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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach the newly added limitation of, wherein the detecting the silencing signal comprises receiving the silencing signal at each time occurrence of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Due to the broadness of the claim language, Examiner interpreted that the PUSCH is to be mapped on resource elements with the blank symbols which are then overridden to be null signals and therefore the detecting is made at each symbol of a PUSCH to determine the null signals, as disclosed by Nogami in (paragraph [0190] disclosing the use of NULL signals on PUSCH signals). Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that Nogami does disclose said argued limitation of wherein the detecting the silencing signal comprises receiving the silencing signal at each time occurrence of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Therefore, claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are still rejected a shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 24, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2016/0277986; hereinafter Moon) in view of Nogami et al. (US 2017/0325258; provisional date 5/9/2016; hereinafter Nogami).
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Moon discloses a method of wireless communication at a base station wireless communications device, the method comprising:
monitoring for a silencing signal on one or more resources of a licensed frequency band ([0011], Fig. 4, 5, ENB having inherent transceiver to send and receive silencing resource information and detecting said information to be acted upon), wherein the silencing signal indicates that the wireless communications device is to suspend communications in the licensed frequency band ([0076]-[0078]: resource silencing; [0159]-[0172]: dynamic silencing resource selection based on Table 4 when silencing of resources of nearby eNBs are needed);
detecting the silencing signal on at least a portion of a resource in the one or more resources based on the monitoring ([0011], Fig. 4, 5, ENB having inherent transceiver to send and receive silencing resource information and detecting said information to be acted upon); and
suspending transmission in the licensed frequency band based on the silencing signal ([0011]: does not perform downlink or uplink transmission during silencing resource period).
Moon discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of
wherein the detecting the silencing signal comprises receiving the silencing signal at each time occurrence of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
However, Nogami discloses wherein the detecting the silencing signal comprises receiving the silencing signal at each time occurrence of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (paragraph [0190] disclosing the use of NULL signals on PUSCH signals).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Nogami’s disclosure to offer more flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claims 20 and 29, Moon discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the suspending the transmission further comprises refraining from scheduling an uplink grant for uplink communication with a wireless device ([0011]: does not perform downlink or uplink transmission during silencing resource period).
Regarding claim 25, Moon discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the code causing the apparatus to detect the silencing signal further causes the apparatus to receive, from a wireless device, via the transceiver, on at least a portion of a resource in the one or more resources, the silencing signal ([0011], Fig. 4, 5, ENBs having inherent transceiver to send and receive silencing resource information and detecting said information to be acted upon).
Claim(s) 21-23, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Nogami in further view of Seo et al. (US 2013/0295949; hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Moon in view of Nogami discloses all the particulars of claims but is unclear about the method of claim 17, wherein the suspending the transmission comprises muting communication on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to a wireless device.
However, Seo does disclose the limitation of wherein the suspending the transmission comprises muting communication on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to a wireless device ([0116]: wherein the silencing resource is of a UL of PDSCH or PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Seo’s disclosure to reduce inter-cell interference.
Regarding claims 22 Moon in view of Nogami discloses all the particulars of claims but is unclear about the method of claim 17, wherein the suspending the transmission comprises refraining from transmitting data on one or more of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH).
However, Seo does disclose the limitation of wherein the suspending the transmission comprises refraining from transmitting data on one or more of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) ([0116]: wherein the silencing resource is of a UL of PDSCH or PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Seo’s disclosure to reduce inter-cell interference.
Regarding claims 23 and 28, Moon in view of Nogami discloses all the particulars of claims but is unclear about the method of claim 22, wherein the suspending the transmission comprises refraining from transmitting data on a plurality of occurrences of the PDCCH or the PDSCH following detection of the silencing signal.
However, Seo does disclose the limitation of wherein the suspending the transmission comprises refraining from transmitting data on a plurality of occurrences of the PDCCH or the PDSCH following detection of the silencing signal ([0116]: wherein the silencing resource is of a UL of PDSCH or PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Seo’s disclosure to reduce inter-cell interference.
Claim(s) 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Nogami in further view of Manssour et al. (US 2013/0142175; hereinafter Manssour).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Moon discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the detecting the silencing signal comprises receiving the silencing signal from a wireless device that intends to transition from an unlicensed frequency band associated with a first radio access technology (RAT) to the licensed frequency band associated with a second RAT (Moon: Fig. 5c, [0081]-[0084]: use of silencing signal for handover), but Moon in view of Nogami is silent on the feature wherein it is based on a synchronization at the wireless device between a first boundary of a first transmission time interval (TTI) associated with the first RAT aligning simultaneous in time with a second boundary of a second TTI associated with the second RAT.
However, Manssour does disclose said feature of being able to synchronize at the wireless device between a first boundary of a first transmission time interval (TTI) associated with the first RAT aligning simultaneous in time with a second boundary of a second TTI associated with the second RAT (Fig. 5, [0041]-[0045], [0050]-[0052], [0071]: time aligning uplink with downlink subframe between macros and micro cell, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Manssour’s disclosure to improve handover synchronization efficiency.
Claim(s) 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Nogami and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2017/0041954; hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claims 31 and 33, the method and apparatus further comprising resuming transmission in the licensed frequency band after a period of time from detecting the silencing signal ([0237]: use of a resume signal to come out of the silencing of one or more channels employing hold/silencing signals).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Tsai’s disclosure to further provide a return to normal communication service after a hold/silencing of channel resources.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, the method and apparatus further comprising:
receiving a resume signal in one or more resources of the licensed frequency band ([0237]: use of a resume signal to come out of the silencing of one or more channels employing hold/silencing signals); and
resuming transmission in the licensed frequency band based on receiving the resume signal ([0237]: use of a resume signal to come out of the silencing of one or more channels employing hold/silencing signals).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Tsai’s disclosure to further provide a return to normal communication service after a hold/silencing of channel resources.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights