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 .
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12, 15-18, 22, 26, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Sedin discloses a method an apparatus of wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory (figure 9 memory 904); and
at least one processor (figure 9 processor 902) coupled to the memory and configured:
receiving downlink signals from a network device (see figure 3 DL from base station NN1 to UE1);
receiving cross-link interference (CLI) to the downlink signals, the cross-link
interference originating from a second UE (see figure 3 CLI from UE2 to UE1);
receiving a configuration (figure 5 step 500) for a report of a plurality of differential cross-link interference metric values measured for a plurality of different cross-link interference resources and an absolute cross-link interference metric value measured for the plurality of different CLI resources (figure 5 step 502; paragraphs 5, 40, 57-58, 60, 61, 63, and 76: CLI measurement and report to base station based on received configuration. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the report comprises different CLI values of different resources (a few strongest or all configured measurement resources) and the strongest measurement value (absolute value)); and
transmitting the report of the plurality of differential cross-link interference
metric values measured for the plurality of different CLI resources (figure 5 step 506 and paragraph 60: measurement report is transmitted to base station).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, Sedin discloses a method an apparatus for wireless communication by a network device, comprising:
a memory (figure 6 memory 606); and
at least one processor (figure 6 processor 604) coupled to the memory and configured:
to transmit downlink signals to a first user equipment (UE) (see figure 3 DL from base station NN1 to UE1);
to configure the first UE with a plurality of cross-link interference (CLI)
resources (figure 5 step 500);
to configure the first UE with a report of a plurality of differential cross-
link interference metric values measured for a plurality of different cross-link
interference resources and an absolute cross-link interference metric value
measured for the plurality of different CLI resources (figure 5 step 502; paragraphs 5, 40, 57-58, 60, 61, 63, and 76: CLI measurement and report to base station based on received configuration. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the report comprises different CLI values of different resources (a few strongest or all configured measurement resources) and the strongest measurement value (absolute value)); and
to receive, from the first UE, the report of the plurality of differential
cross-link interference metric values measured for the plurality of CLI resources (figure 5 step 506 and paragraph 60: measurement report is transmitted to base station).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches the report indicates the absolute cross-link interference metric value for a particular resource, and differential cross-link interference metric values for additional resources, relative to the absolute cross-link interference metric value (paragraph 76: a few strongest measurements, thus, the strongest measurement and less strong measurements, each has different values).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, all limitation of claims 2 and 16 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches in which the differential cross-link interference metric values for the additional resources are in sequential order while skipping the particular resource associated with the absolute cross-link interference metric value (paragraph 76: second strongest and then third strongest (a few)).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, all limitation of claims 2 and 16 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches in which the particular resource experiences a strongest level of cross-link interference (paragraph 76).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches receiving, from the network device, a configuration for a number, N, of top strongest or weakest resources (figure 5 step 500 in view of paragraph 76: a few strongest resources/measurements in report based on configuration from base station), in which the report indicates an absolute cross-link interference metric value for a strongest or weakest resource, an identifier (ID) of the strongest or weakest resource, differential cross-link interference metric values for additional N-1 resources, an ID for each N-1 additional resources (paragraph 5 in view of paragraph 76: ID of resources including a few strongest), the additional resources comprising the top N-1 resources in sequential order while skipping the strongest or weakest resource associated with the absolute cross-link interference metric value (paragraph 76: second and third strongest of the few strongest measurements).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches in which the second UE transmits uplink signals to the network device simultaneously with the first UE receiving the downlink signals (see figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 19, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528) in view of Qian et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0266908).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, all limitation of claims 2 and 16 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but Qian discloses in which the particular resource experiences a
lowest level of cross-link interference (paragraph 290 in view of paragraph 10: lowest interference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the particular resource experiences a lowest level of cross-link interference.
The motivation would have been for optimal selection for service.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but Qian discloses, in which the resource is a slot (see figure 4 and paragraph 134) or symbol resource.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the resource is a slot.
The motivation would have been for time division communication.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528) in view of Jin et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0322920).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, all limitation of claims 2 and 16 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches in which a level of cross-link interference experienced at each of the additional resources exceeds the absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 72) and the report further includes an identifier (ID) for each additional resource (paragraph 5), the particular resource experiences a strongest level of cross-link interference that exceeds the absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 76).
Sedin does not teach but Jin discloses receiving, from the network device, a configuration for an absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin receiving, from the network device, a configuration for an absolute cross-link interference threshold.
The motivation would have been for base station’s directed configuration
Regarding claims 7 and 21, all limitation of claims 2 and 16 are disclosed above. Sedin further teaches the report further includes an identifier (ID) for each additional resource (paragraph 5). Sedin does not teach but Jin discloses receiving, from the network device, a configuration for an absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 11), in which a level of cross-link interference experienced at each of the additional resources is less than or equal to the absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 12), the particular resource experiences a weakest level of cross-link interference that is less than or equal to the absolute cross-link interference threshold (paragraph 12: one of the less than threshold is a weakest level of CLI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin receiving, from the network device, a configuration for an absolute cross-link interference threshold, in which a level of cross-link interference experienced at each of the additional resources is less than or equal to the absolute cross-link interference threshold, the particular resource experiences a weakest level of cross-link interference that is less than or equal to the absolute cross-link interference threshold.
The motivation would have been for base station’s configuration for optimal resource selection.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528) in view of Oh et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0236736).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but teaches Oh discloses in which the resource is a wideband resource including a plurality of subbands (abstract and Table 21: wideband with subbands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the resource is a wideband resource including a plurality of subbands.
The motivation would have been for better bandwidth.
Regarding claims 10 and 24, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but Oh discloses in which the resource is an individual per
subband resource (paragraphs 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the resource is an individual per subband resource.
The motivation would have been to maximize spectral efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0007206).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but Alriksson discloses in which the report is a layer one report (Table 2 and paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the report is a layer one report.
The motivation would have been for lower layer report (paragraph 107).
Claim(s) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0174528) in view of Muller (US Pub. No. 2024/0163753).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, all limitation of claims 1 and 15 are disclosed above. Sedin does not teach but Muller discloses in which the report is a layer three report (paragraphs 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Sedin in which the report is a layer three report.
The motivation would have been for higher layer report.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0169435) discloses measurement and report for cross-link interference.
Ying et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0201524) discloses UL/DL direction information for cross-link interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights