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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 14 August 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, 18-22 and 26-29 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18791163 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 5 of the reference application anticipates Claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the table below.
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 5 of reference application
An apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
(Parent Claim 1) A user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive, from a network entity, a configuration that indicates one of: unevenly spaced cross-link interference (CLI) measurement resources or unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows;
(parent claim 1) receive a control message that triggers one or more aperiodic cross-link interference received signal strength indicator (CLI-RSSI) resources, one or more aperiodic (i.e., unevenly spaced) CLI sounding reference signal received power (SRS-RSRP) resources, or a CLI measurement time window, for a layer one (L1) UE to UE CLI measurement, wherein the CLI measurement time window corresponds to one or more time and frequency locations;
perform a CLI measurement based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the CLI measurement is associated with an uplink data transmission by a second UE; and
(parent claim 1) perform the L1 UE to UE CLI measurement on the one or more aperiodic CLI-RSSI resources, the one or more aperiodic CLI SRS-RSRP resources, or during the CLI measurement time window.
transmit, to the network entity, an indication of the CLI measurement.
transmit a report comprising one or more L1 UE to UE CLI measurement values of the set of L1 UE to UE CLI measurement values based at least in part on the configuration message.
Claim 16 of the instant application is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the UE of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 5 of the reference application anticipates Claim 16 of the instant application for the same reasons as presented above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 14-18, 20, 22-24, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manolakos et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0050983), hereinafter Manolakos.
Regarding Claim 1, Manolakos discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Figure 10, device 1005 is a UE; refer to paragraph 0171), comprising:
a memory (Figure 10, memory 1030); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Figure 10, processor 1040 is coupled to memory 1030 via bus 1045), configured to:
receive, from a network entity, a configuration that indicates one of: unevenly spaced cross-link interference (CLI) measurement resources or unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows (paragraph 0106 – a serving cell may configure UEs to transmit and measure CLI-RSes based on aperiodic (i.e., unevenly spaced) interference detections);
perform a CLI measurement based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the CLI measurement is associated with an uplink data transmission by a second UE (paragraphs 0104 and 0107 – CLI-RS or similar uplink signals are transmitted in order to enable signal strength measurements); and
transmit, to the network entity, an indication of the CLI measurement (paragraph 0108 – the UE reports the CLI to the base station).
Claim 16 is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the UE of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Manolakos discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (Figure 14 – device 1405 is a base station; refer to paragraph 0204), comprising:
a memory (Figure 14 – memory 1430); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Figure 14 – processor 1440 coupled to memory 1430 via bus 1450), configured to:
transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), a configuration that indicates one of: unevenly spaced cross-link interference (CLI) measurement resources or unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows (paragraph 0106 – a serving cell may configure UEs to transmit and measure CLI-RSes based on aperiodic (i.e., unevenly spaced) interference detections); and
receive, from the first UE, an indication of a CLI measurement based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the CLI measurement is associated with an uplink data transmission by a second UE (paragraph 0108 – the UE reports the CLI to the base station).
Claim 30 is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the network entity of Claim 15. Therefore, Claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Manolakos discloses wherein the unevenly spaced CLI measurement resources are associated with a non-constant interval to match the uplink data transmission by the second UE (paragraphs 0106-0107 – the serving cell configures UEs to measure CLI-RS based on aperiodic interference detections, wherein the CLI measurement resources are configured to match an uplink transmission).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Manolakos discloses the configuration indicates a periodicity for a CLI measurement occasion (refer to Figure 2 at CLI measurement configuration 235-a and paragraph 0106 – where the strength measurements are performed aperiodically), and the unevenly spaced CLI measurement resources of the CLI measurement occasion are configured with locations that are based at least in part on a start of a period associated with the periodicity (Figure 2 and CLI measurement configuration 235-a, where the UEs are configured with specific symbol periods within a slot on which to transmit/receive CLI-RS for measurement purposes).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Manolakos discloses wherein the configuration indicates a repetition pattern for a quantity of consecutive CLI measurement occasions (Figure 2 at CLI 230 – consecutive symbol periods within the slot are utilized for CLI measurement; refer to paragraph 0107), and wherein a CLI measurement occasion of the quantity of consecutive CLI measurement occasions includes a CLI measurement resource (paragraph 0107 – the UE may transmit uplink signals in the consecutive symbol periods of the slot for CLI measurement).
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, Manolakos discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the CLI measurement using a CLI measurement resource associated with a CLI measurement window of the unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows (Figure 2 at CLI 230 – consecutive symbol periods within the slot are utilized for CLI measurement; refer to paragraph 0107).
Regarding Claims 8 and 23, Manolakos discloses wherein the CLI measurement resource is an evenly spaced CLI measurement resource (Figure 2 – CLI measurement configuration comprises a slot with symbol periods).
Regarding Claims 9 and 24, Manolakos discloses wherein the CLI measurement resource fully overlaps with the CLI measurement window (Figure 2 and paragraph 0107 – CLI 230 measurement performed within 9th and 10th symbol periods of the slot, representing a full overlap of the measurement within the window represented by these symbol periods).
Regarding Claims 11 and 26, Manolakos discloses wherein the configuration indicates a window duration associated with each of the unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows (Figure 2 and paragraph 0107 – CLI measurement configuration indicates that measurement is performed within 9th and 10th symbol periods of the slot or based on aperiodic interference detections; refer to paragraphs 0106-0107).
Regarding Claims 14 and 29, Manolakos discloses wherein the first UE is a victim UE and the second UE is an aggressor UE (paragraph 0106 – the serving cell configures both aggressor UEs and victim UEs to transmit and measure CLI-RS based on aperiodic interference detections).
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.
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.
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 4, 10, 12, 19, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos in view of Xu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0228212), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Manolakos discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 16 as described above. However, Manolakos does not disclose the configuration indicates a base interval between consecutive CLI measurement resources, of the unevenly spaced CLI measurement resources, and an offset associated with the base interval. In an analogous art, Xu discloses this. Specifically, Xu discloses a UE being configured with a CLI measurement window that starts a specified timing offset after the start of a first symbol and ending prior to the end of a second subsequent symbol (refer to Figure 7 at CLI measurement window 715 and paragraph 0153). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Manolakos and Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate effects of misalignments between uplink symbols of a transmitter UE and downlink symbols of a receiver UE (paragraph 0151).
Regarding Claims 10 and 25, Manolakos discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 16 as described above. However, Manolakos does not disclose wherein the CLI measurement resource partially overlaps with the CLI measurement window. In an analogous art, Xu discloses this. Specifically, Xu discloses a CLI measurement window that partially overlaps with a downlink symbol receive timing (refer to Figure 7 at CLI measurement window 715 and paragraph 0153). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Manolakos and Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate effects of misalignments between uplink symbols of a transmitter UE and downlink symbols of a receiver UE (paragraph 0151).
Regarding Claims 12 and 27, Manolakos discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 16 as described above. However, Manolakos does not disclose wherein the configuration indicates a base interval between consecutive CLI measurement windows, of the unevenly spaced CLI measurement windows, and an offset associated with the base interval. In an analogous art, Xu discloses this. Specifically, Xu discloses a UE being configured with a CLI measurement window that starts a specified timing offset after the start of a first symbol and ending prior to the end of a second subsequent symbol (refer to Figure 7 at CLI measurement window 715 and paragraph 0153). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Manolakos and Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate effects of misalignments between uplink symbols of a transmitter UE and downlink symbols of a receiver UE (paragraph 0151).
Claims 13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos in view of Sundararajan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0073510), hereinafter Sundararajan. Manolakos discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 16 as described above. However, Manolakos does not disclose the uplink data transmission is an extended reality data transmission. In an analogous art, Sundararajan discloses this. Specifically, Sundararajan discloses performing interference coordination to provide performance improvements for latency-sensitive applications such as XR (paragraph 0079). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Manolakos and Sundararajan in order to increase XR frame delivery rate (refer to paragraph 0079 of Sundararajan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 21 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: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose “wherein the unevenly spaced CLI measurement resources are based at least in part on a quantization of non- integer periodicities for CLI measurement resources, and wherein the quantization is based at least in part on a slot duration or a symbol duration” as recited in Claims 6 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights