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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15; they are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patentable over claim 1 of US application 18/069,114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system in both has the same components:
In claims 1, 8 and 15: a “device”, “computer readable instruction to operate as a virtualized radio access network” correspond to “Radio equipment”, “computer readable instruction” of claim 1 for 18/069,114.
Claim 1 differs from claim 1 for 18/069,114 in that the interference classification is based on “inter-layer characteristics” instead of the “layer characteristics” recited in claim 1 for 18/069,114. However, Safavi et al. (US 2011/0021153 A1) hereinafter Safavi, teaches interference detection based on “inter-layer characteristics” (Safavi [0068]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboba et al. (US 20090124205 A1) hereinafter Aboba in view of Lu et al. (US 20210235278 A1) hereinafter Lu in further view of Safavi.
Regarding claim 1,
Aboba teaches a device comprising: memory having computer-readable instructions stored therein (communication device with memory [0034]; Figs. 1 and 4); and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to (communication device with processor [0023] and [0034]; Figs. 1 and 4): receive at least one interference signal via an antenna (communication device with reception antennas monitoring interference signals [0021]; element 420 of Fig. 4); classify the interference signal using one or more features in the signal received and one or more characteristics of a plurality of network layers of a modem of the device (categorizing interference based on signal characteristics [0021];[0027]-[0029]; Figs. 1, 2, and 4);
and determine an interference mitigation scheme for countering the interference signal based on classification of the interference signal (determining an adaptation mitigation based on interference characterization [0027]-[0029]; Figs. 2 and 3).
Aboba does not explicitly teach the one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to operate as a virtualized radio access network, and the one or more characteristics being inter-layer characteristics.
Lu teaches one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to operate as a virtualized radio access network (processors configured to operate as a VRAN node [0107]-[0110]; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Lu to the teachings of Aboba. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve resource efficiency (Lu [0006]).
Aboba and Lu do not explicitly teach the one or more characteristics being inter-layer characteristics.
Safavi teaches the one or more characteristics being inter-layer characteristics (interference detection based on signal interpretation and traffic patterns [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Safavi to the teachings of Aboba and Lu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for cross-layer interference mitigation strategies (Safavi [0011]).
Regarding claim 5,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba further teaches the interference mitigation scheme includes updating one or more modifying a utilized modulation and coding scheme or increasing a transmit power of the device (changing modulation and increasing power [0027]-[0029]; element 208 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba does not explicitly teach the device is configured to operate as a 5G virtualized radio access network.
Lu teaches the device is configured to operate as a 5G virtualized radio access network (processors configured to operate as a VRAN node with 5G support [0068] and [0107]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Lu to the teachings of Aboba. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve resource efficiency (Lu [0006]).
Claims 8, 12, and 14 “VRAN CRM” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1, 5, and 7 “VRAN method”, respectively.
Claims 15 and 19 “VRAN method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1 and 5 “VRAN method”, respectively.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboba and Lu and Safavi in further view of Monajemi et al. (US 20200322960 A1) hereinafter Monajemi.
Regarding claim 2,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba and Lu and Safavi do not explicitly teach the interference mitigation scheme includes switching operation of the device from an existing frequency band to a different frequency band.
Monajemi teaches the interference mitigation scheme includes switching operation of the device from an existing frequency band to a different frequency band (changing radio frequencies [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Monajemi to the teachings of Aboba and Lu and Safavi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce the effects of interference (Monajemi [0002]).
Regarding claim 6,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba and Lu and Safavi do not explicitly teach the interference mitigation scheme is determined using a trained neural network.
Monajemi teaches the interference mitigation scheme is determined using a trained neural network (a trained neural network is used to identify interference source device type which used by the ED-RRM decision module to reduce connection problems caused by interference [0018]-[0019] and [0027]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Monajemi to the teachings of Aboba and Lu and Safavi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would conserve network resources (Monajemi [0020]).
Claims 9 and 13 “VRAN CRM” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 2 and 6 “VRAN method”, respectively.
Claims 16 and 20 “VRAN method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 2 and 6 “VRAN method”, respectively.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboba and Lu and Safavi in further view of Essebbar (US 20120027142 A1) hereinafter Essebbar.
Regarding claim 3,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba and Lu and Safavi do not explicitly teach the interference mitigation scheme includes applying an updated signal processing function to signals received at the device.
Essebbar teaches the interference mitigation scheme includes applying an updated signal processing function to signals received at the device (generating a forced signal to accelerate convergence of an adaptive filter processing received signals upon detection of interference [0017]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Essebar to the teachings of Aboba and Lu and Safavi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve noise reduction from interference signals (Essebar [0008]-[0010] and [0016]).
Regarding claim 4,
Aboba and Lu and Safavi teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Aboba and Lu and Safavi do not explicitly teach the interference mitigation scheme includes applying an adaptive filter to signals received at the device.
Essebbar teaches the interference mitigation scheme includes applying an adaptive filter to signals received at the device (generating a forced signal to accelerate convergence of an adaptive filter processing received signals upon detection of interference [0017]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Essebar to the teachings of Aboba and Lu and Safavi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve noise reduction from interference signals (Essebar [0008]-[0010] and [0016]).
Claims 10 and 11 “VRAN CRM” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4 “VRAN method”, respectively.
Claims 17 and 18 “VRAN method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4 “VRAN method”, respectively.
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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465