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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 2/26/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites continuing to report the CQI threshold value after the CQI threshold value is reached. It is unclear what is actually being reported here. First, the claim states “continuing to report” which implies there was some previous reporting occurring; however, there is no previous reporting of the CQI threshold. The CQI threshold is a value, that once reached with respect to back-off, causes something to occur. Thus it is unclear what is being claimed here by the continuing to report the CQI threshold value because 1) it’s not a value that was previously reported and 2) it’s a value that gets reached in the claim, not a value that is reported. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed with respect to the continuing to report the CQI threshold value after the CQI threshold is reached.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei et al. “Lei” US 2024/0324019.
Regarding claim 24, Lei teaches a user equipment (UE) (Figure 9) comprising:
radio frequency (RF) circuitry; and a processor coupled to the RF circuitry (Figure 9 shows processor, memory and other circuitry within a UE) and configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to cause the UE to:
determine that a first frequency band for transmitting sounding reference signals (SRS) is a potentially interfering band with respect to a second frequency band for receiving downlink (DL) data, wherein the first frequency is TDD and the second is FDD (a UE can operate using HD-FDD and TDD modes and can determine potential collisions (i.e. interfering bands) between SRS and downlink signals; Paragraphs 28-30 and 67. Because the UE is operating in FDD, the communications would be on bands (i.e. first and second bands));
in response to the determination, select an interference mitigation measure based on an operating mode of the UE and one or more UE parameters and perform the selected interference mitigation measure (collision handling rules for a UE are applied (i.e. selecting an interference mitigation measure) for a UE operating in HD-FDD mode (i.e. selection is based on an operating mode of the UE) which will reduce complexity and save power in the UE (i.e. UE parameter); Paragraph 30. Paragraph 33-35 disclose three different collision handling techniques the UE can implement. Priority based, certain transmissions always override others, etc. One example of the implementation is the UE transmits on the UL and skips the DL reception colliding with the UL transmission (i.e. performing mitigation measure); Paragraphs 33-35).
Regarding claim 25, Lei teaches UE capability information is provided indicating a first and second band impacts receiving quality wherein the determination the first band for SRS is a potentially interfering band with respect to the second band for receiving DL data is based on the UE capability information (in HD-FDD mode and based on priority class of RACH, transmission collision can happen (i.e. potential interference between UL/DL). The capability if the mode the user is in which is tied to the collisions, thus the potential interfering band is based on the UE capability); Paragraphs 33-35.
Regarding claim 26, Lei teaches determining the first and second frequency band are potentially interfering and the bands are part of an active band combination (a UE operates in a HD-FDD mode and can determine potential collisions (i.e. interfering bands) between SRS and downlink signals; Paragraphs 28 and 30. Because the UE is operating in FDD, the communications would be on bands (i.e. first and second bands). The UE transmits the SRS and receive DL signals; Paragraphs 33-35. Thus this combination of UL/DL signals which can collide are viewed as the active band combination).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Zhang et al. “Zhang” CN 117296292 (see attached translated CN document for citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Lei teaches a method baseband processor and a user equipment (UE) (Figure 9) comprising:
radio frequency (RF) circuitry; and a processor coupled to the RF circuitry (Figure 9 shows processor, memory and other circuitry within a UE) and configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to cause the UE to:
determine that a first frequency band for transmitting sounding reference signals (SRS) is a potentially interfering band with respect to a second frequency band for receiving downlink (DL) data (a UE operates in a HD-FDD mode and can determine potential collisions (i.e. interfering bands) between SRS and downlink signals; Paragraphs 28 and 30. Because the UE is operating in FDD, the communications would be on bands (i.e. first and second bands));
select an interference mitigation measure based on an operating mode of the UE and one or more UE parameters and perform the selected interference mitigation measure (collision handling rules for a UE are applied (i.e. selecting an interference mitigation measure) for a UE operating in HD-FDD mode (i.e. selection is based on an operating mode of the UE) which will reduce complexity and save power in the UE (i.e. UE parameter); Paragraph 30. Paragraph 33-35 disclose three different collision handling techniques the UE can implement. Priority based, certain transmissions always override others, etc. One example of the implementation is the UE transmits on the UL and skips the DL reception colliding with the UL transmission (i.e. performing mitigation measure); Paragraphs 33-35).
While Lei teaches the use of HD-FDD (i.e. operating mode) with respect to UL/DL, Lei does not expressly disclose the use of the HD-FDD mode is based on a detected ratio of the bandwidth between the UL/DL. Zhang teaches based on the size of the bandwidth between the UL and DL transmissions/reception, the terminal can determine to work in the HD-FDD mode; Page 8 second paragraph. Since Zhang processes/knows the UL/DL bandwidth (i.e. ratio) it reads on the claimed detection. Zhang further teaches total transmission bandwidth for HD-FDD mode vs FD-FDD mode differs (Page 5 paragraph 8). Thus the mode is tied to bandwidth of the UL/DL.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include making an operating mode selection based on the detected UL/DL bandwidth ratios as taught by Zhang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on the network signal quality, the UE can select which mode to work in for bandwidth maximization as taught by Zhang; Page 8 paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 2, Lei teaches UE capability information is provided indicating a first and second ban impacts receiving quality wherein the determination the first band for SRS is a potentially interfering band with respect to the second band for receiving DL data is based on the UE capability information (in HD-FDD mode and based on priority class of RACH, transmission collision can happen (i.e. potential interference between UL/DL). The capability if the mode the user is in which is tied to the collisions, thus the potential interfering band is based on the UE capability); Paragraphs 33-35.
Regarding claim 4, Lei teaches the ability to use URLLC (Paragraph 3) wherein the operating mode is based on a low energy spectral MCS (the HD-FDD mode is used with respect to an energy/spectral efficiency improvement; Paragraph 30. This is viewed as the low energy spectral MCS.
Regarding claim 5, While Lei teaches the use of HD-FDD (i.e. operating mode) with respect to UL/DL, Lei does not expressly disclose the use of the mode is based on bandwidth/throughput of the UL or DL. Zhang teaches based on the size of the bandwidth between the UL and DL transmissions/reception, the terminal can determine to work in the HD-FDD mode; Page 8 second paragraph. Since Zhang processes/knows the UL/DL bandwidth (i.e. ratio) it reads on the claimed detection.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include making an operating mode UL/DL centric as taught by Zhang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that based on the network signal quality, the UE can select which mode to work in for bandwidth maximization as taught by Zhang; Page 8 paragraph 2.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Lei teaches skipping a SRS transmission in response to a slot for the transmission overlapping a configured DL grant, repetition, mini slot or pre-empted DL (Paragraphs 33-35 each teach a scenario where the UE decides which transmission/reception to skip due to potential collision. Paragraph 34 teaches that based on the arrival time of a dynamic grant (DL signal) a UE can decide what to skip. Thus there are scenarios where the SRS (UL) would be skipped).
Regarding claim 12, Lei teaches the parameters include CSI (Paragraphs 28 and 32) and PMI (Paragraph 73). As this information is in the system, it would be a part of every decision such as the interference mitigation because it impacts the signaling.
Regarding claim 13, Lei teaches the use of TDD/FDD for the first and second frequency bands; Paragraph 67.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Zhang further in view of Bailey et al. “Bailey” US 2024/0340124.
Regarding claim 3, While Lei teaches determining potential SRS interference as shown in claim 1, Lei does not teach selecting interference mitigation is in response to receiving SRS antenna switching configuration; however, Bailey teaches SRS antenna switching configurations are known/selected in order to minimize interreference with FDD DL signals; Paragraphs 21-22, see also paragraph 43.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include selecting interference mitigation in response to SRS antenna switching configurations as taught by Bailey.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that puncturing or interference with the FDD downlink signals to the receive antennas is minimized as taught by Bailey; Paragraphs 21-22.
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Zhang further in view of Kalhan et al. “Kalhan” US 2025/0192808.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Lei does not expressly disclose reporting a min CQI/RSRP; however, Kalhan teaches CSI reports (transmitted by the UE) include RSRP information. And there is a minimum RSRP threshold indicated to the base station. This is with respect to scheduling communications for mitigating interference Paragraph 95.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include transmitting the minimum RSRP as taught by Kalhan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can schedule communications without antenna pattern adjustments to mitigate interference as taught by Kalhan; Paragraph 95.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Zhang further in view of Kumar US 2024/0073904.
Regarding claim 10, Lei does not disclose skipping SRS randomly based on BLER of a DL channel; however, Kumar teaches that a UE can determine if the UL (SRS) or DL is more important which will impact the SRS or PUSCH. This decisions can be tied to the amount of block errors associated with PUSCHs with respect to SRS; Paragraph 35. Thus, one can see the SRS is randomly skipped (i.e. DL prioritized over it) based on block errors.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include skipping, randomly, SRS based on block errors as taught by Kumar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can decide if the UL or DL is more important, Kumar; Paragraph 35.
Regarding claim 11, Lei does not disclose skipping antenna switching associated with the SRS; however, Kumar teaches a UE determining to transmit on the same antenna as SRS to avoid (i.e. skip) antenna switching; Paragraph 32. The system is with respect to signals (SRS) that can cause interference; Paragraph 95.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include skipping antenna switching as taught by Kumar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can minimize system performance degradation as taught by Kumar; Paragraph 32.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Bailey.
Regarding claim 27, Lei does not teach the first and second bands are potentially interfering in response to antenna switching being configured; however, Bailey teaches SRS antenna switching configurations are known/selected in order to minimize interreference with FDD DL signals; Paragraphs 21-22, see also paragraph 43.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lei to include the potential interfering bands are in response to antenna switching being configured as taught by Bailey.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that puncturing or interference with the FDD downlink signals to the receive antennas is minimized as taught by Bailey; Paragraphs 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Zhang does not teach detecting UL/DL throughput because Zhang teaches FD-FDD mode to obtain larger transmission bandwidth; however, this is not the same as detecting an UL/DL throughput ratio. Applicant further argues Zhang chooses a mode based on a signal, not a throughput.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely recites detecting a ratio of UL/DL throughput for a UE. This does not mean the UE is actively measuring any signaling on the network, just that some knowledge of a ratio for the UE is known. Zhang teaches that the size of the bandwidth between the UL and DL transmissions/reception is tied to the mode used (See Page 5 Paragraph 8). If the UE wants to utilize a mode with a higher bandwidth/throughput on the UL/DL, it can utilize FD-FDD mode; Page 8 second paragraph. Since Zhang processes/knows the UL/DL bandwidth (i.e. ratio) it reads on the claimed detection. The claims do not state what the detection is (measuring, deciding by the UE, etc…) therefore, the fact that the UE of Zhang can select a mode based on desired throughput of the UL/DL, the prior art properly reads on the broad claim limitations.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues Lei does not teach the use of TDD and FDD because Lei only teaches FDD.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lei teaches a UE can operate using FDD and TDD modes; Paragraphs 29 and 67.
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411