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 INTERPRETATION
Claim 2 recites “wherein the generating and transmitting the reference signal comprises transmitting the reference signal at a selected transmission power density such that a reception power density of the reference signal is within a specified headroom below a regulatory transmission in-band emission limit” in lines 1-4.
The only limitation on the method is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of “a reception power density of the reference signal is within a specified headroom below a regulatory transmission in-band emission limit”.
The “such that” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited method.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate and transmit the reference signal by transmitting the reference signal at a selected transmission power density such that a reception power density of the reference signal is within a specified headroom below a regulatory transmission in-band emission limit” in lines 1-5.
The only limitation on the apparatus is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of “a reception power density of the reference signal is within a specified headroom below a regulatory transmission in-band emission limit”.
The “such that” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited apparatus.
See MPEP 2111.04
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the uplink transmission” in line 8. It is unclear whether it is referring to a) “transmitting uplink data signals” or b) “transmitting a reference signal” since both are uplink transmissions. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 12 recites “the uplink transmission” in line 11. It is unclear whether it is referring to a) “transmit uplink data signals” or b) “transmit a reference signal” since both are uplink transmissions. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claims set forth above.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Su et al. (US 2024/0297772 A1, hereinafter “Su”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Su discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) [see Fig. 3a, para. 43-50; see Fig. 4, para. 63-68; a UE for wireless communication], comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to [see Fig. 3a, para. 43-50; a memory coupled to a processor]:
transmit uplink data signals in a first bandwidth; concurrently receive downlink data signals in a second bandwidth [see para. 66-67; uplink transmission (second transmission signal) and downlink transmission (desired reception signal) are simultaneously performed on adjacent bandwidths];
generate and transmit a reference signal in at least one of the second bandwidth and a bandwidth between the first bandwidth and the second bandwidth [see Fig. 4, para. 63, 66-67; generate and transmit a reference signal (first transmission signal) in an out-of-band channel];
estimate a self-interference channel based on measurements of the reference signal [see para. 66-67; estimate a self-interference channel based on measurements of the reference signal]; and
cancel self-interference from the uplink transmission in the downlink data signals based on the estimated self-interference channel [see para. 66-67; cancel self-interference from the uplink transmission (second transmission signal) in the downlink transmission (desired reception signal) based on the estimated self-interference channel].
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Su discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate and transmit the reference signal by transmitting the reference signal at a selected transmission power density such that a reception power density of the reference signal is within a specified headroom below a regulatory transmission in-band emission limit [see para. 82-84, 89; transmitting the uplink signal (DMRS) at a determined transmission power according to at least one of the following: the number of antenna ports for the reference signal, and the number of physical resource elements or the proportion of physical resource elements for actually transmitting the reference signal of the specific antenna port; when the uplink signal is a DMRS and/or a PUSCH, one way for the terminal to determine the transmission power of the uplink signal of a specific antenna port on the configured one or more time units may be determining a ratio β of Energy Per Resource Element (EPRE) of the PUSCH transmitted on time units other than the one or more time units to EPRE of the PUSCH and/or DMRS of the specific port transmitted on the one or more time units, according to the number of antenna ports for the uplink signal and the proportion of physical resource elements occupied by the actual transmission of the uplink signal of the specific antenna port on the one or more time units; when the downlink signal is a DMRS and/or a PDSCH, one way for the terminal to determine the transmission power of the downlink signal of a specific port received in the configured one or more time units may be determining a ratio ß of Energy Per Resource Element (EPRE) of the PDSCH transmitted on time units other than the one or more time units to EPRE of the PDSCH and/or DMRS of the specific port transmitted on the one or more time units, according to the number of antenna ports for the downlink signal and the proportion of physical resource elements occupied by the actual transmission of the downlink signal of the specific antenna port on the one or more time units].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Su discloses wherein the reference signal is a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) [see para. 66, 68; the reference signal is a demodulation reference signal].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Su discloses wherein the DMRS is transmitted in pre-defined or configured symbol positions or subcarrier positions [see para. 77-81; the DMRS is transmitted in pre-defined or configured symbol positions or subcarrier positions].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Tervo et al. (US 2025/0220592 A1, hereinafter “Tervo”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the regulatory transmission in-band emission limit is calculated with a Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) error vector magnitude (EVM) bound.
However, Tervo teaches regulatory transmission in-band emission limit is calculated with a Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) error vector magnitude (EVM) bound [see Fig. 5, para. 58-60; in-band emission (IBE) is calculated with a QPSK EVM bound].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “regulatory transmission in-band emission limit is calculated with a Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) error vector magnitude (EVM) bound”, as taught by Tervo, into the system of Su so that it would reduce backoff, to enable lower power consumption and improved coverage [see Tervo, para. 57].
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Taghizadeh Motlagh et al. (US 2024/0163058 A1, hereinafter “Taghizadeh Motlagh”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Su discloses wherein the DMRS is transmitted in one or more symbol or subcarrier positions where a base station configures reference signals [see Fig. 5, para. 69, 77-81; the DMRS is transmitted in one or more symbol or subcarrier positions where a base station configures reference signals].
Su does not explicitly disclose zero power channel state information (CSI) reference signals.
However, Taghizadeh Motlagh teaches DMRS is transmitted in one or more symbol or subcarrier positions where a base station configures zero power channel state information (CSI) reference signals [see Fig. 8, para. 145-146, Fig. 11, para. 232-233; DMRS is transmitted in one or more symbol or subcarrier positions where a gNB configures ZP UL FD-RS].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “DMRS is transmitted in one or more symbol or subcarrier positions where a base station configures zero power channel state information (CSI) reference signals”, as taught by Taghizadeh Motlagh, into the system of Su so that it would provide self-interference measurement [see Taghizadeh Motlagh, para. 145].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Su discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the base station, a pattern defining configurations of the one or more symbol or subcarrier positions [see Fig. 5, para. 69, 77-81, 91-92, 110; receive, from the base station, a pattern defining configurations of the one or more symbol or subcarrier positions].
Su does not explicitly disclose a “zero power CSI reference signal” pattern.
However, Taghizadeh Motlagh teaches receive, from the base station, a zero power CSI reference signal pattern defining configurations of the one or more symbol or subcarrier positions [see Fig. 8, para. 145-146, Fig. 11, para. 232-233, 239; receive, from the base station, a zero power CSI reference signal pattern defining configurations of the one or more symbol or subcarrier positions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “receive, from the base station, a zero power CSI reference signal pattern defining configurations of the one or more symbol or subcarrier positions”, as taught by Taghizadeh Motlagh, into the system of Su so that it would provide self-interference measurement [see Taghizadeh Motlagh, para. 145].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Nam et al. (US 2022/0070891 A1, hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 11, Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the DMRS is not transmitted in one or more subcarriers where an in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) image or a local oscillator (LO) leakage is expected.
However, Nam teaches DMRS is not transmitted in one or more subcarriers where an in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) image or a local oscillator (LO) leakage is expected [see para. 93; reference signals are not transmitted in one or more subcarriers where an in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) image or a local oscillator (LO) leakage is expected].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “DMRS is not transmitted in one or more subcarriers where an in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) image or a local oscillator (LO) leakage is expected”, as taught by Nam, into the system of Su so that it would avoid possible leakage interference [see Nam, para. 93].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Liu (US 2017/0085398 A1), see Fig. 3, 12, para. 127-128, 130, 224-276, discloses an interference cancellation apparatus for a radio frequency receive signal obtained by a main receive antenna, interference cancellation processing is performed according to a radio frequency reference signal to cancel a main-path self-interference signal component in the radio frequency receive signal; and for a radio frequency receive signal obtained after the main-path self-interference signal component is canceled, near-field reflected self-interference cancellation processing is performed by means of near-field reflected self-interference channel estimation and near-field reflected self-interference signal reconstruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights