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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/892,278.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-20 of the copending application discloses:
an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a request for a measurement of a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD); measure the MSD caused by self-interference or a different interference than the self-interference; and report a report comprising the measurement of the MSD including relative information associated with a first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference;
further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to: receive the request for the measurement of the MSD; and report the report comprising the measurement of the MSD including the relative information associated with the first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference;
wherein the self-interference includes an interference caused by a transmission of the UE;
wherein the relative information is comprised in a channel quality indicator (CQI);
wherein the CQI includes a binary indication indicating a presence or an absence of the first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference in the measurement of the MSD;
wherein the CQI includes a multi-bit indication indicating a change in the CQI due to the first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference;
wherein a frequency band of the transmission of the UE is scheduled with downlink resources;
wherein the change in the CQI due to the first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference includes a number of CQI variation steps;
wherein each CQI variation step in the number of CQI variation steps represents a decibel change;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report a ratio of the MSD caused by different interference sources;
wherein the different interference is at least based on blockage of antenna elements of the UE;
a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a request for a measurement of a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD); measuring the MSD caused by self-interference or a different interference than the self-interference; and reporting a report comprising the measurement of the MSD including relative information associated with a first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference; and
an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the apparatus to: provide a request for a measurement of a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD); obtain a report comprising the measurement of the MSD caused by self-interference at a user equipment (UE) or a different interference than the self-interference at the UE, wherein the report includes relative information associated with a first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference; and schedule communication based on the MSD.
The applicant’s claims 1-30 broaden the scope of copending application 18/892,278 of claims 1-20 by eliminating the terms “ a first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference “ from the claims of the copending application. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Raine, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not need would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-6,11-21,24,27,and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Nielsen et al. (WO 2025/003828).
For independent claim 1, Nielsen et al. (WO 2025/003828) discloses a system/method comprising :
an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination ( See paragraph 0018 lines 1-12), is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a request for a measurement of a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) ( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12) ; measure the MSD caused by self-interference or a different interference than the self-interference ( See paragraph 0065 lines 1-8 and paragraph 0079 lines 1-8) ; and report a report comprising the measurement of the MSD including an interference source indication that the MSD is due to the self-interference, the different interference, or a combination of the self-interference and the different interference ( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12) .
For independent claims 11,16,and 27 are rejected for the same reason as in claim1.
For dependent claims 2-6,12-15, 17-21,24,and 28 Nielsen et al. (2025/003828) also discloses:
further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to: receive the request for the measurement of the MSD; and report the report comprising the measurement of the MSD including the interference source indication that the MSD is due to the self-interference, the different interference, or the combination of the self-interference and the different interference( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine an interference source associated with the MSD, wherein the interference source indication reported for the MSD is based on a determined interference source( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12);
wherein the interference source indication indicates a primary interference source associated with the MSD( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report an amount of the MSD caused by a respective interference source( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12); and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report a first amount of the MSD caused by the self-interference and a second amount of the MSD caused by the different interference( See paragraph 0082 lines 1-12).
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.
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 7,8,22,and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2025/003828).
For claims 7,8,22,and 23, Nielsen et al. discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report a ratio of the MSD caused by different interference sources and wherein the different interference is at least based on blockage of antenna elements of the UE in a communications network. However , wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report a ratio of the MSD caused by different interference sources and wherein the different interference is at least based on blockage of antenna elements of the UE are well-known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the at least one processor is configured to: report a ratio of the MSD caused by different interference sources and wherein the different interference is at least based on blockage of antenna elements of the UE as well-known in the art in the communications network of Nielsen et al. for the purpose of determining ratio of the MSD caused by different interference sources and wherein the different interference is at least based on blockage of antenna elements of the UE.
Claims 9,10,25,26,29, and 30 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (2025/0267494) is cited to show a system which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476