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 .
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/624,294 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/624,294 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1-20 of the instant application, with various wordings.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (9,781,685) in view of Zamat (5,983,085).
Regarding claims 17-18, Tsui discloses a method, comprising: determining, by network equipment comprising a processor (See fig. 4 and col. 11 lines 33-40), a statistical function (i.e. absolute value of a difference) applied to differences between respective uplink path losses between cellular network equipment and a group of user equipment (See fig. 11 steps {1102, 1106} and col. 10 lines 40-44, col. 21 lines 48-51, col. 22 lines 28-42), and corresponding downlink path losses between the cellular network equipment and the group of user equipment (See fig. 11 steps {1102, 1106} and col. 10 lines 40-44, col. 21 lines 48-51, col. 22 lines 28-42); and in response to a result of applying the statistical function (i.e. absolute value) to the differences (i.e. to each difference of a plurality of differences) between the respective uplink path losses and the corresponding downlink path losses being determined to satisfy a defined difference threshold (See fig. 11 step 1108 and col. 22 lines 43-54), determining, by the network equipment, that uplink/downlink attenuation settings of the cellular network equipment (i.e. base station and/or mobile device) are incorrect; and based on the uplink/downlink attenuation settings of the cellular network equipment being determined incorrect, recalibrating (adjusting), by the network equipment, the uplink/downlink attenuation settings to correct values (applicable values) (See fig. 11 steps {1108, 1112} and col. 12 line 4 to col. 13 line 22, col. 22 lines 43-54). However, Tsui does not explicitly mention that determining, by the network equipment, that the cellular network equipment is not transmitting according to a specified power level and based on the cellular network equipment being determined not to be transmitting according to the specified power level, recalibrating, by the network equipment, a transmission power level applicable to the cellular network equipment. Since it is known in the art the cooperative relationship between attenuation settings of a wireless device and its transmit power, wherein the attenuation settings of the wireless device is a configuration that is utilized to control at least transmit power level of the wireless device as shown by Zamat (See figs. 2, 5, claim 16 and col. 4 lines 3-26); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Tsui’s system, as suggested by Zamat, such that the network equipment determines the cellular network equipment is not transmitting according to a specified power level (incorrect transmission power level) and recalibrates/adjusts/control transmission power level applicable (correct transmission power level) to the cellular network equipment based on determined incorrect attenuation settings, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various adjustment parameters to achieve the desired goals.
Regarding claim 20, Tsui & Zamat discloses as cited in claim 17. Tsui further discloses respective uplink transmissions corresponding to the uplink path losses and corresponding downlink transmissions corresponding to the downlink path losses utilize physical resource blocks (PRB) (See col. 11 lines 23-32, col. 13 lines 53-62). However, they do not explicitly mention the utilization of common resource block (CRB). Since common resource block (CRB) is well known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize CRB for the system of Tsui & Zamat, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various signaling parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, Tsui & Zamat discloses as cited in claim 17. However, they fail to disclose that the statistical function applied to the differences is an average of the differences, and wherein recalibrating the transmission power level comprises increasing the transmission power level based on the average of the differences between the respective uplink path losses and the corresponding downlink path losses.
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to the claimed subject matters is Tsui & Zamat. Tsui & Zamat discloses as cited in claim 17. However, they fail to disclose the step of determining an average or mean of differences between respective uplink path losses between a cellular node and a group of user equipment, and corresponding downlink path losses between the cellular node and the group of user equipment, as specified in claims 1 and 9.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648