DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 07/06/2026, claims 26-37 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 1wl16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 26-31, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganapathi et al. (US 2013/0231148 A1) in view of Koo et al. (US 2014/0301361 A1).
Regarding claim 26; Ganapathi teaches a user equipment comprising: one processor; and one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor at least to perform:
determining that a level of interference of a received signal (See Fig. 3: At step 302, adjacent band interference is measured in the LTE band on which the LTE radio entity 202 is going to commence an LTE activity. ¶ [0041]) at the user equipment is above a threshold (See Fig. 3: At step 304, the measured adjacent band interference is compared with a predetermined threshold value to determine a level of interference that may affect operations of the LTE radio entity 202 during the active state. At step 306, it is determined whether the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. ¶ [0042]);
determining a state of at least one sub-system of the user equipment (See Fig. 3: at step 306, If the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, then the ISM radio entity 204 (i.e., one sub-system) is assumed to be operating in the ISM band or ISM activity (i.e., TX state) when the adjacent band interference was measured. ¶ [0042]); and
determining based, at least in part, on the determining that a level of interference of a received signal is above a threshold and the determined transmission state of at least one sub-system whether at least a portion of the interference (See Fig. 3: steps 302-306, determining the adjacent band interference being greater than the threshold and ISM band operation. ¶ [0041]-[0042]) is caused by a transmitter of the user equipment (See Fig. 3: handling in-device co-existence interference between an LTE radio entity (i.e., Transmitter#1) and an ISM radio entity (i.e., Transmitter#2) according to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention. ¶ [0040-0041], And see also ¶ [0014] for a transmitter of one radio that may affect a receiver of another radio. For example, a small form factor of the UE may cause interference from transmission using ISM technology to the receiver of cellular technologies such as LTE or WiMax. Similarly, the transmitter of cellular technology may cause interference to the ISM receiver).
Even though, Ganapathi teaches determining an interference between the two transmitting components (i.e., LTE and ISM), Ganapathi doesn’t explicitly provide a transmission state.
However, Koo discloses using a transmission state (Koo-See Fig. 1: whether the interfering transmission component is active or inactive. In some implementations, the indication can be an On-Off field, where the On-Off field has a first value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is active, and a second value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is inactive. Note- both active or inactive states could be analyzed as transmission state of the TX components. ¶ [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a transmission state as taught by Koo to have incorporated in the system of Ganapathi, so that it would provide improve identification and mitigation of IDC interference and would merely combine known IDC detection techniques according to their established functions. Koo-¶ [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claim 27; Ganapathi in view of Koo discloses the user equipment as claimed in claim 26, wherein determining the transmission state of at least one sub-system of the user equipment comprises receiving an indication that a transmitter of the one sub-system of the user equipment is active (Koo-See Fig. 1: whether the interfering transmission component is active or inactive. In some implementations, the indication can be an On-Off field, where the On-Off field has a first value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is active, and a second value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is inactive. Note- both active or inactive states could be analyzed as transmission state of the TX components. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 28; Ganapathi teaches the user equipment wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the user equipment at least to determine that the source of at least part of the interference is internal to the user equipment (Ganapathi-Handling in-device co-existence interference. See Abstract), wherein the determining is based on the determining that a level of interference of a received signal is above a threshold and the determined transmission state of at least one sub- system (See Fig. 3: At step 306, it is determined whether the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. If the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. ¶ [0042]).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “…or…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 29; Ganapathi teaches the user equipment wherein determining whether at least a portion of the interference is caused by a transmitter of the user equipment comprises determining whether at least one transmitter of at least one sub-system of the user equipment is on while the interference is received (See Fig. 3: a transmitter of one radio that may affect a receiver of another radio. For example, a small form factor of the UE may cause interference from transmission using ISM technology to the receiver of cellular technologies such as LTE or WiMax. Similarly, the transmitter of cellular technology may cause interference to the ISM receiver). ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claim 30; Ganapathi teaches the user equipment wherein determining that a level of interference of a received signal at a user equipment is above a threshold comprises comparing a signal indicative of the power of the received signal (Ganapathi-See Fig. 3: the adjacent band interference indicates that no ISM activity is ongoing in the ISM band when the LTE radio entity 202 transitions to the active state from the inactive state by measuring power levels in the LTE band. ¶ [0041]) and a reference signal level (Koo-identifying one or more available frequencies that may include those associated with a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal Received Quality (RS
RQ) that is in a specified acceptable range. ¶ [0069]).
Regarding claim 31; Ganapathi in view of Koo discloses the user equipment as claimed in claim 26, wherein the means are configured instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the user equipment at least to :determine, for a plurality of received signals received over a period of time, whether at least a portion of each of the plurality of received signals is caused by a transmitter of the user equipment (Koo- A TDM solution generally involves modifying a time pattern associated with communication of a particular radio interface in the UE to cause time separation between transmissions at a first radio interface and receptions at a second radio interface. There can be several types of TDM solutions, including, as examples, the following: a TDM-DRX (Discontinuous Reception) solution, a TDM-HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) solution, and a TDM-gap solution. ¶ [0017]); and determine timing information for received signals from at least one source that is internal to the user equipment (Koo- TDM patterns (e.g. on-time, off-time, and duration cycle) or parameters to enable the provision of a TDM solution, and other information. ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 33: Ganapathi teaches a method comprising:
determining that a level of interference of a received signal (See Fig. 3: At step 302, adjacent band interference is measured in the LTE band on which the LTE radio entity 202 is going to commence an LTE activity. ¶ [0041]) at the user equipment is above a threshold (See Fig. 3: At step 304, the measured adjacent band interference is compared with a predetermined threshold value to determine a level of interference that may affect operations of the LTE radio entity 202 during the active state. At step 306, it is determined whether the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. ¶ [0042]);
determining a state of at least one sub-system of the user equipment (See Fig. 3: at step 306, If the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, then the ISM radio entity 204 (i.e., one sub-system) is assumed to be operating in the ISM band or ISM activity (i.e., TX state) when the adjacent band interference was measured. ¶ [0042]); and
determining based, at least in part, on the determining that a level of interference of a received signal is above a threshold and the determined transmission state of at least one sub-system whether at least a portion of the interference (See Fig. 3: steps 302-306, determining the adjacent band interference being greater than the threshold and ISM band operation. ¶ [0041]-[0042]) is caused by a transmitter of the user equipment (See Fig. 3: handling in-device co-existence interference between an LTE radio entity (i.e., Transmitter#1) and an ISM radio entity (i.e., Transmitter#2) according to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention. ¶ [0040-0041], And see also ¶ [0014] for a transmitter of one radio that may affect a receiver of another radio. For example, a small form factor of the UE may cause interference from transmission using ISM technology to the receiver of cellular technologies such as LTE or WiMax. Similarly, the transmitter of cellular technology may cause interference to the ISM receiver).
Even though, Ganapathi teaches determining an interference between the two transmitting components (i.e., LTE and ISM), Ganapathi doesn’t explicitly provide a transmission state.
However, Koo discloses using a transmission state (Koo-See Fig. 1: whether the interfering transmission component is active or inactive. In some implementations, the indication can be an On-Off field, where the On-Off field has a first value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is active, and a second value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is inactive. Note- both active or inactive states could be analyzed as transmission state of the TX components. ¶ [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a transmission state as taught by Koo to have incorporated in the system of Ganapathi, so that it would provide improve identification and mitigation of IDC interference and would merely combine known IDC detection techniques according to their established functions. Koo-¶ [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claim 34; Ganapathi teaches the method as claimed in claim 33, wherein determining the transmission state of at least one sub-system of the user equipment comprises receiving an indication that a transmitter of the at least one sub-system of the user equipment is active (Koo-See Fig. 1: whether the interfering transmission component is active or inactive. In some implementations, the indication can be an On-Off field, where the On-Off field has a first value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is active, and a second value to indicate that the interfering transmission component is inactive. Note- both active or inactive states could be analyzed as transmission state of the TX components. ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 35; Ganapathi teaches the method as claimed in claim 33, wherein the method comprises determining that the source of at least part of the interference is internal to the user equipment (Ganapathi-Handling in-device co-existence interference. See Abstract), wherein the determining is based on the determining that a level of interference of a received signal is above a threshold and the determined transmission state of at least one sub- system (See Fig. 3: At step 306, it is determined whether the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. If the adjacent band interference is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. ¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 36; Ganapathi teaches the method wherein the method comprises: determining, for a plurality of received signals received over a period of time, whether at least a portion of each of the plurality of received signals is caused by a transmitter of user equipment (Koo- A TDM solution generally involves modifying a time pattern associated with communication of a particular radio interface in the UE to cause time separation between transmissions at a first radio interface and receptions at a second radio interface. There can be several types of TDM solutions, including, as examples, the following: a TDM-DRX (Discontinuous Reception) solution, a TDM-HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) solution, and a TDM-gap solution. ¶ [0017]); and determine timing information for received signals from at least one source that is internal to the user equipment (Koo- TDM patterns (e.g. on-time, off-time, and duration cycle) or parameters to enable the provision of a TDM solution, and other information. ¶ [0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims 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.
Baghel et al. (US 2014/0334330 A1 to discuss the method for Handling In-Device Co-Existence Interference in UE).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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.
/SAI AUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights