DETAILED ACTION
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 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 independent claim 9, the claims recite the limitation “…receiving, from the network node, a signal, wherein the received signal is free from inter-user interference thanks to an interference cancelling signal from the coverage enhancing device.”, the limitation is unclear because the term “thanks” renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claims failed to rectify the problem raised above, thus, they are subject to the same rejections.
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 1, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US20230276426).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Chen discloses a method, performed by a wireless
node (¶0005 discloses a method and apparatus, to reduce mutual interference between terminals), the method comprising: transmitting, to a network node, an indication that interference from a second wireless device can be disregarded by the network node when serving a first wireless device and the second wireless device in a same time-frequency resource (¶0075 discloses that a centralization device obtains respective first information of a plurality of terminals. The first information is used to determine mutual interference between any two terminals when the two terminals are scheduled on a first time-frequency resource. ¶0134 discloses that the centralization device may determine, based on mutual interference between the two terminals when the two terminals are scheduled on the first time-frequency resource, whether the two terminals are allowed to be scheduled on the first time-frequency resource. Further, based on comprehensive consideration of interference between the two terminals, the centralization device may determine, from the plurality of terminals, a terminal allowed to be scheduled on the first time-frequency resource. ¶00136 discloses that the centralization device may further send first indication information to a scheduling device … The first indication information indicates a terminal allowed to be scheduled in the cell).
Regarding claim 3, the cited reference Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Chen further discloses the interference is inter user interference (¶0009 discloses interference between terminals).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
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)(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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Folke et al (US20130010713).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Folke discloses a method, performed by a wireless node (¶0027 discloses a method in a first base station for handling a downlink transmission), the method comprising: transmitting, to a network node, an indication that interference from a second wireless device can be disregarded by the network node when serving a first wireless device and the second wireless device in a same time-frequency resource (Fig.2 and Actions 206-209 disclose that the second base station 115 uses the received interference level information to identify an indication of an interference caused by the one or more downlink transmissions performed in the defined subframes by the first base station 105 in (action 202)… In action 207, the second base station 115 sends the in action 206 identified indication of the interference to the first base station 105. The sending may be performed over wireline… In action 208, the first base station 105 receives the indication of the interference from the second base station 115… the first base station 105 adjusts one or more further downlink transmissions which are to be performed in one or more further, i.e. upcoming, subframes in which the first base station 105 is also to avoid interfering).
PNG
media_image1.png
790
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Zhao et al (WO2020108367A1, US20230163816 is used to map the claim).
Regarding claim 2, the cited reference Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly teach the indication is an indication that matched filter precoding can be applied by the network node.
In an analogous art Zhao teaches wherein the indication is an indication that matched filter precoding can be applied by the network node (¶0003-¶0004 discloses that the base station is equipped with an antenna array for communicating with a plurality of terminal devices (users) and cancels interference between different terminal devices by precoding techniques. Precoding techniques generally include linear precoding techniques and nonlinear precoding techniques…Linear precoding algorithm, such as matched filter (MF)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Zhao to use nonlinear precoding technique can achieve maximum system performance by canceling interferences.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Cirkic et al (US20180295630).
Regarding claim 4, the cited reference Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly teach the indication is an indication that a coverage-enhancing device is capable of reducing the interference.
In an analogous art Cirkic teaches the indication is an indication that a coverage-enhancing device is capable of reducing the interference (¶0088 discloses that interference suppression may also be transferred between the first network node 30 and the second network node 40 where ¶0090 discloses that the interference suppression may be enabled by indicating to the first UE 10 to suppress interference from the second UE 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Cirkic to improve interference situation in communication systems.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Cirkic disclose all limitations of claim 4.Cirkic further discloses configuring the coverage enhancing device (¶0130 discloses that the network device 100 may be configured to enable interference suppression by indicating to the first UE 10 to suppress interference from the second UE 20).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Cirkic disclose all limitations of claim 5.Cirkic further discloses configuring the coverage enhancing device comprises transmitting to the coverage-enhancing device, control signalling indicative of a measurement report (¶0021 discloses that receiving a report including measurement information representing so-called UE-to-UE interference between a first UE and a second UE to enable … interference suppression in the cellular communication system).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen and Cirkic disclose all limitations of claim 6.Cirkic further discloses transmitting to the network node, control signalling indicative of the measurement report (¶0055 anf Fig. 2 discloses that ND, 100 may be provided on the network side to enable to enable interference-aware configuration of at least one transmission and/or interference suppression based on the report and the enclosed measurement information).
PNG
media_image2.png
486
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 4. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Cirkic et al (US20180295630), in further view of Zhao et al (WO2020108367A1, US20230163816 is used to map the claim).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Cirkic discloses all limitations of claim 5. However, combination does not explicitly teach receiving, from the network node, a first reference signal intended for use by the first wireless device and a second reference signal that is intended for use by the second wireless device; and generating, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, the measurement report.
In an analogous art Zhao teaches receiving, from the network node, a first reference signal intended for use by the first wireless device and a second reference signal that is intended for useby the second wireless device; and generating, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, the measurement report (¶0266 and ¶0304 discloses that the base station may transmit one or more non-linear precoding terminal device groups reference signals precoded by using corresponding long-term precoding matrices and perform estimation based on the feedback. For example, the base station may estimate interference channel for each of the one or more nonlinear precoding terminal device groups based on the feedback from the terminal devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Zhao to improve interference situation in communication systems by estimate the instantaneous channel state information for each terminal device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Cirkic et al (US20180295630), in further view of KAPETANOVIC (US20190149391).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Cirkic discloses all limitations of claim 4. However, combination does not explicitly teach receiving, from the network node, a signal, wherein the received signal is free from inter-user interference thanks to an interference cancelling signal from the coverage enhancing device.
In an analogous art KAPETANOVIC teaches receiving, from the network node, a signal, wherein the received signal is free from inter-user interference thanks to an interference cancelling signal from the coverage enhancing device (¶0005 discloses that the signal received at each wireless device in the first plurality of wireless devices is substantially free of inter-user interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of KAPETANOVIC to improve interference situation in communication systems.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Cirkic et al (US20180295630), in further view of KAPETANOVIC (US20190149391), in further view of Yamamoto (DE4021136).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen, Cirkic, and KAPETANOVIC discloses all limitations of claim 9. However, combination does not explicitly teach the signal is a narrowband signal.
In an analogous art Yamamoto teaches the signal is a narrowband signal (Yamamoto discloses that the interference-free signal transmission because of a narrowband signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Yamamoto because narrowband signals lower the chance of signal overlap and interference by occupying only a small.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Cirkic et al (US20180295630), in further view of Bai et al (US20230328562).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen and Cirkic discloses all limitations of claim 4. However, combination does not explicitly teach the control signalling is indicative of an angle of spatial direction of the coverage enhancing device from the first wireless device or wherein the control signalling is indicative of a beam identifier and/or an antenna panel identifier.
In an analogous art Bai teaches the control signalling is indicative of an angle of spatial direction of the coverage enhancing device from the first wireless device or wherein the control signalling is indicative of a beam identifier and/or an antenna panel identifier (¶0032 discloses transmitting, via the control signaling, an indication of …a set of antenna panel identifiers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Bai where is used to obtain optimal signal strength and direction to improve interference situation in communication systems.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Cirkic discloses all limitations of claim 6. However, combination does not explicitly teach the control signalling is indicative of one or more inter-user interference parameters.
In an analogous art Bai teaches the control signalling is indicative of one or more inter-user interference parameters (¶0120 discloses that first control signaling 230-a may indicate any number of parameters or characteristics for measuring CLI 215 at the first UE 115-a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Bai to perform interference measurements based on parameters or other indicators received via the first control signaling
to improve efficiency and reliability of wireless communications systems.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Qiu et al (US20240187120).
Regarding claim 13, the cited reference Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly teach the indication is an indication that the wireless device is capable of reducing the interference.
In an analogous art Qiu teaches the indication is an indication that the wireless device is capable of reducing the interference (¶0048 discloses transmitting first information indicating an interference cancellation capability of the terminal to a base station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Qiu to support advanced network technologies and improve interference situation in communication systems.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 13. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 13.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US20230276426), in view of Rizwan et al (“On Managing Interferences under Heterogeneous CSIT Feedback for Multi-User Transmission” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2013).
Regarding claim 15, the cited reference Chen discloses all limitations of claim 14. However, Chen does not explicitly teach generating a first signal intended for the first wireless device; generating a second signal intended for the second wireless device, where generating the second signal comprises applying matched filter precoding; and transmitting to the first wireless device and the second wireless device, a combination of the first signal and the second signal.
In an analogous art Rizwan teaches generating a first signal intended for the first wireless device; generating a second signal intended for the second wireless device, where generating the second signal comprises applying matched filter precoding; and transmitting to the first wireless device and the second wireless device, a combination of the first signal and the second signal (cf. page 4, left and right column, "For multi-user transmission mode, the eNodeB selects the precoding matrix to induce high orthogonality between the codewords so that the interference between UEs is minimized [ ... ] Each UE feeds back the PMI of the precoder which maximizes its received signal strength, i.e., the precoder which is at the minimum chordal distance from its matched filter precoder. We modify the transmission strategy under this scenario such that the eNodeB selects the precoder for UE-1 as per the received feedback of PMI; while for UE- 2, the eNodeB selects the precoder which is 180 out of phase of the precoder of UE-1. This strategy ensures the maximization of desired signal strength and minimization of interference strength at UE-1 subject to the constraint of the employment of L TE precoders at the BS". cf. page 1, abstract and right column, "Multi-user transmission, enabled through spatial multiplexing, is a promising technique in wireless systems by sending information to more than one user on a common resource block. "; and "the pool of users to which a BS will be transmitting data simultaneously on common time-frequency resources ", and cf. page 7, left column, "The system consists of dual-antenna BS transmitting data to two UEs, where the CSIT for UE- 1 is available at the BS while no channel information about UE-2 is available. The proposed transmission strategy has the precoding vectors for two UEs computed based only on the CSIT of UE-1. In other words, the precoder for UE-1 is the normalized matched filter to its channel while the precoder for UE-2 is chosen to lie in the null space of the channel to UE-1.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Rizwan to improve interference situation in communication systems.
Regarding claims 16-18, the combination of Chen and Rizwan discloses all limitations of
claim 15. Rizwan further discloses the combination of the first signal and the second signal is a sum of the first signal and the second signal (Claim 16), an interference caused by the first signal on the second signal is equal to zero or below a threshold (Claim 17), generating the first signal intended for the first wireless device comprises applying matched filter precoding (Claim 18) ((cf. page 1, abstract and right column, "Multi-user transmission, enabled through spatial multiplexing, is a promising technique in wireless systems by sending information to more than one user on a common resource block. "; and "the pool of users to which a BS will be transmitting data simultaneously on common time-frequency resources "), and (cf. page 7, left column, "The system consists of dual-antenna BS transmitting data to two UEs, where the CSIT for UE- 1 is available at the BS while no channel information about UE-2 is available. The proposed transmission strategy has the precoding vectors for two UEs computed based only on the CSIT of UE-1. In other words, the precoder for UE-1 is the normalized matched filter to its channel while the precoder for UE-2 is chosen to lie in the null space of the channel to UE-1. "), and(cf. page 4, left and right column, "For multi-user transmission mode, the eNodeB selects the precoding matrix to induce high orthogonality between the codewords so that the interference between UEs is minimized [ ... ] Each UE feeds back the PMI of the precoder which maximizes its received signal strength, i.e., the precoder which is at the minimum chordal distance from its matched filter precoder. We modify the transmission strategy under this scenario such that the eNodeB selects the precoder for UE-1 as per the received feedback of PMI; while for UE- 2, the eNodeB selects the precoder which is 180 out of phase of the precoder of UE-1. This strategy ensures the maximization of desired signal strength and minimization of interference strength at UE-1 subject to the constraint of the employment of L TE precoders at the BS"), (cf. page 1, abstract and right column, "Multi-user transmission, enabled through spatial multiplexing, is a promising technique in wireless systems by sending information to more than one user on a common resource block. "; and "the pool of users to which a BS will be transmitting data simultaneously on common time-frequency resources ")).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights