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 .
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)(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 1-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-19, 21-22, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. 2022/0386292 to Hajri et al. (hereinafter Hajri).
In regard claim 1, Hajri teaches or discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see Figs. 1 and 7), comprising:
one or more memories (see Fig. 7); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to (see Fig. 7, paragraph [0086]):
detect that an interference prediction event that indicates to generate an interference prediction for a future air interface resource has occurred (see paragraphs [0069], and [0070], the UE receives a radio resource control configuration including at least one CSI reporting configuration for which prediction is configured/enabled and multiple prediction windows for one or multiple CSI quantities. At 304, the UE receives downlink control information triggering CSI reporting containing, at least, one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured. At 310, for CSI quantities for which CSI prediction is enabled/ configured, the UE selects one or multiple prediction windows, based on its channel state and/or position and/or velocity and/or a network/UE/specification-defined prediction performance metric. The prediction window where the UE receives DCI triggering CSI reporting (408), the prediction windows where the UE receives downlink reference signals for a channel and/or interference measurement (406), and the prediction window where the UE transmits a CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports (410)); and
transmit, based at least in part on detecting that the interference prediction event has occurred, an event-triggered interference prediction report that includes the interference prediction (see paragraphs [0069], and [0071], the UE transmits triggered CSI report(s) in uplink control information. At 512, the UE transmits one triggered CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports in uplink control information. As further indicated at 512, the UE feeds back one or multiple prediction window shift indicators and, for CSI quantities for which prediction is enabled/activated, either a model valid for the shifted prediction window or multiple quantized values of the CSI quantity spanning the shifted prediction window).
In regard claims 2, 10, 18, and 26, Hajri teaches or discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interference prediction event comprises at least one of:
a measurement metric satisfying a first trigger threshold (see paragraph [0071], at 506, the UE receives downlink reference signals for channel and/or interference measurements. At 508, the UE computes CSI quantity values and/or CSI quantity prediction models, based on downlink reference measurements, the CSI reporting configuration and the configured prediction window),
a first interference metric generated using a non-serving beam of the UE being lower than a second interference metric generated using a serving beam of the UE,
a first signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) metric generated using the non-serving beam of the UE being higher than a second SINR metric generated using the serving beam of the UE, or
an interference variation between at least two air interface resources satisfying a second trigger threshold.
In regard claims 3, 12, 19, and 27, Hajri teaches or discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive, prior to detecting the interference prediction event, information that configures the UE to monitor for the interference prediction event (see paragraphs [0003], and [0057], receive a channel state information report in uplink control information, based on a determination related to the at least one channel state information quantity or at least one channel state information prediction model, the determination having been performed with use of the at least one prediction window. The UE receives a radio resource control configuration including at least one CSI reporting configuration for which prediction is configured/enabled. At 204, the UE receives downlink control information indicating a prediction window and triggering CSI reporting containing at least one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured).
In regard claims 5, 13, 21, and 28, Hajri teaches or discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
update, based at least in part on detecting that the interference prediction event has occurred, a machine learning model using an interference prediction configuration, the machine learning model being trained to predict interference (see paragraphs [0029], [0035], [0083], and [0160], CSI prediction may be performed at the UE side using any of the suitable algorithms, which may be machine learning algorithms or simple filtering or interpolation operations. As UE hardware capabilities are ever increasing, it becomes possible to envisage using powerful machine learning algorithms that can achieve good prediction performance for CSI in future time instances).
In regard claims 6, 14, 22, and 29, Hajri teaches or discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the interference prediction configuration comprises at least one of:
an interference prediction time window (see paragraphs [0049], and [0057], at 204, the UE receives downlink control information indicating a prediction window and triggering CSI reporting containing at least one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured),
an interference prediction sampling rate,
an interference prediction resource resolution,
an interference prediction beam configuration,
an interference prediction pattern configuration,
an interference prediction bandwidth resolution, a number of sub-band interference predictions,
a prediction metric type,
an interference autocorrelation matrix prediction resolution, or
an interference prediction algorithm type.
In regard claim 9, Hajri teaches or discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
one or more memories (see Fig. 7); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the network node to (see Fig. 7, paragraph [0086]):
receive an event-triggered interference prediction report that includes an interference prediction generated by a user equipment (UE), the event-triggered interference prediction report being associated with an interference prediction event (see paragraphs [0069], and [0070], the UE receives a radio resource control configuration including at least one CSI reporting configuration for which prediction is configured/enabled and multiple prediction windows for one or multiple CSI quantities. At 304, the UE receives downlink control information triggering CSI reporting containing, at least, one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured. At 310, for CSI quantities for which CSI prediction is enabled/ configured, the UE selects one or multiple prediction windows, based on its channel state and/or position and/or velocity and/or a network/UE/specification-defined prediction performance metric. The prediction window where the UE receives DCI triggering CSI reporting (408), the prediction windows where the UE receives downlink reference signals for a channel and/or interference measurement (406), and the prediction window where the UE transmits a CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports (410)); and
transmit an air interface resource allocation that is assigned to the UE, the air interface resource allocation being configured to mitigate interference that is indicated by the interference prediction (see paragraphs [0069], and [0071], the UE transmits triggered CSI report(s) in uplink control information. At 512, the UE transmits one triggered CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports in uplink control information. As further indicated at 512, the UE feeds back one or multiple prediction window shift indicators and, for CSI quantities for which prediction is enabled/activated, either a model valid for the shifted prediction window or multiple quantized values of the CSI quantity spanning the shifted prediction window).
In regard claim 17, Hajri teaches or discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
detecting that an interference prediction event that indicates to generate an interference prediction for a future air interface resource has occurred (see paragraphs [0069], and [0070], the UE receives a radio resource control configuration including at least one CSI reporting configuration for which prediction is configured/enabled and multiple prediction windows for one or multiple CSI quantities. At 304, the UE receives downlink control information triggering CSI reporting containing, at least, one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured. At 310, for CSI quantities for which CSI prediction is enabled/ configured, the UE selects one or multiple prediction windows, based on its channel state and/or position and/or velocity and/or a network/UE/specification-defined prediction performance metric. The prediction window where the UE receives DCI triggering CSI reporting (408), the prediction windows where the UE receives downlink reference signals for a channel and/or interference measurement (406), and the prediction window where the UE transmits a CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports (410)); and
transmitting, based at least in part on detecting that the interference prediction event has occurred, an event-triggered interference prediction report that includes the interference prediction (see paragraphs [0069], and [0071], the UE transmits triggered CSI report(s) in uplink control information. At 512, the UE transmits one triggered CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports in uplink control information. As further indicated at 512, the UE feeds back one or multiple prediction window shift indicators and, for CSI quantities for which prediction is enabled/activated, either a model valid for the shifted prediction window or multiple quantized values of the CSI quantity spanning the shifted prediction window).
In regard claim 25, Hajri teaches or discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a network node, comprising:
receiving an event-triggered interference prediction report that includes an interference prediction generated by a user equipment (UE), the event-triggered interference prediction report being associated with an interference prediction event (see paragraphs [0069], and [0070], the UE receives a radio resource control configuration including at least one CSI reporting configuration for which prediction is configured/enabled and multiple prediction windows for one or multiple CSI quantities. At 304, the UE receives downlink control information triggering CSI reporting containing, at least, one CSI quantity for which prediction is enabled/configured. At 310, for CSI quantities for which CSI prediction is enabled/ configured, the UE selects one or multiple prediction windows, based on its channel state and/or position and/or velocity and/or a network/UE/specification-defined prediction performance metric. The prediction window where the UE receives DCI triggering CSI reporting (408), the prediction windows where the UE receives downlink reference signals for a channel and/or interference measurement (406), and the prediction window where the UE transmits a CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports (410)); and
transmitting an air interface resource allocation that is assigned to the UE, the air interface resource allocation being configured to mitigate interference that is indicated by the interference prediction (see paragraphs [0069], and [0071], the UE transmits triggered CSI report(s) in uplink control information. At 512, the UE transmits one triggered CSI report or a plurality of CSI reports in uplink control information. As further indicated at 512, the UE feeds back one or multiple prediction window shift indicators and, for CSI quantities for which prediction is enabled/activated, either a model valid for the shifted prediction window or multiple quantized values of the CSI quantity spanning the shifted prediction window).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajri in view of US Pub. 2015/0257118 to Siomina et al. (hereinafter Siomina).
In regard claims 4, 11, and 20, Hajri teaches or discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interference prediction event is based at least in part on a statistical computation that uses multiple measurement metrics (see paragraph [0057], [0069], [0070], and [0071], a UE procedure 200 with a dynamically indicated prediction window. The UE feeds back either a model valid for the indicated prediction window or multiple quantized values of the CSI quantity spanning the indicated prediction window).
Hajri may not explicitly teach or disclose wherein the interference prediction event is based at least in part on a statistical computation.
However, Siomina teaches or discloses wherein the interference prediction event is based at least in part on a statistical computation (see paragraphs [0208], [0225], [0226], and [0229], the conditions may be "discovered" by the node based on baseband or RF measurements (e.g., received signal strength, noise rise due to interference, received signal to noise ratio, total interference and noise, amount of co-channel interference, amount of in-band or out-of-band interference, etc.). There may also be a reference/target false alarm defined, e.g., 1e-6. Calculated as a statistical measure comprising one or more values, e.g., a standard deviation, median, mean, Xth percentile, CDF, PDF, a characteristic function, histogram. The reference performance may be the performance in ideal or optimized conditions, performance with a reference RF configuration, performance at a reference time, performance in a reference condition (e.g., SNR or SINR at a certain level), performance prior an event (e.g., prior starting the measurement)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify apparatus for CSI prediction control of Hajri by including wherein the interference prediction event is based at least in part on a statistical computation suggested by Siomina. This modification would provide to permit an efficient adaptation of an RF receiver configuration in connection with measurements and other operations performed by an RF receiver read in paragraph [0006].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, 24, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIRIN SAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3082. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 10:30am - 5pm.
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, Ayaz R. Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272 - 3795. 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.
/PHIRIN SAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights