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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 8, with respect to the objection to claims 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 18-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see starting on page 9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ji do not teach the features of the instant claim because Ji teaches that the UL intracell interference is excluded. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ji teaches that the UL intra-cell interference is measured. What occurs afterwards is not relevant to the combination made in the previous action. Thus, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ji do teach all the features of claim 1 as amended. However, in order to expedite prosecution, new grounds of rejection under new prior art Ibrahim (US 20220014954 A1) have been made that address Applicant’s point of disagreement.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian (US 20210409993 A1) in view of Abedini (US 20210384952 A1) and Ibrahim (US 20220014954 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fakoorian discloses:
“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 to cause the UE to:” ([¶ 0279]: “The functions described herein may be implemented in hardware, software executed by a processor, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software executed by a processor, the functions may be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium.”)
“receive a control message comprising an indication of one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information;” ([¶ 0094]: “At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second configuration may include the configuration 500. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration.” Note that in Fig. 3 UEs 315a and 315c are in the same cell.)
“transmit an intracell interference information report based at least in part on one or more directional intracell interference measurements corresponding to the one or more resources…” ([¶ 0100]: “At action 450, the direct link receiving UE 315c transmits a sidelink interference measurement report to the BS 305. The report may indicate an RSRP or an RSSI, for example, determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource. The report may also indicate a sidelink traffic priority and/or interference directional information determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource.”)
“…receive a … configuration message comprising an instruction…” ([¶ 0120]: “At action 810, in response to determining the sidelink has a higher traffic priority than the direct link, the BS 305 transmits a DL communication signal (e.g., DCI and/or DL data) to the direct link receiving UE 315c in a resource (e.g., a DL resource) shared by the sidelink and the direct link using a reduced transmission power.”)
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “receive a beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report” nor “wherein the one or more directional intracell measurements correspond to uplink signaling from at least a second UE.”
However, Abedini discloses the missing feature “receive a beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report.” ([¶ 0059]: “In particular, the selective nature of the null-forming procedure(s) performed on the beam(s) is based upon dynamic null-forming procedure information at the wireless device (e.g., receive from external network entity and/or based in part upon measurements at the wireless device itself) rather than a pre-stored null-forming configuration. Such an implementation may provide various technical advantages, including more precise null-forming, faster null-forming, network-coordinated null forming (e.g., so transmission part of null forming procedures can be monitored by other wireless entities, for positioning, power control, etc.), and so on.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian and Abedini, to modify the instruction as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be a null steering configuration as disclosed by Abedini. The motivation for doing so is that null steering allows for more efficient use of resources, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Abedini also does not disclose “wherein the one or more directional intracell measurements correspond to uplink signaling from at least a second UE.”
However, Ibrahim discloses the missing feature “wherein the one or more directional intracell measurements correspond to uplink signaling from at least a second UE.” ([¶ 0121]: “As part of measuring the interference, the UE may measure interference components (RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources and/or interference component (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) from SRS, including intra-cell CLI from an interfering UL signal from aggressor UE and/or self-interference from UL signal of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Ibrahim to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be used with UL as disclosed by Ibrahim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization in a larger number of use cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Ibrahim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “receive, via the control message, an instruction for the UE to perform direction of arrival measurements via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information.” ([¶ 0094]: “At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second configuration may include the configuration 500. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration.” Note that in Fig. 3 UEs 315a and 315c are in the same cell. ; [¶ 0249]: “Aspect 41 includes the method of aspect 38, wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the configuration, at least one of an interference measurement, interference directional information…”)
Regarding claim 3, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “detect an … measurement signal transmitted by a second UE via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interferences information; and perform the one or more directional intracell interference measurements comprising the direction of arrival measurements according to the instruction for the UE to perform the direction of arrival measurements and based at least in part on detecting the uplink measurement signal.” ([¶ 0098]: “At action 440, the direct link receiving UE 315c determines a sidelink interference measurement as configured by the second sidelink interference measurement resource and configuration and the second instruction. As an example, the second configuration and the second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to report an interference measurement for each sidelink interference measurement resource.”; [¶ 0099]: “In some aspects, the direct link receiving UE 315c may also determine a beam direction or spatial direction in which the reference signal is received, for example, based on a receive beam direction used by the direct link receiving UE 315c to receive the reference signal. In some aspects, the direct link receiving UE 315c may also identify the sidelink transmitting UE 315a that transmitted the reference signal in the first sidelink interference measurement resource based on the content (e.g., the waveform sequence) of the reference signal.”)
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose the signal is “uplink.”
However, Ibrahim discloses the signal is “uplink.” ([¶ 0121]: “As part of measuring the interference, the UE may measure interference components (RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources and/or interference component (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) from SRS, including intra-cell CLI from an interfering UL signal from aggressor UE and/or self-interference from UL signal of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Ibrahim to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be used with UL as disclosed by Ibrahim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization in a larger number of use cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Ibrahim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “transmit, via the intracell interference information report, an indication of an estimated direction of arrival associated with the uplink measurement signal according to the direction of arrival measurements, wherein the beam configuration message is based at least in part on the estimated direction of arrival.” ([¶ 0100]: “At action 450, the direct link receiving UE 315c transmits a sidelink interference measurement report to the BS 305. The report may indicate an RSRP or an RSSI, for example, determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource. The report may also indicate a sidelink traffic priority and/or interference directional information determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource.
Regarding claim 5, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “receive, via the control message, an indication for the UE to transmit an … measurement signal via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information; and transmit the uplink measurement signal via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information, wherein the one or more directional intracell interference measurements are based at least in part on the uplink measurement signal.” ([¶ 0093]: “Returning to FIG. 4, at action 410, the BS 305 transmits a first configuration and a first instruction to the sidelink transmitting UE 315a. The first configuration may include the configuration 500. The first instruction may instruct the sidelink transmitting UE 315a to transmit a reference signal in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the first configuration.”; [¶ 0098]: “At action 440, the direct link receiving UE 315c determines a sidelink interference measurement as configured by the second sidelink interference measurement resource and configuration and the second instruction.”)
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose the signal is “uplink.”
However, Ibrahim discloses the signal is “uplink.” ([¶ 0121]: “As part of measuring the interference, the UE may measure interference components (RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources and/or interference component (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) from SRS, including intra-cell CLI from an interfering UL signal from aggressor UE and/or self-interference from UL signal of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Ibrahim to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be used with UL as disclosed by Ibrahim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization in a larger number of use cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Ibrahim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “perform null steering for the one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report.”
However, Abedini discloses the missing feature “perform null steering for the one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report.” ([¶ 0068]: “At 512, the first wireless device (e.g., antenna(s) 252a . . . 252r, demodulators 254a . . . 254r, Rx MIMO processor 256, receive processor 258, etc., and/or antenna(s) 252a . . . 252r, modulators 254a . . . 254r, Tx MIMO processor 266, transmit processor 264, etc.) performs the selected null-forming procedure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian and Abedini, to modify the instruction as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be a null steering as disclosed by Abedini. The motivation for doing so is that null steering allows for more efficient use of resources, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Fakoorian discloses:
“A network entity, 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 to cause the network entity to:” ([¶ 0279]: “The functions described herein may be implemented in hardware, software executed by a processor, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software executed by a processor, the functions may be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium.”)
“output, to a user equipment (UE), a control message comprising an indication of one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information;” ([¶ 0094]: “At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second configuration may include the configuration 500. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration.” Note that in Fig. 3 UEs 315a and 315c are in the same cell.)
“obtain an intracell interference information report based at least in part on one or more directional intracell interference measurements corresponding to the one or more resources…” ([¶ 0100]: “At action 450, the direct link receiving UE 315c transmits a sidelink interference measurement report to the BS 305. The report may indicate an RSRP or an RSSI, for example, determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource. The report may also indicate a sidelink traffic priority and/or interference directional information determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource.”)
“…output a... configuration message...” ([¶ 0120]: “At action 810, in response to determining the sidelink has a higher traffic priority than the direct link, the BS 305 transmits a DL communication signal (e.g., DCI and/or DL data) to the direct link receiving UE 315c in a resource (e.g., a DL resource) shared by the sidelink and the direct link using a reduced transmission power.”)
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “output a beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report.”
However, Abedini discloses the missing feature “output a beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for one or more beams based at least in part on the intracell interference information report.” ([¶ 0059]: “In particular, the selective nature of the null-forming procedure(s) performed on the beam(s) is based upon dynamic null-forming procedure information at the wireless device (e.g., receive from external network entity and/or based in part upon measurements at the wireless device itself) rather than a pre-stored null-forming configuration. Such an implementation may provide various technical advantages, including more precise null-forming, faster null-forming, network-coordinated null forming (e.g., so transmission part of null forming procedures can be monitored by other wireless entities, for positioning, power control, etc.), and so on.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian and Abedini, to modify the instruction as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be a null steering configuration as disclosed by Abedini. The motivation for doing so is that null steering allows for more efficient use of resources, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Abedini also does not disclose “wherein the one or more directional intracell measurements correspond to uplink signaling from at least a second UE.”
However, Ibrahim discloses the missing feature “wherein the one or more directional intracell measurements correspond to uplink signaling from at least a second UE.” ([¶ 0121]: “As part of measuring the interference, the UE may measure interference components (RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources and/or interference component (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) from SRS, including intra-cell CLI from an interfering UL signal from aggressor UE and/or self-interference from UL signal of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Ibrahim to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be used with UL as disclosed by Ibrahim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization in a larger number of use cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Ibrahim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “sense for directional intracell interference associated with one or more UEs based at least in part on the intracell interference information report, wherein the beam configuration message is based at least in part on the sensing.” ([¶ 0170]: “The interference module 1308 and the communication module 1309 may coordinate with components of the BS 1300 to perform various aspects of the present disclosure, for example, aspects of FIGS. 2-12. In some aspects, the interference module 1308 is configured to determine one or more sidelink interference measurement resources for determining an interference from at least a first sidelink to a direct link.”)
Regarding claim 13, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “output, via the control message, an instruction for the UE to perform direction of arrival measurements via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information.” ([¶ 0094]: “At action 420, the BS 305 transmits a second configuration and a second instruction to the direct link receiving UE 315c. The second configuration may include the configuration 500. The second instruction may instruct the direct link receiving UE 315c to measure an interference in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the second configuration.” Note that in Fig. 3 UEs 315a and 315c are in the same cell. ; [¶ 0249]: “Aspect 41 includes the method of aspect 38, wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the configuration, at least one of an interference measurement, interference directional information…”)
Regarding claim 14, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “obtain, via the intracell interference information report, an indication of an estimated direction of arrival according to the direction of arrival measurements, wherein the beam configuration message is based at least in part on the estimated direction of arrival.” ([¶ 0100]: “At action 450, the direct link receiving UE 315c transmits a sidelink interference measurement report to the BS 305. The report may indicate an RSRP or an RSSI, for example, determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource. The report may also indicate a sidelink traffic priority and/or interference directional information determined from the reference signal received in the first sidelink interference measurement resource.
Regarding claim 15, Fakoorian in view of Abedini and Ibrahim discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian further discloses “output, via the control message, an indication for the UE to transmit an … measurement signal via the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information.” ([¶ 0093]: “Returning to FIG. 4, at action 410, the BS 305 transmits a first configuration and a first instruction to the sidelink transmitting UE 315a. The first configuration may include the configuration 500. The first instruction may instruct the sidelink transmitting UE 315a to transmit a reference signal in the one or more sidelink interference measurement resources as indicated by the first configuration.”; [¶ 0098]: “At action 440, the direct link receiving UE 315c determines a sidelink interference measurement as configured by the second sidelink interference measurement resource and configuration and the second instruction.”)
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose the signal is “uplink.”
However, Ibrahim discloses the signal is “uplink.” ([¶ 0121]: “As part of measuring the interference, the UE may measure interference components (RSSI) in the CSI-IM resources and/or interference component (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ) from SRS, including intra-cell CLI from an interfering UL signal from aggressor UE and/or self-interference from UL signal of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Ibrahim to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to be used with UL as disclosed by Ibrahim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility, thus allowing for improved optimization in a larger number of use cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Ibrahim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus while claim 20 is directed towards a method. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian (US 20210409993 A1) in view of Abedini (US 20210384952 A1), Ibrahim (US 20220014954 A1), and further in view of Fujishiro (US 20240422748 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “receive a capability request message comprising a request for a UE capability report associated with a null steering capability at the UE.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “receive a capability request message comprising a request for a UE capability report associated with a null steering capability at the UE.” ([¶ 0097]: “The NCR-UE 100B (transmitter 120) may transmit the NCR capability information (NCR capability information and/or operation state information) to the gNB 200 in response to a request or inquiry from the gNB 200.”; [¶ 0100]: “These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve a request message as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “transmit a UE capability report associated with the null steering capability at the UE according to the capability request message, wherein receiving the control message comprising the indication of the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information is based at least in part on the UE capability report.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “transmit a UE capability report associated with the null steering capability at the UE according to the capability request message, wherein receiving the control message comprising the indication of the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information is based at least in part on the UE capability report.” ([¶ 0097]: “The NCR-UE 100B (transmitter 120) may transmit the NCR capability information (NCR capability information and/or operation state information) to the gNB 200 in response to a request or inquiry from the gNB 200.”; [¶ 0100]: “These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve reporting capability information as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “the UE capability report comprises a threshold quantity of directions in which the UE is capable of performing null steering, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold quantity of directions.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “the UE capability report comprises a threshold quantity of directions in which the UE is capable of performing null steering, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold quantity of directions.” ([¶ 0100]: “The beam capability information may be, for example, information indicating a variable range of a beam angle with respect to the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (for example, control of 30° to 90° is possible)… The beam capability information may be information indicating the number of variable patterns of a beam in the NCR apparatus 500A (for example, a total of 10 patterns of beam patterns 1 to 10). When the NCR capability information received from the NCR-UE 100B includes the beam capability information, the gNB 200 (controller 230) can grasp the beam angle change or beam patterns that can be supported by the NCR apparatus 500A, based on the beam capability information. The gNB 200 (controller 230) may configure a beam of the NCR apparatus 500A within a range of the grasped beam angular change or beam patterns. These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve quantity of directions as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “the UE capability report comprises a threshold width of a candidate null steered beam, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold width.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “the UE capability report comprises a threshold width of a candidate null steered beam, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold width.” ([¶ 0100]: “The beam capability information may be, for example, information indicating a variable range of a beam angle with respect to the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (for example, control of 30° to 90° is possible)… The beam capability information may be information indicating the number of variable patterns of a beam in the NCR apparatus 500A (for example, a total of 10 patterns of beam patterns 1 to 10). When the NCR capability information received from the NCR-UE 100B includes the beam capability information, the gNB 200 (controller 230) can grasp the beam angle change or beam patterns that can be supported by the NCR apparatus 500A, based on the beam capability information. The gNB 200 (controller 230) may configure a beam of the NCR apparatus 500A within a range of the grasped beam angular change or beam patterns. These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve quantity of directions as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “output a capability request message comprising a request for a UE capability report associated with a null steering capability at the UE.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “output a capability request message comprising a request for a UE capability report associated with a null steering capability at the UE.” ([¶ 0097]: “The NCR-UE 100B (transmitter 120) may transmit the NCR capability information (NCR capability information and/or operation state information) to the gNB 200 in response to a request or inquiry from the gNB 200.”; [¶ 0100]: “These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve a request message as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “obtain a UE capability report associated with the null steering capability at the UE according to the capability request message, wherein outputting the control message comprising the indication of the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information is based at least in part on the UE capability report.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “obtain a UE capability report associated with the null steering capability at the UE according to the capability request message, wherein outputting the control message comprising the indication of the one or more resources for measuring directional intracell interference information is based at least in part on the UE capability report.” ([¶ 0097]: “The NCR-UE 100B (transmitter 120) may transmit the NCR capability information (NCR capability information and/or operation state information) to the gNB 200 in response to a request or inquiry from the gNB 200.”; [¶ 0100]: “These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve reporting capability information as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “the UE capability report comprises a threshold quantity of directions in which the UE is capable of performing null steering, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold quantity of directions.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “the UE capability report comprises a threshold quantity of directions in which the UE is capable of performing null steering, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold quantity of directions.” ([¶ 0100]: “The beam capability information may be, for example, information indicating a variable range of a beam angle with respect to the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (for example, control of 30° to 90° is possible)… The beam capability information may be information indicating the number of variable patterns of a beam in the NCR apparatus 500A (for example, a total of 10 patterns of beam patterns 1 to 10). When the NCR capability information received from the NCR-UE 100B includes the beam capability information, the gNB 200 (controller 230) can grasp the beam angle change or beam patterns that can be supported by the NCR apparatus 500A, based on the beam capability information. The gNB 200 (controller 230) may configure a beam of the NCR apparatus 500A within a range of the grasped beam angular change or beam patterns. These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve quantity of directions as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Fakoorian in view of Abedini discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Fakoorian does not explicitly disclose “the UE capability report comprises a threshold width of a candidate null steered beam, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold width.”
However, Fujishiro discloses the missing feature “the UE capability report comprises a threshold width of a candidate null steered beam, and the beam configuration message comprising an instruction to perform null steering for the one or more beams is based at least in part on the threshold width.” ([¶ 0100]: “The beam capability information may be, for example, information indicating a variable range of a beam angle with respect to the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (for example, control of 30° to 90° is possible)… The beam capability information may be information indicating the number of variable patterns of a beam in the NCR apparatus 500A (for example, a total of 10 patterns of beam patterns 1 to 10). When the NCR capability information received from the NCR-UE 100B includes the beam capability information, the gNB 200 (controller 230) can grasp the beam angle change or beam patterns that can be supported by the NCR apparatus 500A, based on the beam capability information. The gNB 200 (controller 230) may configure a beam of the NCR apparatus 500A within a range of the grasped beam angular change or beam patterns. These pieces of beam capability information may be null capability information. For the null capability information, a null control capability when null steering is performed is indicated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Fakoorian, Abedini, and Fujishiro to modify the technique as disclosed by Fakoorian, to involve quantity of directions as disclosed by by Fujishiro. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network entity to configure the UE in a way that makes better use of its capabilities, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fakoorian with Abedini and Fujishiro to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights