DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 02/04/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-20, and 28-29 were amended, and claims 1-30 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 19-27 remain interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as previously noted.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains an apparent typo (“determine the plurality of inter-component carrier term”). Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 24, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0305404 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of Oh et al. (US 2015/0373725 A1, hereinafter “Oh”).
As to Claims 1, 10, 19, and 28:
Li describes, in part of its disclosure, the process of measuring and compensating for self-interference.
Specifically, Li teaches:
One or more processors; and memory coupled with the one or more processors, with instructions stored in the memory, the instructions being executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus
Paragraph 0174 of Li describes a “computer program instructions may be stored in a computer-oriented or other programmable data processing device-oriented computer available or readable memory in order to implement functions” (Li, 0174).
Transmit, in accordance with a full-duplex operation mode at the wireless communications device, one or more first signals using a first plurality of time resources
Fig. 27 in Li depicts a device that “can simultaneously perform data signal transmission and reception on the same time-frequency resource” in “full-duplex mode” (Li, 0542, 0600).
Receive, using a second plurality of time resources that at least partially overlap with the first plurality of time resources, a second signal associated with an interference value corresponding to the one or more first signals
Li describes “a reconstructed self-interference signal based on a local baseband signal” used to “obtain[] a signal after self-interference cancellation based on the reconstructed self-interference signal” (Li, 0115).
Decode the second signal based at least in part on cancelling the interference value in accordance with a nonlinear self-interference cancellation model
Li describes “a method for self-interference cancellation using a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network) for self-interference signal reconstruction” (Li, 0594).
A non-linear self-interference cancellation model
Li describes “a method for self-interference cancellation using a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network) for self-interference signal reconstruction” (Li, 0594).
Transmission of the one or more first signals
Li describes “data signal transmission” of multiple signals “in the full-duplex mode” (Li, 0542, 0600).
As part of the decoding ... terms are selected
Li describes “calculat[ing] the higher-order items of the time-domain signal” to “fully handle” “severe non-linear interference” (Li, 0549).
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Transmit ... one or more first signals ... via a plurality of component carriers
A ... cancellation model comprising one or more first inter-component carrier terms of a plurality of inter-component carrier terms
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms correspond to respective component carriers of the plurality of component carriers
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms are selected from the plurality of inter-component carrier terms based at least in part on one or more results of a comparison between each inter-component carrier term of the plurality of inter-component carrier terms and one or more threshold values and on transmission of the one or more first signals via the plurality of component carriers
However, Oh does describe a method for a base station to mitigate inter-component carrier interference when transmitting a signal.
Specifically, Oh teaches:
Transmit ... one or more first signals ... via a plurality of component carriers
Oh describes a “base station of a carrier aggregation system that aggregates and communicates with a plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0010).
Here, “communicates with a plurality of component carriers” maps to “transmit ... one or more first signals ... via a plurality of component carriers”.
A ... cancellation model comprising one or more first inter-component carrier terms of a plurality of inter-component carrier terms
The base station in Oh includes a “interference control apparatus” which “performs interference control based on ... the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms correspond to respective component carriers of the plurality of component carriers
Oh describes comparing “interference ... of the first component carrier” to a “threshold value”, indicating that the magnitude of interference for each component carrier corresponds to the claimed “one or more first inter-component carrier terms” (Oh, 0010).
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms are selected from the plurality of inter-component carrier terms based at least in part on one or more results of a comparison between each inter-component carrier term of the plurality of inter-component carrier terms and one or more threshold values and on transmission of the one or more first signals via the plurality of component carriers
Oh teaches that “a plurality of component carriers ... are allocated to a terminal” and that “chang[ing] the first component carrier to an available new component carrier when interference of the first component carrier exceeds the threshold value” (Oh, 0021).
Here, “chang[ing] ... to an available new component carrier” corresponds to “the one or more first inter-component terms are selected from the plurality of inter-component carrier terms”,
“when interference of the first component carrier exceeds the threshold value” maps to “based at least in part on one or more results of a comparison between each inter-component carrier term of the plurality of inter-component carrier terms and one or more threshold values”, and
“a plurality of component carriers ... allocated to a terminal” maps to “transmission of the one or more first signals via the plurality of component carriers”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 10 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 19 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 using functional claim language.
Claim 28 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 while additionally requiring:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communication at a wireless communications device, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors
Paragraph 0174 of Li describes a “computer program instructions may be stored in a computer-oriented or other programmable data processing device-oriented computer available or readable memory in order to implement functions” (Li, 0174).
Claims 10, 19, and 28 contain alternate language requiring that:
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms are a subset of respective inter-component carrier terms
This, however, is merely a broader version of the limitation in Claim 1 which requires that “the one or more first inter-component carrier terms are selected from the plurality of inter-component carrier terms” which is similarly rendered obvious by paragraph 0021 of Oh.
As to Claims 2 and 11:
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Determine the plurality of inter-component carrier term, wherein each inter-component carrier term of the plurality of inter-component carrier terms corresponds to a respective component carrier of the plurality of component carriers
However, Oh does teach:
Determine the plurality of inter-component carrier term, wherein each inter-component carrier term of the plurality of inter-component carrier terms corresponds to a respective component carrier of the plurality of component carriers
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each of the “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “inter-component carrier term”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 11 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 4, 13, 22, and 30:
Li teaches:
Perform coefficient estimation to obtain the one or more first coefficients
Li describes “perform[ing] a Blind Interference Sensing (BIS) process” which would entail “coefficient estimation” (Li, 0213).
Generate, using the nonlinear self-interference cancellation model, a self-interference reconstruction based at least in part on the one or more first coefficients
Li teaches “decod[ing] a received signal from which an interference signal is subtracted” (Li, 0213).
Here, the “interference signal” corresponds to the “self-interference reconstruction based at least in part on the one or more first coefficients”.
Cancelling the interference value comprises subtracting the self-interference reconstruction from the second signal
Li teaches “decod[ing] a received signal from which an interference signal is subtracted” (Li, 0213).
Li does not explicitly disclose:
One or more first inter-component carrier terms
However, Oh does teach:
One or more first inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 13 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 4 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 22 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 4 using functional claim language.
Claim 30 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 4 but it depends on the apparatus described in Claim 28 instead of the one in Claim 1.
As to Claims 6, 15, and 24:
Li teaches:
Obtaining the one or more first ... terms based at least in part on performing channel estimation using the one or more first signals
Li describes “perform[ing] a Blind Interference Sensing (BIS) process” (Li, 0213). The “interference sensing” here is analogous to “channel estimation”.
Li does not explicitly disclose:
One or more first inter-component carrier terms
However, Oh does teach:
One or more first inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each of the “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “inter-component carrier term”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 15 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 6 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 24 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 6 using functional claim language.
As to Claims 8, 17, and 26:
Li teaches:
Perform ... self-interference cancellation for the one or more first signals using the one or more ... terms
(“[T]he present disclosure proposes a method for self-interference cancellation using a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network) for self-interference signal reconstruction” (Li, 0594).
Here, “self-interference cancellation” maps to “perform ... self-interference cancellation for the one or more first signals”, and
“a machine learning model” maps to “the one or more ... terms”).
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Each component carrier of the respective component carriers
Interference cancellation for the one or more first signals using the one or more first inter-component carrier terms
However, Oh does teach:
Each component carrier of the respective component carriers
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each of the “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “inter-component carrier term”.
Interference cancellation for the one or more first signals using the one or more first inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, “interference control” corresponds to “interference cancellation”, and
the measured “interference” for each of the “component carriers” corresponds to “the one or more first inter-component carrier terms”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 17 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 8 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 26 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 8 using functional claim language.
As to Claims 9, 18, and 27:
Li teaches:
The second signal
(“For example, in the full-duplex mode, the communication device 270 [in Fig. 27] can simultaneously perform data signal transmission and reception on the same time-frequency resource” (Li, 0600).
Here, “data signal ... reception” maps to “the second signal”).
Li does not explicitly disclose:
The ... signal is associated with one or more component carriers
However, Oh does teach:
The ... signal is associated with one or more component carriers
Oh describes a “base station of a carrier aggregation system that aggregates and communicates with a plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 18 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 9 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 27 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 9 using functional claim language.
As to Claims 20 and 29:
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Means for determining, for each component carrier of the plurality of component carriers, the respective inter-component carrier terms
However, Oh does teach:
Means for determining, for each component carrier of the plurality of component carriers, the respective inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes comparing “interference ... of the first component carrier” to a “threshold value” (Oh, 0010).
Here, the magnitude of interference for each component carrier corresponds to the claimed “inter-component carrier terms” (Oh, 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
Claim 29 describes the same subject matter as Claim 20 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0305404 A1) in view of Oh (US 2015/0373725 A1) and further in view of Cai et al. (US 2021/0258816 A1, hereinafter “Cai”).
As to Claims 3, 12, and 21:
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Determine a quantity of inter-component carrier terms ... for each component carrier of the plurality of component carriers
However, Oh does teach:
Determine a quantity of inter-component carrier terms ... for each component carrier of the plurality of component carriers
Oh describes a “interference” value for each of “the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the claimed “quantity” would be one because each component carrier corresponds to a single interference term.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
The combination of Li, and Oh also does not explicitly disclose:
Determine ... terms to select based at least in part on an intermodulation distortion (IMD)-to-noise ratio
However, Cai does describe a method to cancel self-interference.
Specifically, Cai teaches:
Determine ... terms to select based at least in part on an intermodulation distortion (IMD)-to-noise ratio
Cai states that “[t]o improve the SNR, self-interference noise generated by the
f
2
frequency carrier needs to be cancelled” and that “[t]he first device reconstructs self-interference noise based on the first transmit signal and a second interference cancellation error reference value, to obtain a cancellation signal of the self-interference noise” (Cai, 0156).
Here, “obtain a cancellation signal” maps to “determine ... terms to select”, and
“to improve the SNR” maps to “based at least in part on an intermodulation distortion (IMD)-to-noise ratio” because SNR is analogous to the claimed IMD to noise ratio.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cai’s practice of using SNR to determine if noise cancellation needs to be performed into Li’s method for cancelling self-interference. It is well known in the field that noise below a given threshold will not impact the quality of a received signal, making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid correcting signals with low levels of distortion.
Claim 12 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 21 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 using functional claim language.
Claim(s) 5, 14, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0305404 A1) in view of Oh (US 2015/0373725 A1) and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2019/0081767 A1, hereinafter “Luo”).
As to Claims 5, 14, and 23:
Li teaches:
The one or more ... terms are stored at a buffer of the wireless communications device
Li states that “the time domain signal firstly passes through the buffer” before reaching “the neural network at the receiving end” (Li, 0527).
Receive, at the buffer of the wireless communications device ... information corresponding to one or more ... terms
Li states that “the time domain signal firstly passes through the buffer” before reaching “the neural network at the receiving end” (Li, 0527).
Perform the coefficient estimation to obtain one or more second coefficients for the one or more ... terms
Li describes “perform[ing] a Blind Interference Sensing (BIS) process” which would entail “coefficient estimation” (Li, 0213).
The wireless communications device cancels the interference value in accordance with the one or more second coefficients
Li describes “self-interference cancellation using a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network) for self-interference signal reconstruction” (Li, 0594).
Li does not explicitly disclose:
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms
Information corresponding to one or more inter-component carrier terms
The one or more second inter-component carrier terms
However, Oh does teach:
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “one or more inter-component carrier terms”.
Information corresponding to one or more inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “information corresponding to one or more inter-component carrier terms”.
The one or more second inter-component carrier terms
Oh describes “perform[ing] interference control” when “interference exceeds a threshold value among the plurality of component carriers” (Oh, 0021).
Here, the “interference” for each “component carriers” corresponds to the claimed “the one or more second inter-component carrier terms”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
The combination of Li and Oh also does not explicitly disclose:
Receive ... based at least in part on a timer expiring, information corresponding to one or more ... terms
However, Luo does describe a method for cancelling self-interference in full duplex communications.
Specifically, Luo teaches:
Receive ... based at least in part on a timer expiring, information corresponding to one or more ... terms
Specifically, Luo teaches:
Receive ... based at least in part on a timer expiring, information corresponding to one or more ... terms
Li describes sending “a first message on a carrier during a first time period” and that a “self-interference noise signal” is “generat[ed] ... based at least in part on the first message” (Luo, 0059, 0061).
Here, “during a first time period” maps to “based at least in part on a timer expiring”, and
“a self-interference noise signal” maps to “one or more ... terms”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the time limit for measuring interference information described in Luo into Li’s method for cancelling self-interference. Any practical application of Li’s method will be subject to time constraints, making it obvious to incorporate a timer into the algorithm.
Claim 14 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 5 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 23 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 5 using functional claim language.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0305404 A1) in view of Oh (US 2015/0373725 A1) and further in view of Khosravirad et al. (US 2024/0080776 A1, hereinafter “Khosravirad”).
As to Claims 7, 16, and 25:
Li does not explicitly disclose:
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms ... corresponding to the respective component carriers
However, Oh does teach:
The one or more first inter-component carrier terms ... corresponding to the respective component carriers
Oh describes comparing “interference ... of the first component carrier” to a “threshold value”, indicating that the magnitude of interference for each component carrier corresponds to the claimed “one or more first inter-component carrier terms” (Oh, 0010).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Oh’s method to cancel interference for each component carrier during the signal decoding phase of Li’s method to cancel non-linear self-interference. Oh’s interference mitigation method can “reduc[e] interference when interference is not solved with only application of an ABS [almost blank subframe] pattern” or the methods already implemented in Li (Oh, 0009).
The combination of Li and Oh also does not explicitly disclose:
The one or more first ... terms comprise one or more intermodulation distortion (IMD) values corresponding to the respective component carriers, a gain corresponding to the respective component carriers, one or more delay values corresponding to the respective component carriers, or any combination thereof
However, from this list, Khosravirad at least teaches:
The one or more ... terms comprise ... a gain
Li describes a method for “determining if the self-interference power value is above a predetermined threshold”
The apparatus may further comprise a means for determining if the self-interference power value is above a predetermined threshold and wherein the modifying means is configured to reduce the gain if the self-interference power value is above the predetermined threshold and to increase the gain if the self-interference power value is below the predetermined threshold” (Khosravirad, 0005).
Here, “the self-interference power value” maps to “the one or more ... terms comprise ... a gain”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kosravirad’s method of comparing measured self-interference to a threshold into Li’s method for cancelling self-interference. Kosravirad’s practice of accounting only for significant self-interference obviously benefits a method like Li’s by allowing insignificant self-interference to be ignored.
Claim 16 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 7 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 25 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 7 using functional claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights