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 .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on June 15, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 15,19, 27 and 29 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-21, 23-25, 27-30, 33 and 35-38 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the prior art rejection of independent claims 1, 19, 27 and 29 under 35 USC §103, as set forth in the previous Office Action, the claims amendment, and argument, see pages 10-13 in Remarks filed on June 15, 2026, have been fully considered, and the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the above prior art rejection of independent claims 1, 19, 27 and 29 under 35 USC §103, as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn. For the at least similar reasons described in claim 1 above, the prior art rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 11-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, 28, 30, 33, 35-38 as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn.
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, 19, 27 and 29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11984958 in view of reference Lee et al. (US 20210344558 A1, hereinafter Lee). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same subject matter and recite similar limitations, except explicitly teaching wherein “configuration information further indicates a transmission sequence for a signal used to obtain a self-interference measurement “, Lee teaches above feature in paragraph [0147-0148], disclose a gNB 102 can configure UE 116 to send UL RS at a panel with a UL beam and to measure the UL RS self-interference at another panel with a DL beam, and configure the UE 116 to report the corresponding self-interference in a subsequent UL transmission. The interval for subsequent UL transmission can be configured or fixed. Lee further disclose the gNB 102 can configure UE 116 to periodically send UL RS at a panel with a UL beam for a time period and to measure the self-interference by sweeping all of DL beams at the other panels one-by-one, configure UE to report all or part of the corresponding self-interferences in subsequent UL transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applied “configuration information further indicates a transmission sequence for a signal used to obtain a self-interference measurement” as taught by Lee, to the conflicting claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11984958, for the benefit of allowing UE to measure self-interference across different panels with different beams based on the flexible configuration.
Regarding claim 1, see the table below.
Application No. 17/907,436
U.S. Patent No. 11984958
Claims 1. A method of wireless communication performed by a node, comprising:
receiving configuration information that indicates a set of radio resources for self- interference measurement associated with a full-duplex communication mode,
the configuration information indicating a beamforming direction parameter for a signal used to obtain a self- interference measurement, the beamforming direction parameter comprising a transmission precoding matrix indicator value corresponding to a precoding codebook,
wherein the configuration information further indicates a transmission sequence for the signal;
and transmitting, in the set of radio resources and in accordance with the configuration information, the signal.
Claim 1. A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (U E), comprising:
receiving, from a base station, an uplink precoding matrix indicator for uplink transmissions of the UE wherein one or more of the uplink transmissions are to be transmitted concurrently with one or more downlink transmissions that are to be received at the UE on frequency resources that at least partially overlap with frequency resources for the uplink transmissions;
determining, based at least in part on the uplink precoding matrix indicator and measurements of a downlink reference signal received from the base station, a channel state information report that is based at least in part on a self-interference estimate of concurrent uplink and downlink transmissions according to the uplink precoding matrix indicator and on the measurements of the downlink reference signal;
and transmitting the channel state information report to the base station.
The similar rejection is also applied to claim 19, 27 and 29.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-21, 23-25, 27-30, 33 and 35-38 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is timely filed and approved by the office.
The closest prior art found by the Examiner is the previously cited references namely, (US 20170054544 A1) and (US 20210344558 A1) and (CN 104052529 B) and (US 20170033916 A1) and (US 20220216976 A1).
An updated search has been performed and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on the claims 1 as recited, i.e. “A method of wireless communication performed by a node, comprising: receiving configuration information that indicates a set of radio resources for self- interference measurement associated with a full-duplex communication mode, the configuration information indicating a beamforming direction parameter for a signal used to obtain a self- interference measurement, the beamforming direction parameter comprising a transmission precoding matrix indicator value corresponding to a precoding codebook, wherein the configuration information further indicates a transmission sequence for the signal; and transmitting, in the set of radio resources and in accordance with the configuration information, the signal.”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on 5712723980. 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.
/Y.Z./
Examiner, Art Unit 2472 /NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights