DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 19 December 2023.
Claims 1-30 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattab et al (US Pub. 2023/0067545) in view of Buckley et al (US Pub. 2015/0078212).
Regarding claim 1, Hattab discloses “instructing user equipments (UEs) receiving service from the base station to start performing TDD_CSI-IM measurements in slots in which the base station does not transmit” because Hattab teaches configuring UEs to perform CSI-IM interference measurements using CSI-IM resources assigned by the network. Hattab ¶[0070]: “the UE estimates the noise and interference in each subband… by measuring the CSI-IM resources.” Hattab ¶[0073]: “CSI-IM signals can be carried by the PRBs… different patterns can be used across the ‘M’ subbands,” which inherently identifies measurement occasions separate from DL transmission. Hattab also discloses UEs sending CSI reports that include subband CSI values derived from these measurements (¶[0047]). However, Hattab does not disclose “receive noise reports… decide… to reschedule downlink traffic… and schedule the first UE on a different subband or slot.” Buckley teaches this missing portion. Buckley ¶0045–¶0047: “the eNB… may take measures… such as rescheduling uplink and downlink transmissions to different slots” based on interference. Buckley ¶0037: “UEs experiencing low SINR… may be allocated resources with lower interference.” It would have been obvious to combine Hattab’s CSI-IM interference measurements with Buckley’s interference-aware scheduling because both aim to mitigate interference, and CSI-IM provides the interference values needed to drive Buckley’s scheduling decisions.
Regarding claim 2, Hattab discloses “wherein instructing… includes indicating to the UEs identifying measurement slots in which the base station will not transmit,” because CSI-IM patterns define which PRBs/symbols/slots carry CSI-IM instead of DL transmissions, and these must be signaled to UEs. Hattab ¶[0073].
Regarding claim 3, Hattab discloses “identifying frequency subbands on which the UEs are to measure interference and report the results,” because the UE measures noise/interference for each subband separately (¶[0070]) and reports subband CSI (¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Buckley discloses “communicating the different subband, different slot… to the first UE in a scheduling message,” because the eNB “can indicate resource blocks to the UE which contain an acceptably low amount of… transmissions” (¶0046). It would have been obvious to use Hattab’s CSI-IM measurements to find low-interference resources and Buckley’s signaling mechanism to communicate them.
Regarding claim 5, Buckley discloses “determining average uplink SINR… identifying edge UEs…” under BRI because Buckley teaches prioritizing UEs with poor interference conditions. Buckley ¶0043: “schedules uplink and downlink transmissions to avoid the interference received at the eUE.” ¶0037: “assign sub-carriers… affected less by interference.” Combining with Hattab is obvious because CSI-IM provides the measurements needed to identify edge/interference-limited UEs.
Regarding claim 6, Buckley discloses “the at least some UEs… are UEs which were identified as edge UEs,” because it gives preferential low-interference resources to high-interference UEs (¶0043; ¶0037). It would have been obvious to use Hattab’s CSI-IM reports to determine which UEs fall into that category.
Regarding claim 7, Hattab teaches rescheduling but not explicitly “assigning the first UE a DL slot having the lowest reported noise.”
Buckley teaches selecting the “least interfered” or “lowest noise” resources for cell-edge UEs (para. 56).
Combining this with Hattab’s noise-report-driven rescheduling would have been obvious to minimize DL interference.
Regarding claim 8, Hattab does not disclose “assigning the first UE a frequency subband… having the lowest reported noise.”
Buckley teaches selecting frequency resources based on noise characterization per subband (para. 70, The UE estimates the noise and interference in each subband “i”; para. 56, The eUE may analyze received transmissions and choose to use resources (from among the resources assigned by the eNB) that have the lowest interference levels.)
It would have been obvious to assign the least noisy subband when performing Hattab’s rescheduling to improve DL reception reliability.
Regarding claim 9, Hattab does not disclose “receiving per slot noise information from another device.”
Buckley teaches inter-node cooperation and receiving interference/noise information from another network element (para. 45, the eUE may report the received pilot signal and an interference measurement to the eNB, the eNB … rescheduling uplink and downlink transmissions to different slots.).
It would have been obvious to use shared per-slot noise information with Hattab’s rescheduling scheme to enhance scheduling accuracy when multiple devices monitor noise.
Regarding claim 10, Hattab does not explicitly disclose using “average per slot UE measured noise information” when assigning DL slots.
Buckley teaches using averaged UE-measured per-slot interference when assigning downlink resources (para. 73, An average power per subband “i” can be derived based on these estimates and expressed as a SINR estimate given the noise and interference estimate in the subband “i.”).
Combining these yields predictable scheduling improvements and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Hattab does not disclose “received per slot noise information ranks slots in order based on per slot noise.”
Buckley teaches ranking resource blocks or slots based on relative interference or noise (para. 56).
It would have been obvious to combine this ranking method with Hattab’s scheduler that chooses alternative slots based on noise.
Regarding claim 12, Hattab does not disclose “average per slot BS measured noise information.”
Buckley describes base-station-performed per-slot interference measurements and using them for scheduling (para. 45).
It would have been obvious to integrate BS-measured noise rankings into Hattab’s rescheduling.
Regarding claim 13, Hattab does not disclose using BS noise rankings such that “assigning the slots corresponding to a lower noise ranking to cell edge UEs.”
Buckley teaches preferential allocation of low-interference resources to cell-edge UEs (para. 56).
It would have been obvious to combine them for improved UL performance.
Regarding claim 14, Hattab does not disclose “assigning symbols in DL slots having lower average UE-measured noise levels to cell-edge UEs.”
Buckley teaches per-symbol or per-RE noise allocation strategies (para. 60).
It would have been obvious to combine finer-granularity noise-based assignment (Buckley) with slot-level rescheduling (Hattab) to further optimize resource allocation.
Regarding claim 15, Hattab discloses “instruct… start performing TDD_CSI-IM measurements…” (¶[0070], ¶[0073]). Hattab does not disclose “receive noise reports… decide… reschedule DL traffic… schedule UE on different subband/slot.” Buckley teaches this (¶0045–¶0047; ¶0037). Combining is obvious because both address interference mitigation and CSI-IM provides the needed measurements.
Regarding claim 16, Hattab discloses “indicate to the UEs identifying measurement slots…” because CSI-IM patterns specify measurement occasions communicated to UEs (¶[0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Hattab discloses “identifying frequency subbands… to measure interference…” because CSI-IM is per subband (¶[0070]) and reports include per-subband CSI (¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Buckley discloses “communicate the different subband, different slot… in a scheduling message” (¶0046), and combining with Hattab is obvious because CSI-IM identifies low-interference resources.
Regarding claim 19, Buckley discloses “determine average uplink SINR… identify edge UEs…” under BRI (¶0037; ¶0043). Combining with Hattab is obvious because CSI-IM supplies interference values.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites the same steps as claim 1 in software form. Hattab teaches CSI-IM measurement configuration (¶[0070], ¶[0073]) and CSI reporting (¶[0047]); Buckley teaches interference-based rescheduling to different slots/subbands (¶0045–¶0047; ¶0037). It would have been obvious to implement these combined steps as software instructions on a computer-readable medium.
Regarding claim 21, Hattab discloses “a method of operating a base station (BS), comprising:
identifying cell edge UEs based on signal to interference noise measurements” because Hattab teaches deriving SINR from measured noise and interference, stating: “An average power per subband ‘i’ can be derived based on these estimates and expressed as a SINR estimate given the noise and interference estimate in the subband ‘i’.” Cell edge UEs are those having lower SINR values, which are identified based on such signal-to-interference-and-noise measurements.
Hattab further discloses “receiving per slot noise information from another device” because it teaches that UEs measure noise and interference and report those measurements to the base station, stating: “The UE estimates the noise and interference in each subband ‘i’ by, for instance, measuring the CSI-IM resources in that subband ‘i’.” These UE-reported measurements constitute per-slot noise information received from another device.
Hattab does not specifically disclose “operating a scheduler in the base station to schedule UEs for UL transmission, scheduling UEs for UL transmission including i) assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge UEs and assigning more noisy UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, ii) assigning less noisy symbols of UL slots to cell edge UEs and assigning more noisy symbols of UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, or iii) prioritizing non-cell UEs with regard to both less noisy slots and less noisy symbols over non-cell UEs when assigning UL slots or symbols to UEs.”
However, Buckley from an analogous art discloses this limitation by teaching alternative (i). Buckley teaches that interference measurements are used to select lower-interference uplink resources for vulnerable users, stating: “The eUE may analyze received transmissions and choose to use resources (from among the resources assigned by the eNB) that have the lowest interference levels.” Buckley further teaches that scheduling may be changed based on such measurements, stating: “the eNB may … take measures to prevent the interference … such as, for example, rescheduling uplink and downlink transmissions to different slots.” These teachings correspond to assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge UEs and assigning more noisy UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, which satisfies alternative (i) of the claimed scheduling step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hattab and Buckley because Hattab provides a CSI-IM-based framework for measuring and reporting noise and interference and identifying low-SINR (cell-edge) UEs, while Buckley provides an interference-aware scheduling technique that assigns lower-interference uplink time resources to such UEs. Combining these teachings would predictably result in a base station that receives per-slot noise information, identifies cell-edge UEs based on signal-to-interference-and-noise measurements, and schedules uplink transmissions by assigning less noisy UL slots to cell-edge UEs and more noisy UL slots to non-cell-edge UEs in order to improve uplink reliability under interference.
Regarding claim 22, Buckley discloses “received per slot noise information include BS measured noise information; assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge UEs…” because it schedules based on BS/UE-derived interference information (¶0037; ¶0043).
Regarding claim 23, Buckley discloses “BS measured noise information on a per symbol basis” because interference detection via sounding/pilots (¶0045) allows symbol-level quality estimation, and assigning less noisy symbols to edge UEs is consistent with allocating lower-interference resources (¶0037).
Regarding claim 24, Buckley discloses “UE measured noise information… assign less noisy DL slots to cell edge UEs” because the UE reports interference (¶0045) and the eNB uses it to reschedule DL to lower-interference slots (¶0046–¶0047).
Regarding claim 25, Buckley discloses “UE measured noise information on a per symbol basis… assigning less noisy symbols of DL slots to cell edge UEs…” because reported interference measurements guide symbol-level scheduling adjustments to mitigate interference (¶0037; ¶0045).
Regarding claim 26, Buckley discloses “another device is a master device… received BS interference measurement information from multiple base stations” because coordinated scheduling via network-level interference information is described in the context of identifying interfering sources (¶0045).
Regarding claim 27, Buckley discloses “average per slot noise information generated from base station measurements corresponding to uplink slots…” because the eNB evaluates interference across UL slots when determining how to reschedule transmissions (¶0045–¶0046).
Regarding claim 28, Buckley discloses “average per slot noise information generated from UE noise measurements corresponding to downlink slots…” because the UE’s pilot-based interference reports are used in DL scheduling decisions (¶0045–¶0047).
Regarding claim 29, Hattab discloses “a base station (BS), comprising:
a receiver for receiving information from another device (e.g., a master device);
a processor configured to control the base station:
identify cell edge UEs based on signal to interference noise measurements” because it teaches estimating SINR from measured noise and interference, stating: “An average power per subband ‘i’ can be derived based on these estimates and expressed as a SINR estimate given the noise and interference estimate in the subband ‘i’.” Cell edge UEs are identified based on such SINR measurements.
Hattab further discloses “operate the receiver to receive per slot noise information from another device” because it teaches that UEs measure noise and interference and report those measurements to the base station, stating: “The UE estimates the noise and interference in each subband ‘i’ by, for instance, measuring the CSI-IM resources in that subband ‘i’.” These reported measurements constitute per-slot noise information received from another device.
Hattab does not specifically disclose “control a scheduler in the base station to schedule UEs for UL transmission, scheduling UEs for UL transmission including i) assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge users and assigning more noisy UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, ii) assigning less noisy symbols of UL slots to cell edge users and assigning more noisy symbols of UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, or iii) prioritizing non-cell UEs with regard to both less noisy slots and less noisy symbols over non-cell UEs when assigning UL slots or symbols to UEs.”
However, Buckley from an analogous art discloses this limitation by teaching alternative (i). Buckley teaches that interference measurements are used to select lower-interference resources for uplink transmissions, stating: “The eUE may analyze received transmissions and choose to use resources (from among the resources assigned by the eNB) that have the lowest interference levels.” Buckley further teaches that the base station may change uplink scheduling based on interference, stating: “the eNB may … take measures to prevent the interference … such as, for example, rescheduling uplink and downlink transmissions to different slots.” These teachings correspond to assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge users and assigning more noisy UL slots to non-cell edge UEs, which satisfies alternative (i) of the claimed scheduling step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hattab and Buckley because Hattab provides CSI-IM-based noise and SINR measurements for identifying cell-edge UEs, while Buckley provides an interference-aware scheduler that assigns lower-interference uplink resources to such UEs. Combining these teachings would predictably yield a base station that receives per-slot noise information, identifies cell-edge UEs based on signal-to-interference-and-noise measurements, and schedules uplink transmissions by assigning less noisy UL slots to cell-edge UEs and more noisy UL slots to non-cell-edge UEs.
Regarding claim 30, Buckley discloses “received per slot noise information include BS measured noise information; assigning less noisy UL slots to cell edge UEs…” because interference-aware resource assignment is explicitly taught (¶0037; ¶0043).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-0734. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468