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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges that the combination of Futaki as applied to claim in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2019/0104416 A1) does not disclose:
“wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises:
receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information; and
determining types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier separately according to the interference measurement reporting information.”.
The office respectfully disagrees with this assertion.
With regard to the reception of inter-UE interference measurement reporting information, the applicant states:
“In sum, Yerramalli at most describes “interference measured/obtained at the UE”…… However, Yerramalli does not disclose mutual interference between UEs……. The source of interference in Yerramalli could be from a base station, other cells, or non-UE-to-UE interference which is different from the inter-UE interference…..”
The office notes that claims does not describe inter-UE interference as mutual interference between UEs, while also describing the interference as being from a plurality of different types of interferers and conveniently excluding mutual interference between UE’s. However, the disclosure of Yerramalli is directed to scheduling for uplink, downlink, and sidelink, as discussed in par.[0082], it is certainly acceptable to consider the interference at the UE in par.[0078 – 0079] as sidelink or mutual interference between UEs. With regard to reporting interference to the base station which the applicant alleges does not occur, the office notes that the disclosure teaches that the base station can obtain a measure of the interference experienced at the UE, as discussed in par.[0078]. Additionally, the disclosure teaches that the UE can report it’s interferers, “the downlink BW parts for the UE 115 (or other UEs being scheduled) may be determined based on measurement reporting of the UE's interferers (or other UEs' interferers).”. The above passage is certainly suggestive of a UE reporting its inter-UE interference. Thus the disclosure of Yerramalli substantially teaches, at least:
“wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises:
receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information”
With regard to the applicants assertion that the base station does not perform
“separately determining, by the network device, types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier according to the inter-UE interference measurement reporting information”
Again, as discussed above, the passage from par.[0078] explicitly discloses this feature:
“the downlink BW parts for the UE 115 (or other UEs being scheduled) may be determined based on measurement reporting of the UE's interferers (or other UEs' interferers).”
This passage alone or in combination with other passages certainly suggests determining separately the subbands or BWPs for a one or more UE’s based on the interference reported by the UE of its inter-UE interferers to the base station. The Applicants allegation that the downlink BWP for a single UE are not supported by the disclosure of Yerramalli, wherein Yerramalli explicitly disclose that the BWP for the UE or other UEs being scheduled certainly suggests that BWPs/Subbands are being configured for a one or more UE. Further, it would seem that when multiple UE’s are reporting their inter-UE interference to the network, the network could separately configure BWPs for each of the UEs which are reporting, see “may be determined based on measurement reporting of the UE's interferers (or other UEs' interferers).”.
Thus, the combination of Futaki et al. (US 2019/0182716 A1), in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2019/0104416 A1) substantially disclose the previous claim 3 which has been amended into claim 1, and the rejection is sustained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-18, and 20-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki et al. (US 2019/0182716 A1), in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2019/0104416 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, Futaki discloses:
a network device (fig.1 depicts a network device), comprising:
a transceiver (fig.23 depicts a transceiver);
a memory (fig.23 depicts a memory); and
a processor (fig.23 depicts a processor), connected to the transceiver and the memory (fig.23 depicts a processor communicatively coupled with the memory), respectively, and configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, to control the transceiver to transmit or receive a radio signal and to implement:
a communications method (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), comprising:
obtaining, by a network device (fig.1 depicts a network device element NR-gNB, and fig.2 depicts a LTE eNB and a gNB), a subband of a bandwidth part (BWP) in a carrier (implicit, as the network device, (i.e. the eNB or gNB) are configured to configure and/or signal a configuration of BWP (i.e. subbands fig(s). 6-7) to the user equipment in its cells. Additionally, the network (i.e. the eNB or gNB) can exchange BWP information with one another via the X2 interface as shown in fig.2 and fig(s).10-11, par.[0081- 0083]);
determining, by the network device, a type of each subband or each BWP (as discussed above, the configuration BWP configuration. In addition the disclosure teaches that the BWP comprises different types of BWP for uplink (UL) and/or downlink (DL) communications, par.[0023] the configuration, describes which BWP are for UL and which are for DL communications. Thus, the configuration determined at the network node comprises a determination of which BWPs are used for UL and which are used for DL);
determining, by the network device, configuration information according to the type (par.[0023] the network devices determine (e.g. configure configuration information) to be sent to the UE comprising the type of BWP either UL/DL for communication between the UE and the network);
sending, by the network device, the configuration information to at least one user equipment (UE) via configuration signaling (par.[0023] the network node uses Radio Resource Control signaling to transmit the BWP configuration comprising the types of BWP previously configured); and
communicating, by the network device, with the at least one UE in a unit of subband or the BWP according to the configuration information (par.[0023] the UE receives the BWP configurations which it will use to communicate with the base station, fig.17, par.[0117 – 0118]).
While the disclosure of Futaki utilizes BWP to mitigate interference between neighboring cells or between UE’s as discussed in par.[0087 – 0088, and 0101], but may not disclose:
wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises: receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information; and
determining types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier separately according to the interference measurement reporting information.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Yerramalli discloses:
wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises: receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information (par.[0078 – 0079] which describes the interference experience near the UE, (i.e. the inter-UE) interference); and
determining types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier separately according to the interference measurement reporting information (par.[0078 – 0079] describes the configuration of the BWP based on the interference measurements received from the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Futaki with the disclosure of Yerramalli. The motivation/suggestion would have been to efficiently share the medium across all users of the spectrum by modifying the spectrum allocation in view of UE reports.
Regarding claim 4, 10, and 21, Futaki discloses:
wherein the configuration signaling comprises the configuration information, and the configuration information is used to configure the type of the subband or the BWP in the carrier (par.[0023] which teaches the signaling with the configuration information, and par.[0090-0099] describe the information elements in the configuration which assist the UE in determining the configuration).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 22, Futaki discloses:
wherein the configuration signaling comprises radio resource control (RRC) common signaling, RRC dedicated signaling, or downlink control information (DCI) signaling (par.[0023] describes RRC signaling to transmit the BWP configuration information).
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 17, Futaki discloses:
a user equipment (fig.24 depicts a user equipment), comprising:
a transceiver (fig.24 depicts a transceiver);
a memory (fig.24 depicts a memory); and
a processor (fig.24 depicts a processor), connected to the transceiver and the memory, respectively, and configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, to control the transceiver to transmit or receive a radio signal and to implement:
a communications method (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), comprising:
obtaining, by a user equipment (fig.1 depicts a network device element NR-gNB, communicating with a user equipment), configuration signaling carrying configuration information sent by a network device, wherein the configuration information is used to configure a type of a subband or a bandwidth part (BWP) in a carrier (par.[0023] which recites, in part, “One or more BWP configurations for each component carrier are semi-statically signaled to the UE. To be specific, for each UE-specific serving cell, one or more DL BWPs and one or more UL BWPs can be configured for the UE via a dedicated RRC message.”);
receiving, by the UE, the configuration information sent by the network device via the configuration signaling (par.[0023] the transmission of the RRC signaling with the BWP configuration); and
communicating, by the UE, with network device in a unit of at least one subband or BWP in carrier according to the configuration information (par.[0023] the UE receives the BWP configurations which it will use to communicate with the base station, fig.17, par.[0117 – 0118]).
While the disclosure of Futaki utilizes BWP to mitigate interference between neighboring cells or between UE’s as discussed in par.[0087 – 0088, and 0101], but may not disclose:
wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises: receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information; and
determining types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier separately according to the interference measurement reporting information.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Yerramalli discloses:
wherein determining the type of each subband or each BWP comprises: receiving inter-UE interference measurement reporting information (par.[0078 – 0079] which describes the interference experience near the UE, (i.e. the inter-UE) interference); and
determining types of subbands or BWPs for a plurality of UEs in the carrier separately according to the interference measurement reporting information (par.[0078 – 0079] describes the configuration of the BWP based on the interference measurements received from the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Futaki with the disclosure of Yerramalli. The motivation/suggestion would have been to efficiently share the medium across all users of the spectrum by modifying the spectrum allocation in view of UE reports.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Futaki discloses:
determining whether the at least one subband or BWP in the carrier corresponds to the UE (par.[0023] which teaches that the UE receives the BWP configuration it would use for communications with the network);
determining a type of the at least one subband or BWP,wherein in response to determining that the at least one subband or BWP in the carrier corresponds to the UE (par.[0023] teaches that the configuration comprises the type of BWP in the configuration); and
communicating with the network device in a unit of the at least one subband or BWP according to the type of the at least one subband or BWP (par.[0023] the UE receives the BWP configurations which it will use to communicate with the base station, fig.17, par.[0117 – 0118]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Yerramalli discloses:
sending inter-UE interference measurement reporting information to the network device (par.[0066] which recites, in part, “In that regard, the downlink BW parts for the UE 115 (or other UEs being scheduled) may be determined based on measurement reporting of the UE's interferers (e.g., interference measured or obtained at the UE 115).”).
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki and Yerramalli as applied to claim 1, in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0141742 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 19, Futaki and Yerramalli discloses:
wherein the communicating comprises:
sending, by the network device data to the UE on the subband or the BWP, wherein type is a downlink type (par.[0023] describes the downlink type BWP/subband);
receiving, by the network device, data sent by the UE on the subband or the BWP, wherein type is an uplink type (par.[0023] which describes the uplink BWP/subband);
While the disclosure of Futaki teaches the above method, it does not disclose:
configuring, by the network device, the subband or the BWP to be for one of uplink transmission, downlink transmission, or null according to the configuration information, wherein the type is flexible type.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Jia teaches:
configuring, by the network device, the subband or the BWP to be for one of uplink transmission, downlink transmission, or null according to the configuration information, wherein the type is flexible type (par.[0280 – 0281] which describes BWP which are flexible, being either DL, or UL, or zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Futaki and Yerramalli for BWP configuration with the disclosure of Zhou, for having a flexible BWP. The motivation/suggestion would have been to flexibly transmit and receive on BWP to facilitate communications between the network and the UE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jia et al. (US 2023/0254836 A1) “Communications Method and Apparatus”
Hong et al. (WO 2020/009498 A1) “Method for Transmitting Uplink Data in Unlicensed Band and Device Therefor”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights