DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 23, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 10, the acronym “CLI” should be spelled out in its first instance in the claim.
In line 3 of claim 10, “CLI reporting” should be changed to “CLI reporting;” or “CLI reporting,”.
In line 15 of claim 10, “comprising” should be changed to “comprising:”.
In line 1 of claim 23, “the scheduling for reporting” should be changed to “the scheduling information for transmitting the report” to match the amendment made to parent claim 20.
In line 3 of claim 41, “transmitting a Scheduling Request (SR)” should be changed to “transmitting a Scheduling Request (SR);”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9-15, 20, 22-24, 26-29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, and 45 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 9: the intended scope of the claim phrase “a number of at least one first value” is unclear. This could refer to a specific value (a number). It could also refer to a quantity of first values that are included in the report. The limitation should be amended to clarify the intended claim scope.
Regarding claim 10: the phrase “at least one report quantity” and “wherein the at least one report quantity is at least one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR), interference, and Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ)” do not make sense as worded. RSRP, RSSI, SNR, SINR, and RSRQ are measurement types, and it is not clear how these are “report quantities”. Perhaps the claim should be reworded to change “report quantity” to “measurement type”.
Claims 11-15, 20, 22-24, 26-29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, and 45 depend from claim 10 and are thus similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10: the original disclosure does not appear to support the limitation “at least one Reference Signal (RS) set”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9-13, 15, 20, 22, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nam et al (US 2022/0312232).
Regarding claim 10: Nam discloses a method for managing cross link interference in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
receiving, by at least one second node, a configuration for CLI reporting (disclosed throughout; see the “measurement configuration” disclosed throughout; for example, see the measurement configuration in steps 710 and 715 of Figure 7A; as indicated in [0104]-[0107], the measurement configuration includes a “reporting configuration”)
wherein the configuration comprises at least one of at least one Reference Signal (RS) set for CLI measurement, at least one report quantity, and a threshold value (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0101], the measurement report may include at least one reference signal (RS) set for CLI measurement (“the base station 110 may configure a single common measurement object for CLI measurements, SI measurements, and/or wireless sensing measurements… a measurement object may indicate a frequency and/or time location (e.g., and a subcarrier spacing) of one or more reference signals to be measured by the UE 120”); see also [0073], for example; further, as indicated in [0106], the measurement/reporting configuration may include at least one report quantity (“the reporting configuration may indicate that the UE 120 is to report measurement values (e.g., SRS RSRP values)”); further, as indicated in [0105], the measurement/reporting configuration may include a threshold value),
wherein the at least one report quantity is at least one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR), interference, and Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) (disclosed throughout; as indicated above, the at least one report quantity may include RSRP (see [0106] – “the reporting configuration may indicate that the UE 120 is to report measurement values (e.g., SRS RSRP values)”));
measuring, by the at least one second node, at least one value of the at least one report quantity using at least one RS from the at least one RS set (disclosed throughout; see step 720 of Figure 7A, for example, which, as indicated in [0108] “the UE 120 may perform one or more measurements based at least in part on receiving the measurement configuration”); and
transmitting, by the at least one second node, a report (see the measurement report transmitted in step 730 of Figure 7A, for example) comprising
at least one first value from the at least one value (see [0110], for example – “the measurement report may indicate a measurement object index associated with a measurement identified in the measurement report, a measurement resource index or a reference signal index associated with a measurement identified in the measurement report”), and
identity of at least one first RS from the at least one RS (see [0110], for example – “the measurement report may indicate…one or more measurement values of measurements performed by the UE”).
Regarding claim 9: Nam discloses the limitation that receiving the configuration comprises at least one of receiving an indication to skip a constant offset value while measuring the at least one RS, and receiving a number of at least one first value in the report (disclosed throughout; see [0106], for example, which discloses that the measurement/reporting configuration may “indicate a content of a measurement report (e.g., may indicate information that the UE 120 is to include in a measurement report)”; for example, this may include indicating that the UE is to report a time of arrival of a first M measurements; this is interpreted as receiving a number (M) of at least one first value in the report (the time of arrival)).
Regarding claim 11: Nam discloses the limitation that the at least one RS is a sounding reference signal (SRS) (disclosed throughout; see [0102], for example, which discloses that the measurement resources may be SRS resources).
Regarding claim 12: Nam discloses the limitation of transmitting the report is in response to one of detecting the occurrence of an implicit trigger event (disclosed throughout; see [0105], for example, which indicates that the report may be triggered by an implicit trigger event such as “a measurement value satisfying a first threshold (e.g., a measurement (e.g., an RSRP or a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) of interference and/or wireless sensing satisfying the first threshold)”) and receiving an explicit trigger (disclosed throughout; see [0109], for example, which indicates that the report may be triggered by an explicit trigger event – “the UE 120 may determine to transmit the measurement report based at least in part on receiving a message or request from the base station 110 (e.g., an aperiodic measurement report)”).
Regarding claim 13: Nam discloses the limitation that the at least one first value is at least one of a value from the at least one value greater than the threshold, a value from the at least one value less than the threshold, largest value from the at least one value, and smallest value from the at least one value (disclosed throughout; see [0109], for example, which indicates that in step 725 of Figure 7A, the UE “may determine to transmit the measurement report based at least in part on detecting a trigger event (e.g., a trigger event based measurement report). For example, the UE 120 may detect one or more of the trigger events indicated by the reporting configuration, as described above”; as indicated above and in [0105], this may be a measurement value satisfying a first threshold, and thus the first value in the report satisfies (is greater than) a first threshold; see also [0106], which indicates that the value may be “one or more highest measurement values (e.g., SRS RSRP values) measured by the UE”).
Regarding claim 15: Nam discloses the limitation that the implicit trigger event is the value of the at least one parameter exceeding the threshold (disclosed throughout; see [0105], for example, which indicates that the report may be triggered by an implicit trigger event such as “a measurement value satisfying a first threshold (e.g., a measurement (e.g., an RSRP or a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) of interference and/or wireless sensing satisfying the first threshold)”).
Regarding claim 20: Nam discloses the limitations that the configuration for CLI reporting further comprises at least one of an indication for L1 reporting, a type of reporting, a trigger event, a threshold condition to stop reporting, and scheduling information for transmitting the report (disclosed throughout; see [0104], for example, which discloses that the measurement/reporting configuration indicates the type of reporting (whether it is periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic; see also [0105], for example, which indicates that the measurement/reporting configuration may indicate a trigger event such as “a measurement value satisfying a first threshold (e.g., a measurement (e.g., an RSRP or a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)) of interference and/or wireless sensing satisfying the first threshold)”; further, see [0109], which indicates that the configuration includes scheduling information for transmitting the report (“may determine to transmit a measurement report based at least in part on the reporting configuration associated with the measurement configuration… the UE 120 may determine to transmit the measurement report according to a periodic schedule…according to a semi-persistent schedule”)).
Regarding claim 22: Nam discloses the limitation that the type of reporting comprises at least one of periodic, semi-persistent, and aperiodic (see [0104], for example, which discloses that the measurement/reporting configuration indicates the type of reporting (whether it is periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic).
Regarding claim 24: Nam discloses the limitation that receiving the configuration for CLI reporting is in at least one of Medium Access Control (MAC), Downlink Control Information (DCI), and Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling (see [0073], for example, which discloses that measurement configuration may be indicated in an RRC message).
Regarding claim 27: Nam discloses the limitation that transmitting the report is periodic (see [0109], for example, which discloses that “the UE 120 may determine to transmit the measurement report according to a periodic schedule (e.g., a periodic measurement report)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14, 23, 33,34, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (US 2022/0312232) in view of Ibrahim et al (US 2023/0125512).
Regarding claims 14: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam is silent regarding the limitation of claim 14 that receiving the explicit trigger is in one of Medium Access Control (MAC) and Downlink Control Information (DCI). However, Ibrahim discloses a similar system for measuring and addressing cross link interference (CLI) in a wireless system. Ibrahim further discloses that a DCI may be used for sending “a CLI request field for triggering transmission of an aperiodic CLI report from the first UE” (see [0112] and [0116], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam to use a DCI to transmit the trigger for aperiodic CLI reporting (the explicit trigger) using a DCI as suggested by Ibrahim. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize existing signaling (such as DCI) to implement the explicit/aperiodic trigger to reduce the implementation cost for adding this feature to an existing system.
Regarding claim 23: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 20 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 23 that the scheduling for reporting [scheduling information for transmitting the report] comprises at least one of time resource, frequency resource, and periodicity. That is, Nam generally indicates (in [0109] that the UE may determine a periodic schedule (for example) based on the reporting/measurement configuration, but does not explicitly disclose that the scheduling information comprises one or time resource, frequency resource, and periodicity. However, Ibrahim discloses a similar system for measuring and addressing cross link interference (CLI) in a wireless system. Ibrahim further discloses that the UE is configured with “periodic and/or semi-persistent PUCCH resources for reporting CLI measurements to the base station” (see [0112] and step 925 of Figure 9, for example). In addition (see [0113]), the periodic resources may specify time resources (i.e. symbols) as well as periodicity (“X symbols may be dedicated to CLI reporting every Y slots”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam with the teaching of Ibrahim to explicitly indicate the resources used for reporting in the configuration. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure that the network and the UE both utilize the same resources for receiving and transmitting the report, respectively, to ensure the successful communication of the report.
Regarding claim 33: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 33 that the report is transmitted through one of Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) and Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). However, Ibrahim discloses a similar system for measuring and addressing cross link interference (CLI) in a wireless system. Ibrahim further discloses that the CLI report is transmitted through a PUCCH. For example, see [0097], which indicates that “the first UE 120-1 may transmit the indication of the measured CLI, to the base station 110, in at least one of a PUCCH communication…”. See also [0112], which indicates that “the first UE 120-1 may be configured with periodic and/or semi-persistent PUCCH resources for reporting CLI measurements to the base station 110”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transmit the report via an existing channel such as the PUCCH as suggested by Ibrahim. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize existing signaling (such as PUCCH) to implement the explicit/aperiodic trigger to reduce the implementation cost for adding this feature to an existing system.
Regarding claim 34: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 34 that transmitting the report comprises at least one of transmitting, a Scheduling Request (SR); and receiving at least one of a periodicity and at least one resource for transmitting the report. However, However, Ibrahim discloses a similar system for measuring and addressing cross link interference (CLI) in a wireless system. Ibrahim further discloses that the UE receives configuration of the reporting resources and may be configured with “periodic and/or semi-persistent PUCCH resources for reporting CLI measurements to the base station” (see [0112] and step 925 of Figure 9, for example). In addition (see [0113]), the periodic resources may specify time resources (at least one resource) as well as periodicity (“X symbols may be dedicated to CLI reporting every Y slots”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam with the teaching of Ibrahim to explicitly indicate the resources used for reporting in the configuration. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure that the network and the UE both utilize the same resources for receiving and transmitting the report, respectively, to ensure the successful communication of the report.
Regarding claim 37: Nam, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 34 as indicated above. Claim 37 modifies the first limitation of claim 34 (the SR comprises an information about an at least one resource for transmission of the report). However, this limitation is claimed in the alternative. As indicated above, Nam and Ibrahim render claim 34 obvious using the second limitation of claim 34. Thus, the combination of Nam and Ibrahim also render claim 37 obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 38: Nam, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 34 as indicated above. Claim 38 modifies claim 37 (wherein the information about the at least one resource is an identity of the at least one resource from a plurality of resources configured by the at least one second node RS set), which modifies the second limitation of claim 34. However, this limitation is claimed in the alternative. As indicated above, Nam and Ibrahim render claim 34 obvious using the second limitation of claim 34. Thus, the combination of Nam and Ibrahim also render claim 38 obvious for the same reasons.
Claims 26, 28, 29, 41, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al (US 2022/0312232) in view of Shim et al (US 2023/0055304).
Regarding claim 26: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 26 that the report further comprises the difference between the at least one value and one of largest value from the at least one value, and smallest value from the at least one value. However, Shim discloses a method for CLI reporting. Shim further discloses transmitting a report that includes a difference between one of the values and a maximum value in the report. For example, consider [0483], which indicates “when it is assumed that the UE measures a CLI and reports a maximum value and a difference value with respect to the maximum value, a report value to which the maximum value is mapped may be configured of X bit and a report value to which the difference value is mapped may be configured of Y bit (here, Y may be a value smaller than X)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam to implement the reporting format suggested by Shim of sending some of the values as differences between the measured value and a maximum value. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the overhead/size of the report by sending a difference value that requires fewer (Y) bits than what would be required to transmit the measured value as suggested by Shim in [0483].
Regarding claim 28: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 28 that transmitting the report is until one of receiving an indication to stop reporting, the at least one value is less than the threshold for at least one time unit, and a number of transmitting the report reaching an upper limit. However, Shim discloses a method for CLI reporting. Shim further discloses a number of configurations for CLI measurement and reporting. In one example (see [0412], for example), Shim discloses continuing to report (periodically) the CLI until the BS indicates deactivation (indicates to stop reporting) – “the UE may periodically report CLI (operation 2420 and 2430) by using an MAC CE. The UE may continue reporting until the BS indicates deactivation of a corresponding operation”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam to repeat the transmission of the report until the BS deactivates it (indicates to stop reporting) as suggested by Shim. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow a “more accurate UE interference situation” to be detected as suggested by Shim in [0412].
Regarding claim 29: Nam, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 28 as indicated above. Claim 29 modifies the second limitation of claim 28 (wherein the at least one time unit is at least one of defined in terms of one of a number of slots, a number of symbols, a number of frames, milliseconds, and seconds, received by at least one first node: and a measuring instance of the at least one report Quantity). However, this limitation is claimed in the alternative. As indicated above, Nam and Shim render claim 28 obvious using the first limitation of claim 28. Thus, the combination of Nam and Shim also render claim 29 obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 41: Nam discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Nam does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 41 that the report is transmitted at least one time unit after one of transmitting a Scheduling Request (SR), measurement; and detection of a trigger event. However, Shim discloses a method for CLI reporting. Shim further discloses that the UE requires a preparation time (see the PUSCH Preparation Procedure Time described in [0182]-[0193], for example). This indicates that “Only when the PUSCH preparation procedure time is sufficient, the UE may transmit the PUSCH, and when the PUSCH preparation procedure time is not sufficient, the UE may ignore the DCI that schedules the PUSCH” [0193]. Further, in [0419], Shim discloses that cross link interference (CLI) reporting “may be performed via a PUSCH, and a CLI report may be transmitted on the PUSCH determined based on at least one of the PUSCH time resource configuration, a transmission scheme, or a transmission preparation procedure time”. That is, the CLI report is transmitted at least one time unit (the transmission preparation time) after the detection of a trigger event (such as the DCI request for aperiodic report transmission, for example – see [0424] “after triggering of CLI reporting occurs, the UE may perform CLI reporting via UL transmission scheduled by the first DCI format or the first UL grant among UL resources which can contain the MAC entity for CLI reporting”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nam to utilize the PUSCH transmission preparation procedure time as suggested by Shim. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure the UE has enough time to prepare the transmission of the CLI report according to its capability.
Regarding claim 43: Nam, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 41 as indicated above. Nam, as modified above, further discloses the limitations of claim 43 that the at least one time unit is at least one of depends on the capability of the at least one second node, and reported by the at least one second node (as indicated in [0182]-[0184], the at least one time unit (the preparation time) depends on the UE processing capability (“N2: is the number of symbols determined according to UE processing capability 1 or 2 and numerology μ. When UE processing capability of 1 is reported in a UE capability report, it may have a value based on Table 13, below, and when UE processing capability of 2 is reported in the UE capability report and when it is configured, by higher layer signaling, that the UE capability 2 is available, it may have a value based on Table 14, below” [0184])).
Regarding claim 45: Nam, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 41 as indicated above. Nam, as modified above, further discloses the limitations of claim 45 that the at least one time unit is defined in terms of one of a number of slots, a number of symbols, a number of frames, milliseconds, and seconds (see tables 13 and 14 after [0184], for example, which disclose that the at least one time unit (preparation time) is in units of symbols).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al (US 2024/0089019) discloses a method of enhanced cross link interference measurement and management.
Zhang et al (US 2023/0163868) discloses a method for UE beam measurements to mitigate cross link interference.
Zhang et al (US 2023/0139197) discloses a method for sidelink assisted cross link interference determination.
Ibrahim et al (US 2023/0113873) discloses a method for adaptive cross link interference measurement and reporting.
Zhang et al (US 2021/0328692) discloses a method for cross link interference management enhancements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights