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 Objections
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 16 recite the limitation “determining that time of flight interference” in lines 1-2 and 1-2 respectively. For consistency and clarification with “determining that time of flight interference is occurring” in lines 4 and 6 of claims 1 and 13 respectively, it is recommended to change “determining that time of flight interference” in lines 1-2 and 1-2 respectively, to “determining that time of flight interference is occurring”.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/394,186 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are the same scope as claims 1-20 of 18/394,186.
Instant Application Claim 1
18/394,186 Claim 1
A method for mitigating interference caused by a meteorological condition known as tropospheric ducting in a wireless telecommunication network, the method comprising:
A method for mitigating interference caused by a meteorological condition known as tropospheric ducting in a wireless telecommunication network, the method comprising:
determining that time of flight interference is occurring during an uplink subframe of a victim cell, wherein the victim cell uses time domain duplexing to wirelessly communicate with a UE in a geographic area served by the victim cell; and,
determining that time of flight interference is occurring during an uplink subframe of a victim cell, wherein the victim cell uses time domain duplexing (TDD) to wirelessly communicate with a UE in a geographic area served by the victim cell; and,
based on said determination, communicating a first set of modified synchronization signals to the geographic area served by the victim cell, the modified synchronization signals comprising one or more cell selection values that causes the UE to select a second cell over the victim cell.
based on said determination, communicating a first set of signals to the geographic area served by the victim cell, the first set of signals comprising one or more instructions that causes the UE to handover from a standalone TDD connection to a dual mode connection using both TDD and frequency domain duplexing (FDD) to wirelessly communicate while in the geographic area.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US 2018/0343103 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a method for mitigating interference caused by a meteorological condition known as tropospheric ducting in a wireless telecommunication network (¶109; figure 7), the method comprising:
determining that time of flight interference is occurring during an uplink subframe of a victim cell, wherein the victim cell uses time domain duplexing to wirelessly communicate with a UE in a geographic area served by the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 114-116, and 118-120; figure 7: determine TOF interference occurs during UL subframe of victim cell serving terminal in victim cell receiving TOF interference in TDD system); and,
based on said determination, communicating a first set of modified synchronization signals to the geographic area served by the victim cell, the modified synchronization signals comprising one or more cell selection values that causes the UE to select a second cell over the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 110-112, 118-123; figure 7: based on TOF interference, modify and transmit SSF configuration to terminals connected to the victim cell or attempting to connect to the victim cell (i.e., terminals in cell) causing the terminals to select a different cell).
As to claim 2, Park teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second cell is configured to wirelessly communicate with the UE in at least a portion of the geographic area served by the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, and 112: second cell is another carrier frequency of the same geographic area).
As to claim 13, Park teaches a system for mitigating interference caused by a meteorological condition known as tropospheric ducting in a wireless telecommunication network (¶109; figure 7), the system comprising:
one or more computer processing components configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that time of flight interference is occurring during an uplink subframe of a victim cell, wherein the victim cell uses time domain duplexing to wirelessly communicate with a UE in a geographic area served by the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 114-116, and 118-120; figure 7: determine TOF interference occurs during UL subframe of victim cell serving terminal in victim cell receiving TOF interference in TDD system); and,
based on said determination, communicating a first set of modified synchronization signals to the geographic area served by the victim cell, the modified synchronization signals comprising one or more cell selection values that causes the UE to select a second cell over the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 110-112, 118-123; figure 7: based on TOF interference, modify and transmit SSF configuration to terminals connected to the victim cell or attempting to connect to the victim cell (i.e., terminals in cell) causing the terminals to select a different cell).
As to claim 14, Park teaches the system of claim 3, wherein causing the UE to select the second cell over the victim cell comprises the UE transitioning from an idle mode to a connected mode (¶110-112: transmit timer for RRC connection release to the UE which causes the UE to enter RRC idle, the interfered cell is barred, and the UE transitions from RRC idle to RRC connected when connecting to the second cell).
As to claim 15, Park teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the first set of modified synchronization signals comprises a system information block message (¶¶110-112: updated synchronization and connection information transmitted via system information broadcast).
As to claim 16, Park teaches the system of claim 13, wherein determining that time of flight interference comprises determining one or more parameters of an air interface during each of a first portion of the uplink subframe and a second portion of the uplink subframe (¶¶79, 91, 97, and 116: perform TOF, RSSI, DL interference on different symbols (portions) of the UL subframe).
As to claim 17, Park teaches a non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processing components, cause the one or more computer processing components to perform a method for mitigating interference caused by a meteorological condition known as tropospheric ducting in a wireless telecommunication network (¶109; figure 7), the method comprising:
determining that time of flight interference is occurring during an uplink subframe of a victim cell, wherein the victim cell uses time domain duplexing to wirelessly communicate with a UE in a geographic area served by the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 114-116, and 118-120; figure 7: determine TOF interference occurs during UL subframe of victim cell serving terminal in victim cell receiving TOF interference in TDD system); and,
based on said determination, communicating a first set of modified synchronization signals to the geographic area served by the victim cell, the modified synchronization signals comprising one or more cell selection values that causes the UE to select a second cell over the victim cell (¶¶38, 40, 110-112, 118-123; figure 7: based on TOF interference, modify and transmit SSF configuration to terminals connected to the victim cell or attempting to connect to the victim cell (i.e., terminals in cell) causing the terminals to select a different cell).
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 3-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Pakniat et al. US 2015/0382254 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Pakniat”).
As to claim 3, Park teaches the method of claim 2.
Although Park teaches “The method of claim 2,” Park does not explicitly disclose “the second cell is configured to wirelessly communicate with the UE using frequency domain duplexing”.
However, Pakniat teaches the second cell is configured to wirelessly communicate with the UE using frequency domain duplexing (pages 10-13: second cell communicates with the UE using FDD as indicated by the cell selection information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Park by including “the second cell is configured to wirelessly communicate with the UE using frequency domain duplexing” as taught by Pakniat because it provides Park’s method with the enhanced capability of improving the RRC connection release and reconnection during the handover process (Pakniat, pages 10-13).
As to claim 4, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 3. Park further teaches wherein causing the UE to select the second cell over the victim cell comprises the UE transitioning from an idle mode to a connected mode (¶110-112: transmit timer for RRC connection release to the UE which causes the UE to enter RRC idle, the interfered cell is barred, and the UE transitions from RRC idle to RRC connected when connecting to the second cell).
As to claim 5, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 4. Park further teaches wherein the first set of modified synchronization signals comprises a system information block message (¶¶110-112: updated synchronization and connection information transmitted via system information broadcast).
As to claim 6, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 5. Park further teaches wherein the method further comprises communicating, by the second cell, a second set of modified synchronization signals comprising a second cell selection value, and wherein the combination of the one or more cell selection values and the second cell selection value cause the UE to select the second cell over the victim cell (¶¶110-112 and 120-122; figure 7: first base station also controls interfering cells/base stations to transmit updated SSF information, the terminal uses SSF information received from first cell/base station and SSF information received from second cell/base station to select second cell).
As to claim 7, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 6. Park further teaches wherein determining that time of flight interference comprises determining one or more parameters of an air interface during each of a first portion of the uplink subframe and a second portion of the uplink subframe (¶¶79, 91, 97, and 116: perform TOF, RSSI, DL interference on different symbols (portions) of the UL subframe).
As to claim 8, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 7. Park further teaches wherein the first portion of the uplink subframe is within a first configurable threshold time of the beginning of the uplink subframe and the second portion of the uplink subframe is within a second configurable threshold time of the end of the uplink subframe (¶¶79, 91, 97, and 116: may be two or more of the 14 symbols during any portion of the subframe).
As to claim 9, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 8. Park further teaches wherein the one or more parameters of the air interface comprises a signal strength (¶¶79, 91, 97, and 116: parameter for measuring the strength of a signal).
As to claim 10, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 8. Park further teaches wherein the one or parameters of the air interface comprises a signal to noise interference noise ratio (SINR) (¶¶79: SINR).
As to claim 11, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 10. Park further teaches wherein the one or more cell selection values comprises a cell reselection priority field (¶¶67, 72, and 110-112: cell is barred, forced handover and RRC connection release for UEs (i.e., cell reselection priority field is decreased)).
As to claim 12, Park in view of Pakniat teaches the method of claim 10.
Pakniat further teaches wherein the one or more cell selection values comprises a minimum receive power level (page 8: cell selection values in the system information block includes Q-RxLevMin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Park in view of Pakniat by including “wherein the one or more cell selection values comprises a minimum receive power level” as further taught by Pakniat for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3 (Pakniat, pages 8-13).
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. US 2020/0359223 A1 – Apparatus and Method for Managing Interference in Wireless Communication System
Chauhan et al. US 2020/0359305 A1 – System and Method for Identification of Aggressor Cells
Sung et al. US 10,299,145 B1 – Systems and Methods for Mitigating Interference from Neighbors
Su et al. US 2022/0150012 A1 – Remote Interference Management Method, gNB, Electronic Device, and Readable Storage Medium
Fei et al. US 2021/0176105 A1 – Reference Signal Sending Method, Reference Signal Receiving Method, and Apparatus
Gormley et al. US 2020/0344619 A1 – Methods for Mitigating Interference and Maximizing Capacity for Time Division Duplex Cellular Networks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights