CTNF 18/715,294 CTNF 98874 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to communications filed 05/31/2024. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-18, and 21-24 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2024 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 24 line 7 recites “comprises processing the based on”. There is no subject proceeding the ‘the’. Applicant is encouraged to amend to clarify this limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shattil (Pub. No.: US 2015/0270882 A1) in view of Mungara (WO 2020/234486 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Shattil teaches A method in a first access point (AP) of calculating interference suppression weights (Shattil [0080]: access points may be referred to as base stations (BSs); Shattil [0014]: methods of wireless communication) , the method comprising: receiving, for each of at least one other access point, channel information for channels between the other access point and at least one User Equipment (UE) (Shattil fig. 7, [0140], and [0123]: the base stations, BS, correspond to the at least one other access point, the CP corresponds to the first access point, see [0082]: “one or more base transceiver stations may function as a central processor”) ; calculating, for each of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights based on the channel information received for the at least one other access point (Shattil fig. 7 (753), [0141], [0117], and [0123]: calculating weights based on channel information) the at least one other access point comprising a group of access points serving the at least one UE (Shattil fig. 7: multiple access points (group of access points) communicating with the UE 700 (serving the at least one UE)) ; receiving, for each of at least one of the at least one other access point, channel information for channels between the other access point and at least one additional UE, the at least one additional UE is not served by the group of access points serving the at least one UE (Shattil [0037-0039] and fig. 18: additional UE ‘K’ not served by the group of access points serving UE 1) ; calculating, for each of the at least one of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights based on the channel information received for the at least one other access point comprising calculating the interference suppression weights based further on channel information for channels between the other access point and the additional UE (Shattil [0037-0039], fig. 7 (753), [0141], [0117], and [0123]: calculating weights based on channel information) ; and Upon initial examination Shattil does not appear to teach sending, to each of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point. However, Mungara, in the analogous art of channel information exchanged between UEs and APs, teaches sending, to each of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point (Mungara [0090-0091]: providing the weight to the APs) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shattil to incorporate the teachings of Mungara and send, to each of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point. Doing so would improve the coverage and energy efficiency (Mungara [0010]). Regarding claim 2, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein: the channel information for channels between the other access point and the at least one UE for each of the at least one other access point comprises channel information between each antenna of the other access point and each of the at least one UE (Shattil [0138], [0142]: weights and channel information per antenna) ; and the interference suppression weights for signals transmitted between each of the at least one other access point and the at least one UE comprise interference suppression weights for signals transmitted between each antenna of the other access point and each of the at least one UE (Shattil [0138], [0142]: weights and channel information per antenna) . Regarding claim 3, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , comprising: determining channel information for channels between the first access point and the at least one UE; and wherein calculating the interference suppression weights based on the channel information received for the at least one other access point comprises calculating the interference suppression weights based further on the channel information for channels between the first access point and the at least one UE and includes calculating, for the first access point, interference suppression weights for signals transmitted between the first access point and the at least one UE. (Shattil [0116-0117], [0122], and [0082]: determining channel information and calculating weights using the channel information received and weight further based on signals transmitted) Regarding claim 4, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 3 (the limitations of parent claim 3 as indicated above) , comprising transmitting signals to the at least one UE based on the interference suppression weights for the first access point (Shattil fig. 7, [0142], [0082], fig. 3A, and fig. 3B: distributed system weights transmitted to at least one UE) . Regarding claim 6, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein the group of access points serving the at least one UE includes the first access point (Shattil fig. 7 and [0082]: group of APs includes a first AP (BS)) . Regarding claim 8, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights cause at least one of the at least one other access point to not transmit to at least one of the at least one UE (Shattil [0248]: generating a null corresponds to not transmitting) . Regarding claim 11, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights comprise, for at least one of the at least one access point: first interference suppression weights for signals transmitted between the at least one of the at least one other access point and a first subset of the at least one UE; and second interference suppression weights for signals transmitted between the at least one of the at least one other access point and a second subset of the at least one UE. (Shattil [0037-0039], [0116-0117], [0122], and [0082]: multiple weights are calculated for multiple UEs, which can be read as belonging to different sets) Regarding claim 12, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein: receiving, for each of at least one other access point, the channel information for the channels between the other access point and the at least one UE comprises receiving the channel information over a respective fronthaul link between the other access point and the first access point; and sending, to each of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point comprises sending the interference suppression weights over the respective fronthaul link between the other access point and the first access point. (Shattil fig. 7, [0121], and [0123]: signaling over fronthaul between cells) Regarding claim 13, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , comprising: receiving, for each of a first subset of the at least one other access point, the channel information for the channels between the other access point and the at least one UE over a respective fronthaul link between the other access point and the first access point; receiving, for each of a second subset of the at least one other access point, the channel information for the channels between the other access point and the at least one UE from the other access point via the respective fronthaul link between the first access point and one of the first subset, wherein the first subset is different to the second subset; sending, to each of the first subset of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point over the respective fronthaul link between the other access point and the first access point; and sending, to each of the second subset of the at least one other access point, the interference suppression weights for the other access point over the respective fronthaul link between the first access point and one of the first subset. (Shattil fig. 7, [0121], and [0123]: signaling over fronthaul between cells; Shattil [0037-0039], [0116-0117], [0122], and [0082]: multiple weights are calculated for multiple UEs, which can be read as belonging to different sets) Regarding claim 14, Shattil modified by Mungara teaches The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights comprise downlink (DL) signal precoding weights and/or uplink (UL) signal combining weights (Shattil [0134-0135] and [0142]: jointly process downlink and uplink signals received at antennas) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15, 17-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shattil (Pub. No.: US 2015/0270882 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: US 2011/0249642 A1) . Regarding claim 15, Shattil teaches A method in a second access point of processing signals (Shattil [0080]: access points may be referred to as base stations (BSs); Shattil [0014]: methods of wireless communications) , the method comprising: sending channel estimates of channels between the second access point and the at least one UE to a first access point (Shattil fig. 7, [0155] and [0157]: transmitted channel estimation, fig. 7 shows channel estimate information between the UE and BS being sent to another access point (713, 715)) ; receiving, from the first access point, interference suppression weights (Shattil [0037-0039], fig. 7 (717), [0141], [0117], and [0123]: receiving weights from another AP) ; and processing signals transmitted between the second access point and at least one UE based on the interference suppression weights (Shattil [0142]: using the weights to transmit additional signals (processing signals)) ; and the second access point is in a group of access points serving the at least one UE (Shattil fig. 7: multiple access points serving the at least one UE) , the interference suppression weights causing the second access point to suppress interference towards at least one additional UE (Shattil [0140-0142]: weights applying to multiple UEs (at least one additional UE)) , Shattil does not appear to teach that the at least one additional UE is not served by the group of access points serving the at least one UE. However, Song, in the analogous art of interference cancellation, teaches the at least one additional UE is not served by the group of access points serving the at least one UE (Song [0076]: cross-vendor interference cancellation) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shattil to incorporate the teachings of Song and have the at least one additional UE is not served by the group of access points serving the at least one UE . Doing so would ensure robust performance and improve resource coordination (Shattil [0076]). Regarding claim 17, Shattil modified by Song teaches The method of claim 15 (the limitations of parent claim 15 as indicated above) , comprising receiving information identifying the first access point from a processing node (Shattil [0204], [0139-0142] and fig. 7: transceiver coupled to processor for receiving and processing information where data signals are routed to the respective APs/BSs (identifying AP); the claim does not specify where the receiving information is from) . Regarding claim 18, Shattil modified by Song teaches The method of claim 15 (the limitations of parent claim 15 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights comprise weights for each antenna of a plurality of antennas of the second access point and for each UE of the at least one UE. (Shattil [0138], [0142]: weights and channel information per antenna) Regarding claim 21, Shattil modified by Song teaches The method of claim 15 (the limitations of parent claim 15 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights cause the second access point to not transmit to at least one of the at least one UE. (Shattil [0248]: generating a null corresponds to not transmitting) Regarding claim 22, Shattil modified by Song teaches The method of claim 15 (the limitations of parent claim 15 as indicated above) , wherein the interference suppression weights comprise one or both downlink (DL) signal precoding weights and/or and uplink (UL) signal combining weights (Shattil [0134-0135] and [0142]: jointly process downlink and uplink signals received at antennas) . Regarding claim 23, Shattil modified by Song teaches The method of claim 15 (the limitations of parent claim 15 as indicated above) , wherein processing signals transmitted between the second access point and the at least one UE based on the interference suppression weights comprises one or both: transmitting the signals to the at least one UE based on the interference suppression weights (Shattil [0142]: the distributed antenna system weights for pre-coding data D to be transmitted to each UE 700; only one of the two required per the claim language) ; and processing the signals received from the at least one UE based on the interference suppression weights . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9-10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The selection criteria of claim 9 is not obvious in view of the prior art found or is the scaling parameter of claim 10. Claim 16 discloses forwarding of channel estimates and weights to particular access points which is not explicitly taught in the found prior arts . Conclusion The following prior art not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kuchi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0212666 A1) discloses interference suppression weights calculated using channel information. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm. 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 C 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. /R.E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 2 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 3 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 4 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 5 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 6 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 7 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 8 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 9 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/715,294 Page 10 Art Unit: 2412
Prosecution Insights