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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/08/2024.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claims 4-10, 12-18, 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1-3, 11, 19-25, 28-30 are rejected.
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.
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 1-3, 11, 19-25, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ABDELRAHMAN Ibrahim et al (WO 2022020834 A1) in view of Ruifeng Ma et al (US 20230070642 A1).
For Claim 1, Ibrahim discloses a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0006, a method of wireless communication performed by a full-duplex user equipment (UE)), comprising: transmitting a message indicating a capability of the UE to support simultaneous uplink transmissions and cross-link interference measurements on respective resources while operating in a full-duplex communication mode (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0046, Page 20, transmitting signaling indicating at least a full-duplex capability, a capability for performing the cross-link interference measurement and the selfinterference measurement concurrently); and performing a cross-link interference measurement or an uplink transmission, or both, in accordance with the capability, wherein the cross-link interference measurement occurs during a first resource and the uplink transmission occurs during a second resource (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0050, Page 21, that the BS may receive, based at least in part on configuring the communication resources, reporting of at least one of a self-interference measurement or a cross-link interference measurement performed concurrently by a UE, of the set of UEs, in a particular symbol).
Ibrahim fails to expressly disclose a second resource that at least partially overlaps in a time domain with the first resource.
However, Ma, in the analogous art, discloses a second resource that at least partially overlaps in a time domain with the first resource (Ma teaches, in ¶ 0030, receiving control signaling indicating a resource for measuring cross link interference, determining that the indicated resource overlaps with a symbol of a slot of the one or more slots, where the symbol includes an uplink symbol or a flexible symbol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Ibrahim with the resource overlap taught in Ma. The motivation is so that the UE may determine, according to the resource overlapping with the set of symbols or the transmission occasion, whether to measure CLI over the resource [Ma: ¶ 0004].
For Claim 2, Ibrahim discloses a method, further comprising: receiving a resource allocation for a plurality of resources including the first resource, the plurality of resources being associated with intra-cell cross-link interference measurements (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0013, Page 14, that the BS and/or UE may experience cross-link interference (CLI) as a result of transmissions by another BS and/or UE interfering with reception by the BS and/or the UE. Such interference may be intra-cell (e.g., a first UE may experience CLI as a result of transmissions by a second UE within the same cell as the first UE) or inter-cell (e.g., a first UE in a first cell may experience interference as a result of transmissions by a second UE in a second cell)), wherein the resource allocation is based at least in part on the capability comprising a capability of the UE to support simultaneous intra-cell cross-link interference measurements and uplink transmissions (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0046, transmitting signaling indicating at least a full-duplex capability, a capability for performing the cross-link interference measurement and the selfinterference measurement concurrently).
For Claim 3, Ibrahim discloses a method, wherein performing the cross-link interference measurement or the uplink transmission, or both, comprises: performing an intra-cell cross-link interference measurement during the first resource and the uplink transmission during the second resource based at least in part on the capability (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0050, Page 21, that the BS may receive, based at least in part on configuring the communication resources, reporting of at least one of a self-interference measurement or a cross-link interference measurement performed concurrently by a UE, of the set of UEs, in a particular symbol).
For Claim 11, Ibrahim discloses a method, further comprising: receiving a resource allocation for a plurality of resources, the plurality of resources comprising a first subset of resources associated with intra-cell cross-link interference measurements and a second subset of resources associated with inter-cell cross-link interference measurements (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0013, Page 14, that the BS and/or UE may experience cross-link interference (CLI) as a result of transmissions by another BS and/or UE interfering with reception by the BS and/or the UE. Such interference may be intra-cell (e.g., a first UE may experience CLI as a result of transmissions by a second UE within the same cell as the first UE) or inter-cell (e.g., a first UE in a first cell may experience interference as a result of transmissions by a second UE in a second cell)).
For Claims 19-20, Ibrahim discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of refraining from preforming the cross-link interference measurement during the first resource in accordance with the capability.
However, Ma, in the analogous art, discloses a second resource that at least partially overlaps in a time domain with the first resource (Ma teaches, in ¶ 0031, refrain from measuring the cross link interference over the indicated resource based on the symbol overlapping with the indicated resource including the uplink symbol or the flexible symbol, and communicate based on refraining from measuring the cross link interference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Ibrahim with the resource overlap taught in Ma. The motivation is so that the UE may determine, according to the resource overlapping with the set of symbols or the transmission occasion, whether to measure CLI over the resource [Ma: ¶ 0004].
For Claim 21, Ibrahim discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the message indicating the capability is different from another message comprising an indication of a capability of the UE to support the full-duplex communication mode.
However, Ma, in the analogous art, discloses that the message indicating the capability is different from another message comprising an indication of a capability of the UE to support the full-duplex communication mode (Ma teaches, in ¶ 0013, receiving dynamic control signaling indicating that the symbol includes the flexible symbol, where measuring the cross link interference over the resource may be based on the dynamic control signaling. Ma teaches, in ¶ 0014, receiving semi-static control signaling indicating that the symbol includes the flexible symbol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Ibrahim with the resource overlap taught in Ma. The motivation is so that the UE may determine, according to the resource overlapping with the set of symbols or the transmission occasion, whether to measure CLI over the resource [Ma: ¶ 0004].
For Claim 22, Ibrahim discloses a method, wherein the message indicating the capability further includes an indication of a capability of the UE to support the full- duplex communication mode (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0046, Page 20, transmitting signaling indicating at least a full-duplex capability, a capability for performing the cross-link interference measurement and the selfinterference measurement concurrently).
For Claim 23, Ibrahim discloses a method, wherein the capability of the UE to support the simultaneous uplink transmissions and the cross-link interference measurements is based at least in part on the UE supporting the full-duplex communication mode (Ibrahim teaches, in ¶ 0046, Page 20, transmitting signaling indicating at least a full-duplex capability, a capability for performing the cross-link interference measurement and the selfinterference measurement concurrently).
For Claim 24, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 25, please refer to the rejection of Claim 2, above.
For Claim 28, please refer to the rejection of Claim 11, above.
For Claims 29-30, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12-18, 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ghozlan et al (US 11855763 B2) teaches a first access node for implementing a cross-link interference (CLI) information exchange procedure in a wireless communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)2705629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at (571)2707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights