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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites both method and system that should be rewritten to a independent claim.
Furthermore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 10 recites a system, which does not have any hardware structure to perform the method as claimed.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al (hereinafter “Hart”), CA 2809585.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hart discloses system and method for carrier aggregation intermodulation distortion (IMD) control, comprising: implementing a carrier aggregation communications protocol across a plurality of frequency bands (fig. 4, step 402: identify set of IMD friendly upstream communication carriers); identifying a carrier aggregation channel allocation for a client device (fig. 4, step 404: schedule carrier aggregated upstream communication using identified carriers); detecting triple beat interference in the plurality of frequency bands by the carrier aggregation channel allocation (fig. 5, step 504 calculate 3rd order IMD product based om selected carriers); and mitigating the detected triple beat interference through reallocation of the carrier aggregation channels to the client device (p. [0053]: the scheduler 214 is configured to allocate dynamically radio resources for a carrier aggregated upstream communication. When allocating such radio resources, the scheduler 214 is configured to select carrier combinations which will not cause a problematic IMD product).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hart discloses wherein the carrier aggregation is intra-band carrier aggregation, and wherein detecting triple beat interference comprises: determining whether the intra-band carrier aggregation channel allocation is susceptible to triple beat interference; calculating a triple beat condition for the intra-band carrier aggregation channel allocation (fig. 5, step 504 calculate 3rd order IMD product based om selected carriers); determining whether the triple beat condition overlaps a victim band in the plurality of frequency bands (fig. 5; step 506: the wireless network system determines whether any of the third order IMD products calculated at 504 fall within the active pass-band(s)); and implementing mitigation of the triple beat interference if the triple beat condition is detected to overlap the victim band (p. [0053]: the scheduler 214 is configured to allocate dynamically radio resources for a carrier aggregated upstream communication. When allocating such radio resources, the scheduler 214 is configured to select carrier combinations which will not cause a problematic IMD product).
Regarding claim 11, Hart discloses a system comprising: communications components (fig. 2: eNB components) configured to implement a carrier aggregation communications protocol across a plurality of frequency bands (fig. 4, step 402: identify set of IMD friendly upstream communication carriers); a logic device configured to: identify a carrier aggregation channel allocation for a client device (fig. 4, step 404: schedule carrier aggregated upstream communication using identified carriers); detect triple beat interference in the plurality of frequency bands by the carrier aggregation channel allocation (fig. 5, step 504 calculate 3rd order IMD product based om selected carriers); and mitigate the detected triple beat interference through reallocation of the carrier aggregation channels to the client device (p. [0053]: the scheduler 214 is configured to allocate dynamically radio resources for a carrier aggregated upstream communication. When allocating such radio resources, the scheduler 214 is configured to select carrier combinations which will not cause a problematic IMD product).
Regarding claim 20, Hart discloses wherein the system comprises user equipment (fig. 1 and 3: UE) and/or a base station (fig. 1-2” eNB).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 13-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463