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 .
Priority
The instant application Claims Priority from Provisional Application-62805475, filed 02/14/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted, IDS - 05/06/2024 and 06/11/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending
in the application. Claims 2, 6, 7, 16, 17, 22, and 26-29 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or
in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151,
or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section
122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another
inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-21 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FAXER et al. (WO2020144624A1) hereinafter “FAXER”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Faxer discloses, ‘A method, comprising: transmitting, by a network entity, at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration for at least one cross link interference (CLI) measurement’ (Disclosure in Fig. 6 illustrates CLI measurement configuration transmitted by a BS includes measurement object configuration that is a CLI measurement [0084] and disclosure Claim 1. activation (and deactivation) messages may be transmitted to the UE, e.g., using L2 signaling, such as a MAC CE message [0090]. Report of CLI measurement is transmitted by the RRC and in another embodiment, transmitted by the MAC-CE [0083.] )
And discloses, ‘and receiving, by the network entity, at least one reporting message.’ (disclosure claim 1 and Fig. 6. Report of CLI measurement is transmitted by the RRC and in another embodiment, transmitted by the MAC-CE [0083.]).
Regarding Claim 3,
‘The method according to claim 1’ (disclose above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is itemized as either received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or sounding reference signal – reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP).’ (disclosure, measurement configuration is given by measurement object of the CLI [0074-075]. The CLI-measurement include quantization of RSRP/RSSI [0081] and table 5 [0104-0105].)
Regarding Claim 4,
‘The method according to claim 1’ (disclose above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one L3 filtering parameter expressed as a filtering coefficient in an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, or an equivalent time-domain averaging time.’ (disclosure, the UE is configured to apply a L3 filtering that includes impulse response [0078].)
Regarding Claim 5,
‘The method according to any of claim 1’ (disclose above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’ (measurement object report configuration [0079] trigger-based report event [0080].)
Regarding Claim 26,
Faxer discloses, ‘A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions that, when executed in hardware, perform a process according to claim 6.’ ([0123, 0147].)
Regarding Claim 27,
Faxer discloses, ‘An apparatus comprising means for performing a process according to claim 6.’ (Fig. 11 to 13 and [0121].)
Regarding Claim 28,
Faxer discloses, ‘An apparatus comprising circuitry configured to cause the apparatus to perform a process according to claim 6.’ (Fig. 11 to 13 and [0121].)
Regarding Claim 29,
Faxer discloses, ‘A computer program product encoded with instructions for performing a process according to claim 6.’ (computer program executed [0120]. )
Regarding Claim 6,
Faxer discloses, ‘A method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), at least one radio resource control (RRC)-based cross link interference (CLI) measurement framework object configured for at least one UE CLI measurement’ (Disclosure claim 1, and [0130-0132]);
And discloses, ‘determining, by the UE,
been fulfilled based on at least one UE CLI measurement exceeding a predefined threshold;’ (measurement object and the event triggered pre-configured threshold. An event is triggered by certain level of measurement, the level defined by threshold can be predefined/pre-configured to the UE; a change in measurement over time, the change defined by a value pre-defined/pre-configured; a difference in signal measurement between different resource sets configured; the resource set for instance measurement object; the UE is configured measurement object/report configuration with one/more values only triggered if the difference in the measurement quantity is larger than the configured offset [0080]. Additionally configured one/more quality configurations comprises to perform CLI measurement based on filter and quantization range to use RSSI/RSRP [0081]. The UE obtain previous CLI measurements and perform new measurements [0110]. A method performed by the UE to perform CLI measurement includes the measurement object to perform CLI measurement and the event triggered CLI measurement, disclosure claim 1, 3 and 16. );
And discloses, ‘and transmitting, by the UE, at least one reporting message comprising the at least one UE CLI measurement.’ (The UE perform the CLI measurement based on the received configuration and report the CLI measurement in Fig. 6 step 604 [0084] and report quantization [0104].)
Regarding Claim 8,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 3 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is itemized as either received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or sounding reference signal – reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP).’
Regarding Claim 9,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 4 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one L3 filtering parameter expressed as a filtering coefficient in an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, or an equivalent time-domain averaging time.’
Regarding Claim 10,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 5 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’
Regarding Claim 11,
Similar to Claim 1 disclosed above, ‘A method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration for at least one cross link interference (CLI) measurement’;
And FAXER discloses, ‘determining, by the UE, at least one UE CLI measurement relative to at least one UE interference measurement is larger than at least one network-configured threshold’ ( predefined or configuration defined by threshold and by a certain level of measurement. Triggered if the difference in the measurement quantity is larger than configuration [0080]. The UE report the CLI measurement after performing measurement in Fig. 6 step 604. The method performed by the UE for performing the CLI measurement; receive CLI configuration and report to the NW [0148]. And, measurement report quantization [0081, 0104-0105].);
And discloses, ‘and transmitting, by the UE, at least one reporting message.’ (In Fig. 6 step 604.)
Regarding Claim 13,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 3 and 8 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is itemized as either received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or sounding reference signal – reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP).’
Regarding Claim 14,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 4 and 9 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one L3 filtering parameter expressed as a filtering coefficient in an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, or an equivalent time-domain averaging time.’
Regarding Claim 15,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 5 and 10 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’
Regarding Claim 16,
Similar to Claim 6 disclosed above, ‘An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive at least one radio resource control (RRC)-based cross link interference (CLI) measurement framework object configured for at least one user equipment (UE) CLI measurement; determine
been fulfilled based on at least one UE CLI measurement exceeding a predefined threshold;
and transmit at least one reporting message comprising the at least one UE CLI measurement.’ ( processing module in Fig. 14.)
Regarding Claim 18,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 3 and 8 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is itemized as either received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or sounding reference signal – reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP).’
Regarding Claim 19,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 4 and 9 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one L3 filtering parameter expressed as a filtering coefficient in an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, or an equivalent time-domain averaging time.’
Regarding Claim 20,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 5 and 10 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’
Regarding Claim 21,
Similar to Claim 1 disclosed above, ‘An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration for at least one cross link interference (CLI) measurement; determine at least one UE CLI measurement relative to at least one UE interference measurement is larger than at least one network-configured threshold; and transmit at least one reporting message.’
Regarding Claim 23,
‘The apparatus according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 3 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is itemized as either received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or sounding reference signal – reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP).’
Regarding Claim 24,
‘The apparatus according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 4 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one L3 filtering parameter expressed as a filtering coefficient in an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, or an equivalent time-domain averaging time.’
Regarding Claim 25,
‘The apparatus according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 5 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’
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
he 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:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• 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 2, 7, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAXER et al. in view of et al. ETSI TS 138 331 V15.3.0 (2018-10) 5G; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Year: 2018) hereinafter “ETSI”.
Regarding Claim 2,
‘The method according to claim 1’ (disclose above),
And discloses, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is configured to one or more CLImeasObject’ (CLI-measurement object, disclosure Claim 1 and Claim 3. Instances to more than one measurement objects [0080]; CLI-reporting periodicity [0097].)
Though discloses for the CLI mitigation perform CLI measurement for one/more measurement objects for the CLI and didn’t disclose, ‘add, remove or modify’,
ETSI in the relevant art discloses, IE-for the measurement object /report configuration; add, remove and modify the measurement object, page-74-75 and 222 to 223.
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of FAXER and to modify
with that of ETSI to come up with the claim invention,
FAXER motive to perform CLI measurement and provides the configuration for the CLI-measurement and includes measurement object configuration for instances [0080]. Obtain previous CLI measurement and to perform new measurement [0110]. ETSI disclosure complements the motive of FAXER specify the add/update the CLI measurement objects for the instances.
Further includes a multiple sets of CLI-resources/report settings [0067] and to apply layer 3 filtering to improve the reliability of the CLI-measurement. ETSI discloses layer 3 filtering and measurement configurations uses filtering coefficients; and event based page-79 to 86. This would achieve efficiency in CLI measurement.
Regarding Claim 7,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is configured to one or more of add at least one new CLImeasObject, remove at least one existing CLImeasObject, or modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Regarding Claim 12,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 2 and 7 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is configured to one or more of add at least one new CLImeasObject, remove at least one existing CLImeasObject, or modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Regarding Claim 17,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Similar to Claim 7 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is configured to one or more of: add at least one new CLImeasObject, remove at least one existing CLImeasObject, or modify at least one existing CLImeasObject’.
Regarding Claim 22,
‘The apparatus according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
Similar to claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object is configured to one or more of add at least one new CLImeasObject, remove at least one existing CLImeasObject, or modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
Arguments and Examiners response,
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks, examiner respectfully request the relevant disclosures in the OA above.
Regarding the applicant’s argument page7-8, “transmitting, by a network entity, at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration for at least one cross link interference (CLI) measurement”.
Faxer discloses, in Fig. 6 illustrates Cross Link interference measurement configuration transmitted by a BS includes measurement object configuration that is a CLI measurement [0084] and disclosure Claim 1. MAC activation/deactivation transmitted to the UE, e.g., using L2 signaling, such as a MAC CE [0090]. Report of measurement is transmitted by the MAC-CE [0083.] Regarding this applicant spec also specified 3GPP spec [0055], “CLI-interference measurement framework object may be associated with RRC signaling according to 3GPP Spec. For example, RRC signaling may define at least one define at least one PHY/MAC procedure for interference of the CLI.
And Claim 1 recites, “transmitting, by a network entity, at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration for at least one cross link interference (CLI) measurement; and receiving, by the network entity, at least one reporting message”. Faxer disclosure Claim 1, To perform the interference measurement-CLI, the measurement configuration includes CLI-interference measurement resource sets. The UE to perform the CLI-measurement on the CLI-interference measurement resource set the configuration need the activation/deactivation message transmitted to the UE by L2/MAC-CE-based-signaling [0090]. And, transmitted by MAC-CE [0083].
Regarding the applicant argument page-8, Claims 6, 8-10, 16-20 and 26-29, “Claim 6 is directed to a method comprising, inter alia, "determining, by the UE, at least one triggering criteria of the at least one received UE CLI measurement framework object…”, and “exceeding a predefined threshold" and "transmitting, by the UE, at least one reporting message…”
Faxer exemplified well-articulated disclosures regarding the measurement object and the event triggered pre-configured threshold. An event is triggered by certain level of measurement, the level defined by threshold can be predefined alternatively pre-configured to the UE. The change defined by a value pre-defined/pre-configured. A difference in signal measurement between different resource sets configured; the resource set for instance measurement object; the UE is configured measurement object/report configuration with one/more values only triggered if the difference in the measurement quantity is larger than the configured offset [0080]. Additionally configured one/more quality configurations comprises to perform interference-CLI measurement uses specific parameters based on filter and quantization range to use RSSI/RSRP [0081] to identify interference used by parameters that were well addressed and presented by Faxer that overcome the claim limitations trigger criteria and thresholds. The UE obtain previous interference measurement-CLI and perform new measurements [0110]. A method claim in the Faxer disclosure claim 1, 3 and 16.
Regarding the applicant argument page-10, Claims 11, 13-15, 21 and 23-25 “receiving, by a user equipment (UE), at least one physical layer (PHY)/medium access control (MAC)-based configuration… ” this is similar to Claim 1 receiving by the UE in Fig. 6 and relevant disclosure and remarks above.
Regarding the applicant argument, USC 35 103 rejection Claims 2, 7, 12 and 22, examiner provided ETSI spec to complement Faxer regarding the measurement object used specific IE-measurement-object and report configuration; add, remove and modify the measurement object, page-74-75 and 222 to 223. Also provided motivation and provided relevant disclosure from ETSI spec.
Examiner thanks applicant and attorney for their time and effort.
Conclusion
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 extension
fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Syed Ahmed whose telephone number is (703)-756-5308. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights