base station, a measurement configuration for measuring cross-link interference (CLI) in a sub-band full-duplexing (SBFD) slot and a reporting configuration for reporting the CLI (see at least paragraph [0097], [0145], [0154], and [0172]); performing measurements of the CLI on measurement resources indicated by the measurement configuration (see at least paragraphs [0097] and [0154]); and reporting an indication of the measured CLI to the base station according to the reporting configuration (see at least paragraphs [0097] and [0154]).
Regarding claim 2. Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the measurement resources comprise at least one of a channel state information-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource and a zero-power channel state information reference signal (ZP CSI-RS) resource (see at least paragraphs [0154] and [0173]).
Regarding claim 3. Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the measurement resources are configured in the SBFD slot and a downlink slot preceding the SBFD slot, wherein the performing measurements comprises: measuring a first average received power on the CSI-IM resource or the ZP CSI-RS resource in the downlink slot; measuring a second average received power on the CSI-IM resource or the ZP CSI-RS resource in the SBFD slot; and determining the CLI based on a difference between the second average received power and the first average received power (see at least paragraphs [0025], [0143]-[0146], [0149]).
Regarding claim 4, Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the CSI-IM resource or the ZP CSI-RS resource is configured in the SBFD slot, wherein the performing measurements comprises: measuring an average received power of signals received on the CSI-IM resource or the ZP CSI-RS resource in the SBFD slot; and determining the CLI based on the measured average received power (see at least figure 8B).
Regarding claim 5, Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the measurement resources comprise a reference signal resource configured in the SBFD slot (see at least paragraph [0173]).
Regarding claim 12. Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the measurement configuration and reporting configuration are received via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), and a downlink control information (DCI) message (see at least paragraphs [0043] and [0147]).
Regarding claim 13. Ibrahim discloses a method wherein the measured CLI is reported via at least one of a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), and a radio resource control (RRC) message (see at least paragraphs [0043], [0144]).
Regarding claim 19. Ibrahim discloses an apparatus wherein the measurement resources comprise at least one of a channel state information-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource and a zero-power channel state information reference signal (ZP CSI-RS) resource (see at least paraph [0143]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim in view of Li et al (US 2022/0094410). Hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 10. Ibrahim discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the reporting configuration indicates at least one of: a number of bits to quantize the measured CLI into a quantized CLI report, a CLI threshold to compare the measured CLI against to determine a binary CLI report, and a CLI reporting type indicating one of the quantized CLI report and the binary CLI report. However, Li, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the reporting configuration indicates at least one of: a number of bits to quantize the measured CLI into a quantized CLI report, a CLI threshold to compare the measured CLI against to determine a binary CLI report, and a CLI reporting type indicating one of the quantized CLI report and the binary CLI report (see at least paragraphs [0022], [0037], and [0039]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching Li, as indicated, into the teaching of Ibrahim for the purpose of reducing energy consumption.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim in view of Zhang et al (US 2023/0328782). Hereinafter referred to as Zhang-782.
Regarding 14, Ibrahim discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that prior to the performing of measurements of the CLI: obtaining, from the measurement configuration, an enablement indication to enable or disable the performing of measurements of the CLI; and determining to enable the performing of measurements of the CLI based on the obtained enablement indication. However, Zhang-782, from the same field of endeavor, teaches prior to the performing of measurements of the CLI: obtaining, from the measurement configuration, an enablement indication to enable or disable the performing of measurements of the CLI; and determining to enable the performing of measurements of the CLI based on the obtained enablement indication (see at least paragraph [0144]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Zhang-782, as indicated, into the communication method of Ibrahim for the purpose of managing measurements and resources.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim in view of Zhang et al (US 2023/0163868). Hereinafter referred to as Zhang-868.
Regarding claim 15, Ibrahim discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of subsequent to the performing of measurements of the CLI and prior to the reporting of the measured CLI: determining that a trigger event for reporting the measured CLI has occurred, wherein the CLI is reported in response to the determination of the occurrence of the trigger event. However, Zhang-868, from the same field of endeavor, teaches subsequent to the performing of measurements of the CLI and prior to the reporting of the measured CLI: determining that a trigger event for reporting the measured CLI has occurred, wherein the CLI is reported in response to the determination of the occurrence of the trigger event (see at least paragraph [0097]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Zhang-868, as indicated, into the communication method of Ibrahim for the purpose of managing measurements and resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476