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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2024 and 05/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, it is confusing and ambiguous as to what the scope of the recited limitation is. To be more specific, the claim language does not further limit the scope of the invention, and only recites “wherein, to communicate the uplink signal, the uplink signal is transmitted from the third network node to the first network node or from the first network node to the third network node” which is already recited in claim 1 as “transmit (by the first network node) the uplink signal to a third network node or receive the uplink signal from the third network node”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0018001 A1) cited by the applicant, hereinafter referred to as Kim, in view of Guo et al. (US 2018/0152949 A1) cited by the applicant, hereinafter referred to as Guo.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a first network node for wireless communication (Kim - Paragraph [0012], note a base station configured to control interference in a wireless communication system), comprising:
a processing system (Kim - Paragraph [0032], note computer program instructions may be provided to a processor) configured to:
transmit, to a second network node, at least one of: a characteristic of an uplink signal or an indication to perform cancellation of interference corresponding to the uplink signal (Kim - Fig. 5A; Paragraph [0061], note the base station 510 provides the D2D terminal 520 with the interference signal information 540 for use in cancelling the uplink interference signal 530); and
wherein the uplink signal is associated with interference at the second network node (Kim – Fig. 5A; Paragraph [0061], note D2D terminal 520, uplink interference signal 530).
Kim does not teach transmiting the uplink signal to a third network node or receiving the uplink signal from the third network node, wherein the uplink signal is concurrently communicated with a downlink signal transmitted to the second network node.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches transmiting the uplink signal to a third network node or receiving the uplink signal from the third network node, wherein the uplink signal is concurrently communicated with a downlink signal transmitted to the second network node (Guo – Fig. 1-b; Paragraph [0129], note intra-frequency full-duplex technology, the first UE and the second UE belong to a same base station, the base station may also send a downlink signal while receiving an uplink signal, and therefore, an uplink signal sent by the first UE causes interference to receiving of a downlink signal by the second UE; Paragraph [0132], note the first UE sends an interference cancellation control information (ICCI) to second UE by using a D2D link; Paragraph [0133], note the ICCI includes information about a configuration used for sending an uplink signal by the first UE; Paragraph [0160], note interference cancellation method from the perspective of a receive end (that is, second UE) interfered with by the uplink signal sent by the first UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into Kim in order to allow a UE to obtain information of interference signals sent by a different UE to perform interference cancellation in full-duplex communication systems, improving use efficiency of resources (Guo - Paragraphs [0005] and [0236]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not teach wherein the processing system is configured to: transmit, to the second network node, the downlink signal, wherein the downlink signal is associated with full-duplex communications between the first network node and the second network node and between the first network node and the third network node.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein the processing system is configured to:
transmit, to the second network node, the downlink signal, wherein the downlink signal is associated with full-duplex communications between the first network node and the second network node and between the first network node and the third network node (Guo – Fig. 1-b; Paragraph [0129], note intra-frequency full-duplex technology, the first UE and the second UE belong to a same base station, the base station may also send a downlink signal while receiving an uplink signal, and therefore, an uplink signal sent by the first UE causes interference to receiving of a downlink signal by the second UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into Kim for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Guo, specifically Kim teaches wherein the characteristic of the uplink signal comprises a bandwidth for use in cancellation of the interference corresponding to the uplink signal (Kim - Paragraph [0061], note the interference signal information 540 may include at least one of interference signal resource allocation information (which may include cellular communication frequency band, see Paragraph [0043]), modulation order, and transmission mode).
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not teach wherein, to communicate the uplink signal, the uplink signal is transmitted from the third network node to the first network node or from the first network node to the third network node.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein, to communicate the uplink signal, the uplink signal is transmitted from the third network node to the first network node or from the first network node to the third network node (Guo – Fig. 1-b; Paragraph [0129], note intra-frequency full-duplex technology, the first UE and the second UE belong to a same base station, the base station may also send a downlink signal while receiving an uplink signal, and therefore, an uplink signal sent by the first UE causes interference to receiving of a downlink signal by the second UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into Kim for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not teach wherein the characteristic of the uplink signal comprises a modulated signal carrying a baseband of the uplink signal.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein the characteristic of the uplink signal comprises a modulated signal carrying a baseband of the uplink signal (Guo - Paragraph [0135], note the configuration information (from the interference cancellation control information (ICCI), see Paragraphs [0132]-[0133]) may include information about a resource and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) that are used when the first UE sends the uplink signal, the first UE obtains the configuration information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo into Kim for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim and Guo, specifically Kim teaches wherein the characteristic of the uplink signal comprises a resource allocation for the uplink signal, a transmit beam corresponding to the uplink signal, a modulation coding scheme corresponding to the uplink signal, a transmit power corresponding to the uplink signal, or any combination thereof (Kim - Paragraph [0061], note the interference signal information 540 may include at least one of interference signal resource allocation information, modulation order, and transmission mode).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1
above, except the claim is written in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) claim format, which is taught by Kim (Kim - Paragraph [0032], note computer-readable memory).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Guo as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2015/0131566 A1), hereinafter referred to as Seo.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Guo does not teach wherein the indication to perform the cancellation of the interference is based on a time resource allocation for the uplink signal at least partially overlapping with a time resource allocation for the downlink signal.
In an analogous art, Seo teaches wherein the indication to perform the cancellation of the interference is based on a time resource allocation for the uplink signal at least partially overlapping with a time resource allocation for the downlink signal (Seo – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0111], note the signal (X3) transmitted by the UE3 (uplink) is overlapped (in time/frequency, see Paragraph [0053]) with a signal (X1) between the UEs (UE1 and UE2) performing D2D communication and may cause interference, a method for a base station to inform D2D UEs of interference signal information used for offsetting the interference to eliminate or mitigate the interference; Paragraph [0114], note the base station can inform the D2D UE of the interference signal-related information in a subframe capable of receiving the interference signal, the interference signal-related information can be informed in advance or can be informed on timing identical to timing of the interference signal; Paragraph [0115], note the D2D UE (e.g., UE2) receives the interference signal-related information from the base station in advance (e.g., timing as soon as possible) and can restore the interference signal using the information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Seo into the combination of Kim and Guo in order to perform interference cancellation based on anticipation of interference on specific subframes (Seo – Paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Guo does not teach wherein the indication to perform the cancellation of the interference is based on a frequency resource allocation for the uplink signal at least partially overlapping with a frequency resource allocation for the downlink signal.
In an analogous art, Seo teaches wherein the indication to perform the cancellation of the interference is based on a frequency resource allocation for the uplink signal at least partially overlapping with a frequency resource allocation for the downlink signal (Seo – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0111], note the signal (X3) transmitted by the UE3 (uplink) is overlapped (in time/frequency, see Paragraph [0053]) with a signal (X1) between the UEs (UE1 and UE2) performing D2D communication and may cause interference, a method for a base station to inform D2D UEs of interference signal information used for offsetting the interference to eliminate or mitigate the interference; Paragraph [0114], note the base station can inform the D2D UE of the interference signal-related information in a subframe capable of receiving the interference signal, the interference signal-related information can be informed in advance or can be informed on timing identical to timing of the interference signal; Paragraph [0115], note the D2D UE (e.g., UE2) receives the interference signal-related information from the base station in advance (e.g., timing as soon as possible) and can restore the interference signal using the information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Seo into the combination of Kim and Guo for the same reason as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s dependent claims recite wherein the indication to perform the cancellation of the interference is based on an amount of data buffered for the uplink signal satisfying a threshold, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fwu et al. (US 2013/0288608 A1) discloses an eNB using eICIC mechanism when D2D transmission region overlaps with DL data transmission.
Hong et al. (US 2017/0111887 A1) discloses D2D ICIC operation for interference cancellation.
MolavianJazi et al. (US 2022/0095309 A1) discloses exchanging load/interference information between gNBs and ICIC mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights