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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Fig. 20, reference number 2000 is not labeled 'receiving side device' as it is described in the spec.
Regarding Fig. 21, reference number 2101 is not labeled 'antenna' as it is described in the spec.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
‘Bus Interface’ in Fig. 21 does not have a reference number in the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
‘Bus Interface’ in Fig. 21 is pictured but not described in the spec.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Jung Ho et al. (US 20160323888 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ryu) in view of Li, Qiaoyu (US 20240129009 A1, hereinafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches:
receiving, by a receiving side, a signal, wherein the signal comprises a second pilot sent by an interference sending side (See paragraphs [0056], [0080] and Fig. 2)
and the interference sending side is an interference source when the receiving side performs receiving measurement on a first pilot of a sending side (See paragraph [0056])
and performing, by the receiving side, interference measurement on the interference sending side, wherein the interference measurement comprises measurement of the second pilot (See paragraph [0055] and Fig. 2)
Ryu does not teach:
and both the receiving side and the sending side use an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) system.
In the same endeavor, Li teaches an analogous invention that teaches:
and both the receiving side and the sending side use an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) system. (See paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu invention to incorporate the receiving and sending side to use an OTFS system. The motivation to combine would be to have slower variance of interference measurements which means the channel can be treated as more quasi-stationary over longer intervals, reducing the need for frequent retraining and improving reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except performing, by the receiving side, interference measurement on the interference sending side in a delay-Doppler domain.
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses a UE performing an interference measurement in and OTFS/delay-Doppler domain. See [Abstract] and paragraph [0076].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu invention to incorporate the receiving and sending side to use an OTFS system. The motivation to combine would be to have slower variance of interference measurements which means the channel can be treated as more quasi-stationary over longer intervals, reducing the need for frequent retraining and improving reliability.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Ryu teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Li expounds upon:
- determining, by the receiving side, target configuration information required for the interference measurement. (Li discloses a receiving side (UE) that receives a configuration information with an interference measurement resource needed to make the measurement. See paragraph [0075]).
- determining, by the receiving side, that the interference measurement is triggered (Li discloses that the base station (or network/sending device) send over control messages and from those indications, the receiving device determines that the measurement is triggered. See paragraph [0076]).
- performing, by the receiving side, the interference measurement on the interference sending side in the delay-Doppler domain based on the target configuration information. (Li discloses a UE performing an interference measurement in and OTFS/delay-Doppler domain. See [Abstract] and paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu invention to incorporate the receiver determining the target configuration information, identifying that the measurement method is triggered and performing the measurement on a delay-Doppler domain. The motivation to combine is to have consistent data with the configuration information, ensure timely reporting and reducing network overhead by only starting the measurement when its needed.
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Li expounds upon:
- receiving, by the receiving side, first indication information sent by the sending side, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating the target configuration information. (Li discloses a receiving side (UE) that receives a first configuration information that indicates an interference measurement resource. See paragraph [0076]).
- and determining, by the receiving side, the target configuration information based on the first indication information. (Li discloses a receiving side (UE) that receives a configuration information with an interference measurement resource needed to make the measurement. See paragraph [0075-0076]).
- wherein the determining, by the receiving side, that the interference measurement is triggered comprises at least one of the following:
○ determining, by the receiving side after the receiving side receives the first indication information, that the interference measurement is triggered. (Li discloses that the base station (or network/sending device) send over control messages and from those indications, the receiving device determines that the measurement is triggered. See paragraph [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu invention to incorporate the receiver using the indication of the config information to trigger the measurement. The motivation to combine is to have consistent data with the configuration information, ensure timely reporting and reducing network overhead by only starting the measurement when its needed.
Regarding claim 6, Ryu further teaches:
- The interference measurement method according to claim 5, wherein the determining, by the receiving side, that the interference measurement is triggered comprises at least one of the following:
○ determining, by the receiving side in a case of determining that a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) is greater than a first threshold, that the interference measurement is triggered, wherein the SINR is obtained based on the receiving measurement on the first pilot. (Ryu discloses the UE determine to trigger the measurement method based on the SINR exceeding a threshold. See paragraphs [0058] and [0082]).
○ or determining, by the receiving side in a case of determining that a bit error rate of a receiver is greater than a second threshold, that the interference measurement is triggered. (Ryu discloses the UE determining the measurement method is triggered by the frame (bit) error rate exceeding a threshold. See paragraphs [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu further teaches:
- directly determining, by the receiving side, the target configuration information. (Ryu discloses the UE (receiving side) identifying the channel parameter. The examiner interprets the parameter to be the target configuration information. See paragraph [0017]).
- wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the receiving side, the target configuration information to the sending side, wherein the target configuration information is used for instructing the interference sending side through the sending side to configure the second pilot based on the target configuration information.(Ryu discloses a neighboring base station (interference sending side) that gets a configuration message from the UE (receiving side) with an indication from the serving base station (sending side) to be used for communications. The examiner interprets these communications include the second pilot signal being sent. See paragraph [0018]).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons previously outlined in claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons previously outlined in claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons previously outlined in claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Li and further in view of Wang, Xiao-na et al. (CN 111385042 A, hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitation that Wang expounds upon.
Wang teaches wherein the target configuration information comprises:
- a resource position of the second pilot in a delay-Doppler domain resource grid, and a resource range of the interference measurement. (Wang discloses the configuration information containing the symbol position of the interference measurement resource. The examiner interprets the NZP-CSI and the ZP-CSI reference signals as the first and second pilots. The interference measurement resource includes these pilots. See paragraphs [0160-0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu and Li invention to incorporate the configuration information indicating the resource positions of the reference signals in delay-Doppler domain. The motivation to combine is to have accurate mapping and scheduling. This allows for effective interference management.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu in combination of Li teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Wang expounds upon:
Wang teaches:
- The interference measurement method according to claim 7, wherein the first indication information is carried in at least one of the following:
○ a synchronization signal block (SSB), a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), a system information block (SIB), downlink control information (DCI), radio resource control (RRC), or a medium access control control element (MAC CE). (Wang discloses that the info can be sent from the network device (sending side/base station) to the terminal device (the receiving side/UE) through RRC, MAC-CE and DCI. See paragraphs [0126-0130]).
- or, the first indication information comprises at least one of the following:
○ or first direct indication information, wherein the first direct indication information is used for directly indicating the target configuration information. (Wang discloses a first configuration info that indicates the interference measurement resource. See paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu and Li inventions to incorporate sending the indication through and RRC, MAC-CE or DCI to transmit the configuration information, wherein the information directly indicates measurement resources. The motivation to combine is have a hierarchical and efficient control framework depending on the system needs at the time.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Li and further in view of Patchava, Raviteja et al. (US 20230155761 A1, hereinafter referred to as Patchava).
Regarding claim 11, Ryu in combination of Li teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Patchava expounds upon:
Wherein the performing, by the receiving side, interference measurement on the interference sending side in a delay-Doppler domain comprises:
determining, by the receiving side, a measurement area in a resource grid range of a delay-Doppler domain corresponding to the first pilot. (Patchava discloses a UE that allocates a measurement area related to the reference signals. See paragraphs [0099] and [0101]).
and performing, by the receiving side, the interference measurement on the interference sending side in the measurement area. (Patchava discloses a UE that performs inter-carrier interference measurement in the measurement area. See paragraph [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu and Li inventions to incorporate determining the measurement area in that domain corresponding to the first pilot and performing a channel measurement in that area. The motivation to combine is to focus the measurement on a localized region of the domain grid to reduce ambiguity in high-mobility scenarios.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Li and further in view of Zhang, Lili (US 11284355 B2, hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu in combination of Li teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Zhang expounds upon:
- a first time unit used for indicating the interference measurement. (Zhang discloses using a time unit used for indicating the interference measurement signal. See paragraphs [33-34] and [52]).
- and the performing, by the receiving side, interference measurement on the interference sending side comprises:
○ determining, by the receiving side, a time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot. (Zhang discloses the receiving side determining a resource position for a reference signal on a time-frequency domain. See paragraph [52]).
○ and performing, by the receiving side, the interference measurement on the interference sending side based on the first time unit and the time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot. (Zhang discloses transmitting an interference measurement based on a time unit such as a time domain identifier. See paragraphs [33-34] and [52]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu and Li inventions to incorporate having a time unit indicate the measurement and determining a resource position for a specific pilot on a time-frequency domain. The motivation to combine is improve positioning accuracy, interference handling and synchronization.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Li and further in view of Zhang and Wang.
Regarding claim 15, Li further teaches:
- The interference measurement method according to claim 14, wherein the first time unit is blank, or the first time unit comprises:
○ the first pilot, or the first time unit comprises the first pilot and transmission data. (Li discloses a time unit that can contain a reference signal along with data. See paragraphs [0036-0037]).
In the same field of endeavor, Ryu in combination of Li teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Wang expounds upon:
- and the determining, by the receiving side, a time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot comprises:
○ receiving, by the receiving side, sixth indication information sent by the sending side, wherein the sixth indication information is used for indicating the time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot. (Wang discloses a terminal (receiving) device that receives an indication about the time and frequency domain position of the interference measurement resource. The examiner interprets the interference measurement to be the pilot. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010-0015]).
○ and determining, by the receiving side, the time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot based on the sixth indication information. (Wang discloses the indication can allow the receiving side to realize or determine the time frequency domain position based on the interference measurement resource which the examiner interprets to be the pilot. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010-0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Zhang and Ryu inventions to incorporate the time unit containing the pilot and data as well as getting indication of the time-frequency domain resource position related to a specific pilot. The motivation to combine is improve positioning accuracy, synchronization and resource efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Ryu in combination of Li and Wang teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitation that Zhang expounds upon.
Zhang teaches:
- performing, by the receiving side, measurement on an interference channel based on the time frequency domain resource position corresponding to the second pilot. (Zhang discloses a receiver that performs an interference measurement on a time-frequency domain. See paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu, Li and Wang inventions to incorporate performing an interference measurement on a time-frequency domain. The motivation to combine is to improve speed, enhance signal characterization and have broader spectral coverage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Li and further in view of Zhang, Wang and Nam, Young-Han et al. (US 20180262313 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nam).
Regarding claim 17, Ryu in combination of Li teaches all aspects of claimed invention, except the following limitations that Wang and Nam expound upon.
Wang teaches:
- receiving, by the receiving side, seventh indication information sent by the sending side, wherein the seventh indication information is used for indicating a measurement range in a delay-Doppler domain resource grid corresponding to the interference measurement, wherein a delay-Doppler domain resource grid range corresponding to the interference measurement does not coincide with a resource grid range corresponding to the first pilot. (Wang discloses a network device, that is interpreted to be the sending side, that sends an indication of the interference measurement area range that does not interfere with a pilot resource. Examiner interprets that this pilot resource can be the first pilot. See Abstract and paragraphs [0009] and [0147]).
In the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches:
- and determining, by the receiving side, an average interference power based on a receiving sampling point in the signal in the measurement range. (Nam discloses a terminal determining the average interference power of a sample area of a measurement regions signal. See paragraphs [0253], [0342] and Table 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ryu and Li inventions to incorporate measurement ranges and determining average interference power. The motivation to combine is to measure within the system's capabilities and quantify and manage unwanted signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12 & 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hadani, Ronny et al. (US 10666314 B2, REFERENCE SIGNAL PACKING FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS)
Pfadler, Andreas et al. (US 20220385508 A1, DIFFERENTIAL POWER ANALYSIS FOR OTFS PILOT INTERFERENCE DETECTION)
Pfadler, Andreas et al. (US 20210111784 A1, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND CORRESPONDING APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/C.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights