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 statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
All of claims 19-27 claim “means for” limitations.
[0148], [0149], [0150], [0151], [0152], [0153], [0154], [0156], [0157], [0158], [0159], [0160], [0162], [0163] of the instant application publication disclose specific components corresponding to all of the claimed “means for”.
Claim Objections
Claim 10-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, lines 1-2, the recited “for CLI measurement (cross-link interference signal measurement),” should be “for cross-link interference (CLI) signal measurement,”
Claims 11-18 are also objected to since they depend on objected claim 1 (dependent claims 11-18 incorporate the objected limitation of claim 1).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 10, 19, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huilin et al. (WO 2021/208003).
With respect to claim 1, Huilin et al. disclose: a receiver (of a victim UE [0139],
e.g. receiver of wireless transceiver 1210, [0142] also [0140] and second to last sentence of [0032] “transmission and reception of wireless signals necessarily includes a number of components…antenna”); a memory (e.g. memory device of 1206 [0143]-[0144]) ; and a processor (e.g. processor 1204), communicatively coupled to the receiver and the memory (as shown in Fig.12 and described in [0139]-[0140], [0143]-[0144], [0147]), configured to: receive, via the receiver, a cross-link interference (CLI) configuration (refer to at least lines 1-3 of [0071], base station instructs the victim UE to perform measurements of the CLI and report the measurements to the base station, e.g. refer to the first configuration of [0090], lines 1-3 of [0091], also step 1002 of Fig. 10, [0133], step 802 of Fig. 8, [0120] refer to the CLI measurement configuration) indicative of an uplink CLI signal corresponding to a transmitting user equipment (refer to at least lines 1-3 of [0091] “potential for CLI is relatively high”, [0090], [0072] CLI measurement performed by determining RSSI based on portion 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE 306 or by determining RSRP of an SRS signal in portion 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE. The CLI (measurement) configuration is indicative of at least the presence of uplink CLI signal(s) (in 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE of Fig. 3A)); receive, via the receiver, the uplink CLI signal (implicit in order to perform the RSSI or RSRP CLI measurement, [0072], also step 802 CLI measurements, also lines 3-5 of [0117] “CLI measurements may be based on RSSI measurements form uplink signals transmitted by an aggressor UE,,,Or the CLI measurements may be based on RSRP measurements from uplink SRS transmitted by an aggressor UE); measure the uplink CLI signal to determine a Doppler measurement (step 804, lines 1-3 of [0121], lines 1-3 of [0122] “…for example, other measurements related to the uplink signal received from the aggressor UE”, lines 1-2 of [0123] refer to the doppler frequency offsets, line 3 of [0127] “doppler frequency offsets in received signals”, referring to received uplink CLI signals received from the aggressor UE); and measure the uplink CLI signal to determine a received power of the uplink CLI signal (at least step 802, CLI measurement, [0072], [0090], lines 1-3 of [0091], lines 3-5 of [0117]).
Claim 10 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
The receiver of the wireless transceiver 1210 and the antenna (not shown but disclosed in the second to last sentence of [0032]) correspond to the claimed “means for receiving” (claimed twice) in claim 19. The processor 1204 ([0143]) and medium 1206 (e.g. is a programmable ROM per [0144]) correspond to the claimed “means for measuring” (claimed twice).
Claim 28 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 10 above and refer to [0143]-[0144] of the victim UE, refer to non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium 1206 and processor 1204).
Claims 1, 10, 19, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huilin et al. (WO 2021/208003).
The applied reference has a common applicant 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.
10. With respect to claim 1, Huilin et al. disclose: a receiver (of a victim UE [0139],
e.g. receiver of wireless transceiver 1210, [0142] also [0140] and second to last sentence of [0032] “transmission and reception of wireless signals necessarily includes a number of components…antenna”); a memory (e.g. memory device of 1206 [0143]-[0144]) ; and a processor (e.g. processor 1204), communicatively coupled to the receiver and the memory (as shown in Fig.12 and described in [0139]-[0140], [0143]-[0144], [0147]), configured to: receive, via the receiver, a cross-link interference (CLI) configuration (refer to at least lines 1-3 of [0071], base station instructs the victim UE to perform measurements of the CLI and report the measurements to the base station, e.g. refer to the first configuration of [0090], lines 1-3 of [0091], also step 1002 of Fig. 10, [0133], step 802 of Fig. 8, [0120] refer to the CLI measurement configuration) indicative of an uplink CLI signal corresponding to a transmitting user equipment (refer to at least lines 1-3 of [0091] “potential for CLI is relatively high”, [0090], [0072] CLI measurement performed by determining RSSI based on portion 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE 306 or by determining RSRP of an SRS signal in portion 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE. The CLI (measurement) configuration is indicative of at least the presence of uplink CLI signal(s) (in 310b of the UL signal transmitted by the aggressor UE of Fig. 3A)); receive, via the receiver, the uplink CLI signal (implicit in order to perform the RSSI or RSRP CLI measurement, [0072], also step 802 CLI measurements, also lines 3-5 of [0117] “CLI measurements may be based on RSSI measurements form uplink signals transmitted by an aggressor UE,,,Or the CLI measurements may be based on RSRP measurements from uplink SRS transmitted by an aggressor UE); measure the uplink CLI signal to determine a Doppler measurement (step 804, lines 1-3 of [0121], lines 1-3 of [0122] “…for example, other measurements related to the uplink signal received from the aggressor UE”, lines 1-2 of [0123] refer to the doppler frequency offsets, line 3 of [0127] “doppler frequency offsets in received signals”, referring to received uplink CLI signals received from the aggressor UE); and measure the uplink CLI signal to determine a received power of the uplink CLI signal (at least step 802, CLI measurement, [0072], [0090], lines 1-3 of [0091], lines 3-5 of [0117]).
Claim 10 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
The receiver of the wireless transceiver 1210 and the antenna (not shown but disclosed in the second to last sentence of [0032]) correspond to the claimed “means for receiving” (claimed twice) in claim 19. The processor 1204 ([0143]) and medium 1206 (e.g. is a programmable ROM per [0144]) correspond to the claimed “means for measuring” (claimed twice).
Claim 28 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 10 above and refer to [0143]-[0144] of the victim UE, refer to non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium 1206 and processor 1204).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-27, 29-30 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 objection to claim 10 must be corrected for dependent claims 11-18 to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shim et al. (U.S. 2023/0055304) refer to at least Fig. 18.
Zhang et al. (U.S. 2021/0328692) entire document is relevant.
Hwang et al. (U.S. 2022/0191724) refer to at least Fig. 9.
Masal et al. (U.S. 2020/0228213) refer to at least Fig. 5, 9
Ghosh et al. (U.S. 10,477,420) entire document is relevant.
Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 1/27/2026