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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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 7-13, 17-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11677501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent 11677501 anticipates the limitations of the instant application as shown in the table below.
Claim 7 of instant application
Claim 1 of patent 11677501
A method for increasing radio frequency spectrum efficiency in a first wireless communication system, the method comprising: reducing periodicity of one or more control signals wirelessly transmitted from a first base station to user equipment devices; and
indicating, to the user equipment devices, a structure of wireless communication frames, with the reduced periodicity of the one or more control signals, transmitted by the first base station to the user equipment devices.
A method for increasing radio frequency spectrum efficiency in a wireless communication system, comprising: generating first frames for wirelessly transmitting data from a first base station of the wireless communication system to user equipment devices; and completely discontinuing transmission of Cell-Specific Reference Signals in the first frames to increase radio frequency spectrum efficiency, while transmitting user equipment (UE)-specific reference signals, in response to a reduction in a number of user equipment devices being served by the first base station.
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) 7-10, 13, 17, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. “Zhu” US 2015/0049649.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Zhu teaches a method and a wireless communication system, comprising:
a first base station and a network processing element (Figure 13) that is configured to:
control the first base station to reduce periodicity of one or more control signals wirelessly transmitted from the first base station to user equipment devices (the small cell eNB transmits the PSS or SSS at a larger (i.e. reduced) periodicity than sent when it is active; Paragraph 59), and
control the first base station to indicate, to the user equipment devices, a structure of wireless communication frames, with the reduced periodicity of the one or more control signals, transmitted by the first base station to the user equipment devices (Figure 3 shows the structure of the frame with respect to the larger periodicity when the eNB is in the off state (304). The signals are sent once every 20 subframes instead of every 5 subframes. This is the structure sent to the UE; Paragraph 59 and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Zhu teaches a frame structure message with one or more subframes of a first frame wirelessly transmitted from the first base station to the user equipment devices, wherein the frame structure message indicates a location of the one or more control signals in at least the first frame wirelessly transmitted from the first base station to the user equipment devices (Figure 3 shows a frame structure message (304 or 302) transmitted from the base station which indicates where the control signals are in the subframes (see the shaded boxes); Paragraph 59).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Zhu teaches the one or more control signals are synchronization signals (PSS/SSS; Paragraph 59).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Zhu teaches the frame structure indicates a location of an empty subframe and non-transmitted subframes in the frame transmit from the base station to UE (Figure 3 shows the subframes that are empty, and subframes that carry the SSS/PSS; Paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu teaches eliminating transmission of control signals to increase spectrum efficiency (a small cell eNB does not transmit (i.e. eliminates) DL signals including the discovery signals; Paragraph 108. The increase in spectrum efficiency is merely a result of reducing signals being transmit).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu teaches the frame message indicates a location of a broadcast channel message (Paragraphs 93 and 132 disclose the messages can be broadcast messages).
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) 11, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Palanki et al. “Palanki” US 2011/0158164.
Regarding claim 11, While Zhu teaches TDOA, Zhu does not teach a UE, calculating a time of arrival difference between a first and second sync signal received from a first and second base station; and using the time of arrival difference to maintain synchronization while sync signals from the base station are suppressed; however, Palanki teaches a synchronization parameters which is a time difference of arrival between a plurality of base stations which is measured at the UE; Paragraph 89. The synchronization parameter is used to maintain synchronization; Figures 8 and 9 and paragraphs 66-68. Thus the TDOA determined/measured by the UE is used for sync, not the sync signals from the base station. Lastly, the cells can be macro or pico/femto cells; Paragraph 61).
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 Zhu to include a UE measuring TDOA for sync purposes as taught by Palanki.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that base stations can be properly synchronized in time/frequency as taught by Palanki; Paragraph 58.
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the use of a macro and small cell eNB (Paragraph 62 and Figure 1 shows small cell and macro cells).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu teaches tuning the sync of the UE after base station signals are no longer suppressed (the base station can switch between active and off (See Figure 3), thus then the base station is active, the signals are not suppressed and the UE would be tuning the synchronization when the signals are no longer suppressed as claimed; Paragraphs 59, 99, and 103-110).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Dural et al. “Dural” US 2015/0296397.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Zhu does not disclose a second wireless system operates within range of the first system; and the first system and second system operate partially in a common radio frequency band wherein the second network is Wi-Fi. Dural teaches a first communication network being LTE and a second communication network being Wi-Fi; Paragraph 65. The network regions may overlap (i.e. common); Figure 2 and paragraph 35).
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 Zhu to include two networks one of which is Wi-Fi as taught by Dural.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that signals between different networks do not interfere as taught by Dural; Paragraph 65.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-13, 17-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights