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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of elected Group I (claims 1-14) and added new claims 21-26 in the reply filed on January 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/469,718 filed May 30, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the UE 10 receives no downlink transmissions from the UE 10” should be “the UE 10 receives no downlink transmissions from the network 62”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8: “comprising receiving a third indication from the base station to set the setting the transmitter to transmit at the predetermined power level” should be “comprising receiving a third indication from the base station to set
Regarding claim 21: ”processing circuitry configured to receive a first indication of reference sensitivity when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to the receiver; a receiver configured to receive a second indication of interference power at the receiver;” should be “processing circuitry configured to receive a first indication of reference sensitivity when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to [[the]] a receiver; [[a]] the receiver configured to receive a second indication of interference power at the receiver;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,991 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the pending application are found in US Patent No. 12,047,991 B2 with obvious wording variation, i.e. ceasing is synonymous with deactivating.
Instant Application 18/368,272
US Patent No. 12,047,991 B2
1.(Original) A method, comprising:
ceasing uplink transmissions on a transmitter of user equipment;
receiving a first indication of reference sensitivity at a receiver of the user equipment when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to the receiver;
setting the transmitter to transmit at a predetermined power level;
causing the transmitter to transmit the uplink transmissions at the predetermined power level;
receiving a second indication of interference power at the receiver; and
causing the transmitter to transmit a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) value (i.e., a signal-to-interference ratio) based on the reference sensitivity (i.e. first transmission power) and the interference power (i.e. second transmission power).
1.A method, comprising:
deactivating, by processing circuitry of a user equipment, an uplink transmission capability based on a determination of potential interference associated with a frequency band combination;
receiving, at an antenna of the user equipment, a first signal while the uplink transmission capability is deactivated;
determining, by the processing circuitry, a first power of the first signal (predetermined power level);
activating, by the processing circuitry, the uplink transmission capability;
receiving, at the antenna, a second signal comprising interference while the uplink transmission capability is activated;
determining, by the processing circuitry, a second power of the second signal while the uplink transmission capability is activated; and
determining, by the processing circuitry, a signal-to-interference ratio based on the first power and the second power.
2.(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the interference is caused by the uplink transmissions.
2.The method of claim 1, wherein the interference is caused by an uplink transmission.
3.(Original) The method of claim 1, comprising determining, by processing circuitry of the user equipment, the MSD value.
3.The method of claim 1, comprising, sending, via a transmitter of the user equipment, an indication of the signal-to-interference ratio to a network.
5. (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the base station allocates a first frequency band and a second frequency band to the user equipment, the interference being
received on the first frequency band, the uplink transmissions being transmitted on the second frequency band, and the interference received on the first frequency band being
caused by the uplink transmissions on the second frequency band.
4.The method of claim 3, wherein the user equipment receives an allocation from the network, the allocation comprising a first frequency band and a second frequency band
to the user equipment, the first signal being received on the first frequency band, an uplink transmission being sent on the second frequency band, and the interference received on the first frequency band being caused by the uplink transmission on the second frequency band.
As shown in table above, US Patent No. 12,047,991 B2 covers all the claimed limitations of instant application such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pending application and issued patent are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 1-14 and 21-26 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.
Taking claim 1 as exemplary, the claim recites “ceasing uplink transmissions on a transmitter of user equipment” and “causing the transmitter to transmit the uplink transmissions at the predetermined power level”. It is unclear whether uplink transmissions are the same as “the uplink transmissions” or whether “the uplink transmissions” are subsequent uplink transmissions. The claims do not indicate any required order of steps. For the purpose of examination “the uplink transmissions” are interpreted as subsequent uplink transmissions. Claims 2-14 are rejected for the same reason as they are dependent on claim 1; this rejection also applies to claims 21-26 for the same reason.
Regarding claim 8 the user equipment is already transmitting at the predetermined power level as claimed in claim 1. It is unclear how the base station is transmitting a third indication when claim 1 has the base station not sending downlink transmission data. The claims do not indicate any required order of steps. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting it as having turned downlink transmission back on prior to transmitting a third indication.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Guo (US 20250212243 A1 and Guo hereinafter)) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20210126753 A1 and Mochizuki hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Guo teaches
A method, comprising:
receiving a first indication ("in response to determining ( i.e. receiving first indication)[0105]) of reference sensitivity at a receiver of the user equipment (the potential self-interference (i.e. reference sensitivity) is encountered by a multi-carrier combination of the terminal device ( i.e. user equipment), [0105] and Fig. 3, element 3])
setting ("determining (i.e. the recited setting) the transmitter to transmit at a predetermined power level (…maximum second transmission power i.e. predetermined power level supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference”,[0012]);
causing the transmitter to transmit the uplink transmissions at the predetermined power level (“…maximum second transmission power (i.e. predetermined power level) supported by the terminal device i.e. the user equipment transmits at the max power level it can support according to the interference information of the potential self-interference“,[0013]);
receiving a second indication of interference power at the receiver (" in response to determining (i.e. the second indication) that the real self-interference is encountered by the multi-carrier combination, an instruction message is transmitted to a network device. The instruction message is configured to instruct the network device to conduct interference avoidance on the multi-carrier combination."[0113] and Fig. 3, element 33); and
causing the transmitter to transmit a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) value based on the reference sensitivity and the interference power (“In order to ensure performance of carrier aggregation, a combination (i.e. the combination of the reference sensitivity and interference power) in a worst case is generally specified in a protocol (i.e. the MSD value), and a terminal can report (i.e. transmit) its ability to support simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission or not.“,[0002].
Guo doesn’t explicitly teach
ceasing uplink transmissions on a transmitter of user equipment;
when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to the receiver.
In a similar endeavor Mochizuki teaches
ceasing uplink transmissions on a transmitter of user equipment ("the preempted base station may stop the uplink reception from the UE with the timing.”[0741]);
when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to the receiver (“The preempted base station may stop the downlink transmission with the preempted transmission timing. This can, for example, reduce the interference in the downlink preempted communication”)[0744]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guo with the method suggested by Mochizuki. The motivation would be for reducing the interference in the downlink preempted communication, see Mochizuki at 0744.
Regarding Claim 9, Guo in view of Mochizuki, Guo-Mochizuki hereinafter, suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than CRM form. Further Guo discloses computer readable medium ("computer program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium or transmitted from a computer-readable storage medium to another computer-readable storage medium"[0179]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Guo-Mochizuki suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in device form rather than method form. Further Guo discloses a device ("The terminal device may also be referred to as a terminal, user equipment (UE), a mobile station (MS), a mobile terminal (MT), etc. "[0082]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the interference is caused by the uplink transmissions (“When simultaneous multi-carrier uplink and downlink transmission is implemented at some frequency band combinations, real self-interference problems will be caused, such as harmonic interference, adjacent channel interference, and intermodulation interference.“,[0075] and "uplink transmission of one carrier will interfere in downlink transmission of another carrier, and sensitivity loss will be caused. "[0002])
Regarding Claim 3 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses comprising determining, by processing circuitry of the user equipment, the MSD value ("includes at least one processor and an interface, and is configured to support the transmission device to achieve functions…for instance, a function of determining or processing at least one of data and information i.e. the MSD value involved in the above method"[0057].
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 23 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 21 respectively, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the MSD value comprises a difference between the reference sensitivity and the interference power (“obtaining a difference between the first transmission power (i.e. reference sensitivity) and the second transmission power (i.e. interference power); and determining, in response to determining the difference to be greater than a set value (i.e. the MSD value), that the potential self-interference is the real self-interference“,[0014-0015], see [0096] for a reference to MSD values with a reference to an accompanying table, including values regarding harmonic/intermodulation).
Regarding Claim 5 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the base station allocates a first frequency band and a second frequency band to the user equipment (“simultaneous multi-carrier uplink and downlink transmission is implemented at some frequency band combinations,”[0075]), the interference being received on the first frequency band, the uplink transmissions being transmitted on the second frequency band, and the interference received on the first frequency band being caused by the uplink transmissions on the second frequency band (“uplink transmission of one band (i.e. the first band) interferes in downlink transmission of another band (i.e. the second band)“,[0075]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 22, Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 21, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the predetermined power level comprises a maximum transmission power of the transmitter(…maximum second transmission power supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference”,[0012]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 24, Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 21, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to determine (“The chip system includes at least one processor and an interface, and is configured to support the transmission device to achieve functions according to the second aspect, for instance, a function of determining or processing at least one of data and information involved in the above method.”[0057]) the reference sensitivity by causing a power detector of the receiver to determine a signal strength at the receiver when the base station is not sending the downlink transmission to the receiver (“determining current first transmission power (i.e. reference sensitivity) of the terminal device…supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference)”[0105]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 25 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 21, as discussed above. Further Guo discloses wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to determine (“The chip system includes at least one processor and an interface, and is configured to support the transmission device to achieve functions according to the second aspect, for instance, a function of determining or processing at least one of data and information involved in the above method.”[0057]) the interference power at the receiver by causing a power detector of the receiver to determine a signal strength at the receiver when the transmitter transmits the signal at the predetermined power level (“determining…maximum second transmission power (i.e. interference power) supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference)”[0105]).
Claims 6-8, 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Guo (US 20250212243 A1 and Guo hereinafter) in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20210126753 A1 and Mochizuki hereinafter) and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 20240323857 A1 and MolavianJazi hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo-Mochizuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Guo-Mochizuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the first indication comprises a Reference Signal Strength Indicator.
In a similar field of endeavor, MolavianJazi teaches wherein the first indication comprises a Reference Signal Strength Indicator (“the term signal quality is used to refer to e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP), or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) or received signal strength indicator (RSSI)“,[0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guo-Mochizuki with the method suggested by MolavianJazi. The motivation would be so the UE uses the provided uplink transmit power control commands to adjust its transmit power, see MolavianJazi at [0138].
Regarding Claim 7, Guo-Mochizuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Guo-Mochizuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the second indication comprises a Reference Signal Strength Indicator.
In a similar field of endeavor, MolavianJazi teaches
wherein the second indication comprises a Reference Signal Strength Indicator (“the term signal quality is used to refer to e.g., reference signal received power (RSRP), or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) or received signal strength indicator (RSSI)“,[0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guo-Mochizuki with the method suggested by MolavianJazi. The motivation would be so the UE uses the provided uplink transmit power control commands to adjust its transmit power, see MolavianJazi at [0138].
Regarding Claim 8, Guo-Mochizuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Guo-Mochizuki does not explicitly disclose
comprising receiving a third indication from the base station to set the setting the transmitter to transmit at the predetermined power level.
In a similar field of endeavor, MolavianJazi teaches
comprising receiving a third indication from the base station to set the setting the transmitter to transmit at the predetermined power level ("The gNB 102 (i.e. the base station) determines the desired uplink transmit power (i.e. predetermined power level)and provides uplink transmit power control commands (i.e. third indication) to the UE 116"[0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guo-Mochizuki with the method suggested by MolavianJazi. The motivation would be so the UE uses the provided uplink transmit power control commands to adjust its transmit power, see MolavianJazi at [0138].
Regarding Claims 14 and 26 Guo-Mochizuki teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 21, as discussed above. Further Guo teaches wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to determine (“The chip system includes at least one processor and an interface, and is configured to support the transmission device to achieve functions according to the second aspect, for instance, a function of determining or processing at least one of data and information involved in the above method.”[0057]).
Guo-Mochizuki doesn’t explicitly teach
the interference power at the receiver by determining the signal strength at the receiver on a first component carrier when the transmitter transmits the signal on a second component carrier.
However, in a similar endeavor MolavianJazi teaches
the interference power at the receiver by determining the signal strength at the receiver on a first component carrier when the transmitter transmits the signal on a second component carrier (“In case of same priority order and for operation with carrier aggregation, the UE 116 (i.e. at the receiver) prioritizes power allocation (i.e. signal strength) for transmissions on the primary cell of the MCG (i.e. master cell group or first component carrier) or the SCG (i.e. secondary cell group or secondary component carrier) over transmissions on a secondary cell.”[0148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guo-Mochizuki with the method suggested by MolavianJazi. The motivation would be so that the total UE transmit power for transmissions on serving cells in the frequency range is smaller than or equal to PCMAX(i) for that frequency range in every symbol of transmission occasion i.” see MolavianJazi at [0140].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park (US 20200313812 A1) which teaches a UE device used to transmit, an uplink signal via at least two bands and to receive a downlink signal via three bands, among the plurality of E-UTRA operating bands. It also teaches, a pre-configured MSD value is applied to a reference sensitivity for receiving the downlink signal.
Park (US 20220255684 A1) which teaches a UE device used to transmit, an uplink signal via at least two bands and to receive a downlink signal via three bands, among the plurality of E-UTRA operating bands. It also teaches, a pre-configured MSD value is applied to a reference sensitivity for receiving the downlink signal.
Kusashima (US 10172125 B2) which teaches a terminal device and a base station device communicate with each other.
Yamine (US 20250330843) which teaches terminating one or more scheduled or ongoing network activities impacting call performance of a UE.
Lim (US 20220322474 A1) which teaches the transceiver of the UE transmits an uplink signal via at least two bands, wherein a value of Maximum Sensitivity Degradation (MSD) is applied to a reference sensitivity for receiving the downlink signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647