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 § 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 14 and 28 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.
As claims 14 and 28, “the at least one condition” is vague and indefinite because it does not refer to any previous element.
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) 1-5, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a2] as being anticipated by Ryden [US 2023/0370181].
As claims 1 and 9, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: obtaining at least one interference measurement associated with at least one resource [Par. 0005-0008 discloses UE measures interference of resources, Fig 4, Par. 00046, 0050-0056, 0062-0068]; obtaining predicted interference information associated with the at least one resource [Par. 0005-0008 discloses predicting interference of the resources, Fig 4, Par. 0050-0056, 0082-0087], wherein the predicted interference information is based at least in part on the at least one interference measurement [Par. 0050-0056 and Fig 4 discloses the predicted interference based the measured interference]; and transmitting a report indicating the predicted interference information based at least in part on at least one of a predicted interference power value [Par. 0046, 0057, 0062-0064, 0074, 0083-0084] or a predicted variation in interference value of the predicted interference information satisfying value threshold [Par. 0046, 0057, 0062-0064, 0074, 0083-0086 discloses report the predicted interference such as power or variance greater or less than value threshold].
As claims 2 and 10, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the value threshold is satisfied by the predicted variation in interference value [Par. 0057], and wherein the predicted variation in interference value is based at least in part on a comparison between a predicted interference level associated with the at least one resource and a predicted or measured interference level for a previous resource [Par. 0084-0086 discloses previous resource “history” is most recent resource was predicted or measured in the report].
As claims 3 and 11, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the previous resource is a most recent resource for which in the predicted or measured interference level was reported [Par. 0085-0086 discloses previous resource “history” is most recent resource was predicted or measured in the report].
As claims 4 and 12, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the value threshold is satisfied by the predicted interference power value, and wherein transmitting the report comprises transmitting the predicted interference information only for resources having respective predicted interference power values that satisfy the value threshold [Par. 0057].
As claim 5, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the predicted interference information is associated with at least one beam or sub-band [Par. 0050, 0064].
As claim 8, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the predicted interference information includes at least one of an interference power prediction, an interference covariance matrix prediction, or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) prediction [Par. 0083 discloses predicted interference power, SINR prediction].
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden [US 2023/0370181] in view of Zhang [US 2026/0142704].
As claim 6, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] fails to disclose what Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the report includes an indication of predicted interference information associated with a subset of candidate beams or sub-bands with best interference conditions [Par. 0086-0087 discloses report includes the strongest beams].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for including an indication of predicted interference information associated with a subset of candidate beams or sub-bands with best interference conditions in the report as disclosed by Zhang [US 2026/0142704] into the teaching of Ryden [US 2023/0370181]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal and reduce the cost of system.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden [US 2023/0370181] in view of Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800].
As claims 7 and 16, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses transmitting the predicted interference information according to a future time duration [Par. 0083 discloses report predicted with window]. However, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] fails to fully disclose what Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800] discloses updating the future time duration based on variations in the at least one interference measurement [Fig 3, Ref 307 and 309 discloses updating the timing based on condition].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising updating timing window based on condition as disclosed by Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800] into the teaching of Ryden [US 2023/0370181]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden [US 2023/0370181] in view of Chuang [US 2002/011549].
As claims 13, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] fails to disclose what Chuang [US 2002/011549] discloses receive a scheduling configuration for at least one resource, wherein the scheduling configuration is based at least in part on the predicted interference information [Fig 1 discloses resource assigns based on predicted interference].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden [US 2023/0370181] in view of Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883]
As claim 14, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] fails to disclose what Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883] discloses the predicted interference information is reported according to a predicted interference reporting granularity based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying the at least one condition [Fig 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the predicted interference information is reported according to a predicted interference reporting granularity based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying the at least one condition as disclosed by Yerramalli into the teaching of Ryden [US 2023/0370181]. The motivation would have been to provide an accurate data.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 17-20, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang [US 2002/0115459] in view of Ryden [US 2023/0370181].
As claims 1 and 9, Chuang [US 2002/0115459] discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a network node, comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a report indicating predicted interference information associated with at least one resource [Fig 1 discloses UE measures interference of resource, Par. 0025], wherein the predicted interference information is based at least in part on at least one interference measurement associated with the at least one resource [Par. 0025 discloses obtaining the predicted interference based on the measured interference of the channel]. However, Chuang fails to fully disclose what Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses receiving the report is based at least in part on at least one of a predicted interference power value [Par. 0046, 0057, 0062-0064, 0074, 0083-0084] or a predicted variation in interference value of the predicted interference information satisfying a value threshold [Par. 0046, 0057, 0062-0064, 0074, 0083-0086 discloses report the predicted interference such as power or variance greater or less than value threshold];
Since, Chuan suggests the use of SINR for determining a predicted interference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for a report indicating the predicted interference information based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying at least one condition as disclosed by Ryden into the teaching of Chuang. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
As claims 2, 10 and 25, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the value threshold is satisfied by the predicted variation in interference value [Par. 0057], and wherein the predicted variation in interference value is based at least in part on a comparison between a predicted interference level associated with the at least one resource and a predicted or measured interference level for a previous resource [Par. 0084-0086 discloses previous resource “history” is most recent resource was predicted or measured in the report].
As claims 3, 11 and 26, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the previous resource is a most recent resource for which in the predicted or measured interference level was reported [Par. 0085-0086 discloses previous resource “history” is most recent resource was predicted or measured in the report].
As claims 4, 12 and 18, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the value threshold is satisfied by the predicted interference power value, and wherein transmitting the report comprises transmitting the predicted interference information only for resources having respective predicted interference power values that satisfy the value threshold [Par. 0057].
As claims 5, 19 and 27, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the predicted interference information is associated with at least one beam or sub-band [Par. 0050, 0064].
As claims 8 and 23, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses the predicted interference information includes at least one of an interference power prediction, an interference covariance matrix prediction, or a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) prediction [Par. 0083 discloses predicted interference power, SINR prediction].
As claims 13, 17 and 24, Chuang [US 2002/0115459] discloses the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive a scheduling configuration for at least one resource, wherein the scheduling configuration is based at least in part on the predicted interference information [Fig 1, Resource assignment based on the predicted interference].
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Ryden as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Zhang [US 2026/0142704].
As claims 6 and 20, Chuang and Ryden [US 2023/0370181] fails to disclose what Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the report includes an indication of predicted interference information associated with a subset of candidate beams or sub-bands with best interference conditions [Par. 0086-0087 discloses report includes the strongest beams].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for including an indication of predicted interference information associated with a subset of candidate beams or sub-bands with best interference conditions in the report as disclosed by Zhang [US 2026/0142704] into the teaching of Ryden [US 2023/0370181]. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal and reduce the cost of system.
Claim(s) 7, 16, 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Ryden as applied to claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 above, and further in view of Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800].
As claims 7, 16, 22 and 30, Chuang fails to disclose what Ryden [US 2023/0370181] discloses transmitting the predicted interference information according to a future time duration [Par. 0083 discloses report predicted with window]. However, Ryden [US 2023/0370181] and Chuang fail to fully disclose what Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800] discloses updating the future time duration based on variations in the at least one interference measurement [Fig 3, Ref 307 and 309 discloses updating the timing based on condition].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising updating timing window based on condition as disclosed by Alabbasi [US 2025/0233800] into the teaching of Ryden [US 2023/0370181] and Chuang. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of system.
Claim(s) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Ryden as applied to claims 9 and 24 above, and further in view of Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883].
As claims 14 and 28, Chuang and Ryden fail to disclose what Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883] discloses the predicted interference information is reported according to a predicted interference reporting granularity based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying the at least one condition [Fig 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the predicted interference information is reported according to a predicted interference reporting granularity based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying the at least one condition as disclosed by Yerramalli into the teaching of Chuang and Ryden. The motivation would have been to provide an accurate data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 21 and 29 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.
As claims 15, 21 and 29, the prior arts fails to disclose the report includes a first part indicating the predicted interference information according to a configured reporting granularity and a second part indicating the predicted interference information according to an updated reporting granularity indicated in the first part.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights