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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/08/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3-4, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 3-4, line 2; claim 6, line 3 and claim 11, line , recites "TOF interference"; suggest change to "the TOF interference". Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claims limitation “configured to wirelessly communicate”, “configured to perform”, “configured to operate” and “configured to use” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
References cited but not used
Gormley et al. (U.S 2020/0344619), discloses the interference from the aggressor cells can be efficiently mitigated by determining that the victim cell is being affected by such interference, identifying the aggressor cells, and selectively increasing the guard time between the aggressor cells and the victim cell.
Casey et al. (U.S 2022/0217706), discloses the spectrum management system can take into account available spectrum as well as the predicted network traffic and their spectrum allocations to determine an RF spectrum slot that can provide a stable and continuous communications channel to the aircraft during its flight.
Kumar et al. (U.S 2020/0037219), discloses the UE 104a may measure the interference during an unscheduled period, or may measure interference to a received reference signal. The UE 104 may include the measured interference in the samples provided to the network for updating the database. The UE 104a may alter a flight path based on interference predicted based on the database.
Rico Alvarino et al. (U.S 10, 848,294), discloses the base station experiencing the interference may be referred to as a victim base station. Based on the distance between the base stations, the downlink transmission from the aggressor base station may reach the victim base station during an uplink slot or field of the TDD configuration and interfere with uplink transmissions to the victim base station and the interference may be mitigated by modifying transmission at the aggressor base station or by modifying uplink scheduling at the victim base station.
Kim et al. (U.S 2020/0359223), discloses the aggressor base station and the victim base station may implement techniques to identify and mitigate interference from the aggressor base station.
Chauhan et al. (U.S 2020/0374812), discloses Mitigating aggressor cell from base stations connected to each other over a wireless communication network and operating on time division duplexing (TDD).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action and cancel all withdrawn claims 16-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (7:30AM-5:00PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICKY NGO can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
/Lan-Huong Truong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464
06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights