DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The instant application Claims Priority from Provisional Application-62805475, filed 02/14/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. 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.
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’ (The configuration for CLI-measurement transmitted to the UE L2/MAC-based [0090]. And, disclosure Claim 1.)
And discloses, ‘and receiving, by the network entity, at least one reporting message.’ (disclosure claim 1 and Fig. 6.).
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, CLI-measurement to use RSSI [0081].)
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 L3 filtering and 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.’ (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 1.’ ([0123].)
Regarding Claim 27,
Faxer discloses, ‘An apparatus comprising means for performing a process according to claim 1.’ (Fig. 14.)
Regarding Claim 28,
Faxer discloses, ‘An apparatus comprising circuitry configured to cause the apparatus to perform a process according to claim 1.’ (Fig. 14.)
Regarding Claim 29,
Faxer discloses, ‘A computer program product encoded with instructions for performing a process according to claim 1.’ (Fig. 14.)
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 discloses, ‘determining, by the UE, whether fulfilment of at least one triggering criteria of the at least one received UE CLI measurement framework object has occurred’ (measurement object and the event triggered pre-configured threshold [0080].);
And discloses, ‘and transmitting, by the UE, at least one reporting message.’ ([0104].)
Regarding Claim 8,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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),
Identical 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),
Identical to claim 5 disclosed above, ‘wherein the at least one CLI measurement framework object comprises at least one reporting event condition.’
Regarding Claim 11,
Identical 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; and transmitting, by the UE, at least one reporting message.’ ([0080] and [0104].)
Regarding Claim 13,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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),
Identical 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),
Identical 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,
Identical 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 whether fulfilment of at least one triggering criteria of the at least one received UE CLI measurement object has occurred; and transmit at least one reporting message.’ ( processing module in Fig. 14.)
Regarding Claim 17,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Regarding Claim 18,
‘The apparatus according to claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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),
Identical 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),
Identical 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,
Identical 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),
Identical 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),
Identical 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),
Identical 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 and 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, a multiple sets of CLI-resources/report settings [0067] and to apply layer 3 filtering to improve the reliability of the CLI-measurement. ETSI complements the motive of FAXER and discloses layer 3 filtering and measurement configurations uses filtering coefficients and includes measurement object; and event based page-79 to 86. This would achieve efficiency in CLI measurement.
Identical 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, and modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Regarding Claim 7,
‘The method according to claim 6’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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, and modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Regarding Claim 12,
‘The method according to claim 11’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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, and modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Regarding Claim 22,
‘The apparatus according to claim 21’ (disclosed above),
Identical 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, and modify at least one existing CLImeasObject.’
Conclusion
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