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 Arguments/Amendment
1. Applicant's arguments/amendments received on November 05, 2025 have been carefully considered but they are not persuasive because the teaching of the cited references read on the rejected claims (claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-27) as set forth in the previous rejection. Therefore, the finality of this Office Action is deemed proper.
Contrary to the assertions at pages 10 - 12 of the Arguments, the independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are not patentable.
During examination, the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Re claim 1: Applicant argues the combined XU et al. (US 2014/0018119) and Zhao et al. (US 2015/0289210) do not teach the claimed limitation “causing, based on the interference source, adjustment of at least one characteristic of a user device to mitigate interference associated with the interference source”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the combination of XU and Zhao do not teach the claimed invention. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, XU teaches that a terminal for acquiring measurement information, and reduce the information amount of the register information carried by the HNB during a registration, the measurement information generally may be set as a subset of the register information, for example, when the register information includes the transmit power of the HNB, the signal quality, the measurement information to be reported by the terminal may include the PSC of the HNB and the signal quality, therefore it could reduce the interference, and after adjusting the power of the interference source HNB, the method for interference management may further include: after determining that the terminal leaves the interference source HNB, notifying the interference source HNB to recover the power the interference management is performed necessarily with a cell identity of the interference source HNB obtained by the terminal, and the interference management to the HNB can be performed timely and effectively and the interference experienced by the terminal from the HNB is reduced (see pages 4, paragraphs 60 – 62, Fig. 1, 3, pages 4, paragraphs 78 – pages 5, paragraphs 85, pages 6, paragraphs 118 – 119, and pages 7, paragraphs 130), regarding claimed limitation. Furthermore, Zhao teaches, where teaches enabling a target base station to obtain stable received signal strength by dynamically adjusting the transmission power of a mobile terminal according to an instruction of the base station for the terminal, and at the same time, reducing interferences to the common frequency and adjacent frequencies and degrading the power consumption of the mobile terminal (see Fig. 2, 3 and pages 6, paragraphs 94 – 104), regarding claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the XU’s system performance as taught by Zhao, provide the motivation to achieve reducing the interference by efficient controlling transmission power with management of interference for the mobile terminal in order to greater improvement to the communication and system performance.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, XU reference teaches apparatus and system for interference management in wireless communication system, more specifically, node or base station for managing interference or noise according to received information from the mobile terminal, and Zhao reference also teaches a communication network or base station to obtain optimal mobile terminal transmission power expression, and the base station for dynamically adjusting the uplink transmission power and reduce the interference or managing interference for excellent system performance of communication network.
In Addition:
The claimed limitation “adjustment of at least one characteristic” is not require or limit for any special meaning or functioning for the this claimed invention. Specially, the limitation “one characteristic” could be anything, such as power, location, and so on.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection below for the reasons as to why this limitation is not patentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al. (US 2014/0018119) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0289210).
Regarding claim 1, XU teaches that receiving, by a computing device, interference data associated with an interference source (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, Fig. 3, and pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, where teaches receiving measurement information that including measured pathloss information, location information, signal quality, interference data, by terminal device). XU teaches that determining, based on the interference data, an interference source (abstract, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, Fig. 3, and pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, where teaches determining interference source according to measurement information that including measured pathloss information, location information, signal quality, and interference data). XU teaches that causing, based on the interference source, adjustment of at least one characteristic of a user device to mitigate interference associated with the interference source (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53, where teaches the terminal for acquiring measurement information, and reduce the information amount of the register information carried by the HNB during a registration, the measurement information generally may be set as a subset of the register information, for example, when the register information includes the transmit power of the HNB, the signal quality, the measurement information to be reported by the terminal may include the PSC of the HNB and the signal quality, therefore it could reduce the interference). XU does not exactly or specifically disclose the limitation “causing, based on the interference source, adjustment of at least one characteristic of a user device to mitigate interference associated with the interference source”. However, Zhao teaches the limitation “causing, based on the interference source, adjustment of at least one characteristic of a user device to mitigate interference associated with the interference source” (Fig. 2, 3 and pages 6, paragraphs 94 – 104, where teaches enabling a target base station to obtain stable received signal strength by dynamically adjusting the transmission power of a mobile terminal according to an instruction of the base station for the terminal, and at the same time, reducing interferences to the common frequency and adjacent frequencies and degrading the power consumption of the mobile terminal). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the XU’s system performance as taught by Zhao, provide the motivation to achieve reducing the interference by efficient controlling transmission power with management of interference for the mobile terminal in order to greater improvement to the communication and system performance.
Regarding claim 2, XU teaches that the interference data comprises at least one of: radio interference data, microwave interference data, infrared interference data, visible light interference data, ultraviolet interference data, X-ray interference data, weather, or any combination thereof (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 3, XU teaches that determining the interference source comprises: determining, based on the interference data, a location of an interference pattern (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53), and determining, based on the location of the interference pattern, the interference source (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 5, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, XU further teaches that causing the adjustment of the at least one characteristic comprises causing at least one of: a change to a position, a change to a frequency, a change to a network channel, a change to a power level, a change to a beacon, a change to a trigger, a change to a schedule, or a change to a performance level of the user device (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53), in addition, Zhao also teaches the limitation (see Fig. 2, 3 and pages 6, paragraphs 94 – 104).
Regarding claim 6, XU teaches that determining the interference source is an uncontrollable interference source (pages 3, paragraphs 49 – 51, Fig. 1, 3, and pages 5, paragraphs 99 – 101).
Regarding claim 8, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, XU further teaches that an apparatus comprising one or more processors, and memory storing processor-executable instructions (Fig. 4, 5, and pages 11, paragraphs 210).
Regarding claim 9, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 10, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 12, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 13, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 15, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 16, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 17, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 19, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 20, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 22, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, XU further teaches that configured to receive an indication of the adjustment of the at least one characteristic of the user device (pages 6, paragraphs 109 – pages 7, paragraphs 128, Fig. 3, page 1, paragraphs 8 – 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 28 – pages 3, paragraphs 53, where teaches adjusting the power of interference source based on determined interference source, so as to reduce the interference). XU does not exactly or specifically disclose the limitation “configured to receive an indication of the adjustment of the at least one characteristic of the user device”. However, Zhao teaches the limitation “configured to receive an indication of the adjustment of the at least one characteristic of the user device” (Fig. 2, 3 and pages 6, paragraphs 94 – 104, where teaches enabling a target base station to obtain stable received signal strength by dynamically adjusting the transmission power of a mobile terminal according to an instruction of the base station for the terminal, and at the same time, reducing interferences to the common frequency and adjacent frequencies and degrading the power consumption of the mobile terminal). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the XU’s system performance as taught by Zhao, provide the motivation to achieve reducing the interference by efficient controlling transmission power at mobile terminal in order to greater improvement to the communication performance.
Regarding claim 23, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 24, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 26, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 27, XU and Zhao teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, and 28 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “determining, based on the interference data, a frequency of an interference pattern for the interference source, wherein causing the adjustment of the at least one characteristic comprises causing, based on the frequency of the interference pattern, a network channel change at the user device” as specified the claims.
5. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
February 6, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649