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, 5-7, 9, 13, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a1] as being anticipated by Bai [US 2024/0259848].
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As claims 1 and 9, Bai [US 2024/0259848] discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) [Fig 2, Ref 115a], comprising: obtaining at least one interference measurement associated with at least one resource [Par. 0086-0087 discloses perform a measurement of the slot]; obtaining predicted interference information associated with the at least one resource, wherein the predicted interference information is based at least in part on the at least one interference measurement [Par. 0086-0087 discloses obtaining the predicted interference based on the measured interference of the slot]; and transmitting a report indicating the predicted interference information based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying at least one condition [Par. 0086-0087 UE send a report with predicted interference to the base station].
As claims 5, 19 and 27, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the predicted interference information is associated with at least one beam or sub-band [Par. 0087discloses the machine learning model may perform interference prediction on a per-beam].
As claims 6 and 20, 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].
As claims 7, 16, 22 and 30, Bai [US 2024/0259848] discloses transmitting the predicted interference information according to a future time duration; and updating the future time duration based on variations in the at least one interference measurement [Par. 0087 discloses the machine learning model 220 may use the CSI-IM measurements in prior time intervals (e.g., past slots) to infer the interference distribution in one or more future slots, it will update the information in order to predict interference].
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 [Par. 0085 discloses scheduling based on the predicted interference].
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) 2-4, 8, 10-12, 18, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai [US 2024/0259848] in view of Zhang [US 2026/0142704].
As claims 2, 10 and 25, Bai [US 2024/0259848] fails to disclose what Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the predicted interference information includes at least one variation parameter based on a variation in a predicted interference level associated with the at least one resource [Par. 0005 discloses a parameter such as interference to be varied each time the UE measured the beam], and wherein the at least one condition is satisfied based at least in part on the variation in the predicted interference level satisfying a threshold [Par. 0005 compares predicted L1-SINR] of best beam with threshold].
As claims 3, 11 and 26, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the variation in the predicted interference level is measured relative to a most recently reported measured or predicted interference level [Par. 0005 discloses UE compares the most recently measured L1-SINR with threshold].
As claims 4, 12 and 18, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the at least one condition is satisfied only for resources having predicted interference information including a predicted interference power that satisfies a threshold [Par. 0061].
As claims 8 and 23, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] 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. 0005, SINR].
Claim(s) 1-6, 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 Zhang [US 2026/0142704].
As claims 1 and 9, Chuang [US 2002/0115459] discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) [Fig 1, MS], comprising: obtaining at least one interference measurement associated with at least one resource [Fig 1 discloses UE measures interference of resource, Par. 0025]; obtaining predicted interference information associated with the at least one resource, wherein the predicted interference information is based at least in part on the at least one interference measurement [Par. 0025 discloses obtaining the predicted interference based on the measured interference of the channel]; and transmitting a report indicating the predicted interference information [Fig 1, UE send a report with predicted interference to the base station]. However, Chuang fails to discloses transmitting a report indicating the predicted interference information based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying at least one condition. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses transmitting a report indicating the predicted interference information based at least in part on the predicted interference information satisfying at least one condition [Par. 0005, 0061, Fig 3, Ref 314 disclose UE reports the best predicted beam to the base station when the measured L1-SINR is satisfied with threshold L1-SINR].
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 Zhang into the teaching of Chuang. The motivation would have been to improve the quality of signal.
As claims 2, 10 and 25, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the predicted interference information includes at least one variation parameter based on a variation in a predicted interference level associated with the at least one resource [Par. 0005 discloses a parameter such as interference to be varied each time the UE measured the beam], and wherein the at least one condition is satisfied based at least in part on the variation in the predicted interference level satisfying a threshold [Par. 0005 compares predicted L1-SINR of best beam with threshold].
As claims 3, 11 and 26, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the variation in the predicted interference level is measured relative to a most recently reported measured or predicted interference level [Par. 0005 discloses UE compares the most recently measured L1-SINR with threshold].
As claims 4, 12 and 18, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the at least one condition is satisfied only for resources having predicted interference information including a predicted interference power that satisfies a threshold [Par. 0061 discloses The RRC signaling further includes parameters such as a first threshold to determine whether the measured L1-SINR for a beam satisfies a threshold, a quantization procedure indicator (e.g., whether to enable high-resolution quantization), a quantization mode (e.g., whether the beam report is based on an absolute value or absolute value for one or more strongest beams and a differential value for remaining reported beams, and/or a high measurement accuracy flag used to indicate whether the network entity 104 requests high measurement accuracy for the beam measurement and report].
As claims 5, 19 and 27, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] discloses the predicted interference information is associated with at least one beam or sub-band [Par. 0005 discloses A machine learning (ML) model can be implemented to predict top N beams that are likely to have best qualities among a beam set].
As claims 6 and 20, 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. 0061 discloses report includes the strongest beams].
As claims 8 and 23, Zhang [US 2026/0142704] 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. 0005, SINR].
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) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai [US 2024/0259848] in view of Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883].
As claims 14 and 28, Bai [US 2024/0259848] 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 Bai. The motivation would have been to provide an accurate data.
Claim(s) 7, 16, 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Zhang as applied to claims 14 and 24 above, and further in view of Bai [US 2024/0259848],
As claims 7, 16, 22 and 30, Chuang and Zhang fail to disclose what Bai [US 2024/0259848] discloses transmitting the predicted interference information according to a future time duration; and updating the future time duration based on variations in the at least one interference measurement [Par. 0087 discloses the machine learning model 220 may use the CSI-IM measurements in prior time intervals (e.g., past slots) to infer the interference distribution in one or more future slots, it will update the information in order to predict 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 comprising transmitting the predicted interference information according to a future time duration; and updating the future time duration based on variations in the at least one interference measurement as disclosed by Bai into the teaching of Chuang and Zhang. The motivation would have been to provide an accurate data.
Claim(s) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Zhang as applied to claims 14 and 24 above, and further in view of Yerramalli [US 2021/0143883].
As claims 14 and 28, Chuang and Zhang 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 Zhang. 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
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