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 .
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 1-4, 8-10, 15-18, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 11-12, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/817,483 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach the same inventive concpet.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches a device of a mobile communication system, the device comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to perform determining a safe output power level of the device based, at least in part, on a determined maximum sensitivity degradation type of the device, wherein said safe output power level is a transmit power of the device at which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the device with no more than a threshold amount; receiving a power command, from a network node of the mobile communication system, for controlling the transmit power of the device; determining whether the determined safe output level would be exceeded with implementing the received power command; and controlling device transmissions in accordance with a self-interference control algorithm in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to limit a transmit power of the device to the determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to control the transmit power level of the device (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the device (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the device is further caused to perform determining said maximum sensitivity degradation type (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the device is further caused to perform determining a maximum sensitivity degradation value for the device, wherein said safe output power level is determined based, at least in part, on said determined maximum sensitivity degradation value (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a carrier aggregation configuration or a dual connectivity configuration of the device (Claims 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 15, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches a method comprising determining a safe output power level of a device of a mobile communication system based, at least in part, on a determined maximum sensitivity degradation type of the device, wherein said safe output power level is a transmit power of the device at which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the device with no more than a threshold amount; receiving a power command, from a network node of the mobile communication system, for controlling the transmit power of the device; determining whether the determined safe output level would be exceeded with implementing the received power command; and controlling device transmissions in accordance with a self-interference control algorithm in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 16, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the self-interference control algorithm limits a transmit power of the device to the determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 17, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein controlling said device transmissions includes controlling the transmit power level of the device (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 18, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein controlling said device transmissions includes adjusting timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the device (Claim 16).
Regarding claim 21, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches determining said maximum sensitivity degradation type (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 22, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches determining a maximum sensitivity degradation value for the device, wherein said safe output power level is determined based, at least in part, on said determined maximum sensitivity degradation value (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 23, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a carrier aggregation configuration or a dual connectivity configuration of the device (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 25, Application No. 18/817,483 teaches A non-transitory program storage device readable with an apparatus, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable with the apparatus for causing the apparatus to determine a safe output power level of a device of a mobile communication system based, at least in part, on a determined maximum sensitivity degradation type of the device, wherein said safe output power level is a transmit power of the device at which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the device with no more than a threshold amount; receive a power command, from a network node of the mobile communication system, for controlling the transmit power of the device; determine whether the determined safe output level would be exceeded with implementing the received power command; and control device transmissions in accordance with a self-interference control algorithm in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Claims 9 and 11-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-3, 8-17, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns (US Pat Pub# 2011/0009150) in view of Furuichi (US Pat Pub# 2022/0264312) and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0406879.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 25, Cairns teaches a device of a mobile communication system, the device comprising at least one processor (Fig. 3, control module); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to perform output power level is a transmit power of the device at which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the device with no more than a threshold amount (Sections 0008, 0019, and 0023, power control due to self-interference taken into account etc.); receiving a power command, from a network node of the mobile communication system, for controlling the transmit power of the device (Sections 0008, 0019, and 0023, power control command from a base station); and controlling device transmissions in accordance with a self-interference control algorithm (Sections 0008, 0019, and 0023, power control due to self-interference taken into account etc.). Cairns fails to teach a safe output power level and a maximum sensitivity degradation type.
Furuichi teaches the device to perform determining a safe output power level of the device wherein said safe output power level is a transmit power of the device at which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the device with no more than a threshold amount (Section 0426, communication device controls parameters for transmission such that the interference power level is at a safe level below a maximum level etc.); determining whether the determined safe output level would be exceeded with implementing the received power command (Section 0426, communication device controls parameters for transmission such that the interference power level is at a safe level below a maximum level etc.); and controlling device transmissions in accordance in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Section 0426, communication device controls parameters for transmission such that the interference power level is at a safe level below a maximum level etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a safe output power level as taught by Furuichi into Cairns’s device in order to improve protection and performance of a device.
Cairns and Furuichi fail to teach a maximum sensitivity degradation type.
Wang teaches determining a safe output power level of the device based, at least in part, on a determined maximum sensitivity degradation type of the device (Section 0005, transmitting at a maximum sensitivity degradation value based on sensitivity and interference etc. at a threshold “safe” level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a maximum sensitivity degradation type as taught by Wang into a safe output power level as taught by Furuichi into Cairns’s device in order to improve protection and performance of a device.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Furuichi further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to limit a transmit power of the device to the determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output level would be exceeded with implementing said power command (Section 0426, communication device controls parameters for transmission such that the interference power level is at a safe level below a maximum level etc.).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Cairns further teaches cause the device to control the transmit power level of the device (Sections 0008, 0019, and 0023, power control command from a base station due to self-interference taken into account etc.).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Wang further teaches wherein the device is further caused to perform determining said maximum sensitivity degradation type (Section 0005, transmitting at a maximum sensitivity degradation value based on sensitivity and interference etc. at a threshold “safe” level).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Wang further teaches wherein the device is further caused to perform determining a maximum sensitivity degradation value for the device, wherein said safe output power level is determined based, at least in part, on said determined maximum sensitivity degradation value (Section 0005, transmitting at a maximum sensitivity degradation value based on sensitivity and interference etc. at a threshold “safe” level).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Wang further teaches wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a carrier aggregation configuration or a dual connectivity configuration of the device (Sections 0005, 0022, and 0036-0039, transmitting at a maximum sensitivity degradation value based on sensitivity and interference etc. at a threshold “safe” level in a multi-band operation).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Wang further teaches to perform determining and storing maximum sensitivity degradation values during use of the device (Sections 0005 and 0036, transmitting at a maximum sensitivity degradation value based on sensitivity and interference etc. at a threshold “safe” level and storing MSD values etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Cairns further teaches wherein the power command is a transmit power control command indicating whether a transmit power level of the device should be increased or decreased (Sections 0008, 0019, and 0023, power control command to increase/decrease power from a base station).
Regarding claim 13, Furuichi further teaches cause the device to perform not implementing a transmit power control command to increase the transmit power level in the event that the determined safe output level of the device has been reached or would be exceeded with said increase (Section 0426, communication device controls parameters for transmission such that the interference power level is at a safe level below a maximum level etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Furuichi further teaches wherein the device is further caused to perform determining and updating stored safe output power level data (Section 0243 and 0269, storing power levels etc.).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns (US Pat Pub# 2011/0009150) in view of Furuichi (US Pat Pub# 2022/0264312) and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0406879) and further in view of Choi (US Pat Pub# 2019/0174200).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Cairns in view of Furuichi and further in view of Wang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 15. Cairns, Furuichi, and Wang fail to teach adjusting timings of one or more uplink transmissions.
Choi teaches when executed with the at least one processor, cause the device to adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the device (Section 0122, adjusting the timings of the uplink transmission singal(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adjusting timings of one or more uplink transmissions as taught by Choi into a maximum sensitivity degradation type as taught by Wang into a safe output power level as taught by Furuichi into Cairns’s device in order to improve constant performance.
Claims 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns (US Pat Pub# 2011/0009150) in view of Furuichi (US Pat Pub# 2022/0264312) and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pat Pub# 2024/0406879) and further in view of Park et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0312427).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Cairns in view of Furuichi and further in view of Wang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 15. Cairns, Furuichi, and Wang fail to teach prioritize between transmissions.
Park teaches cause the device to prioritize between transmissions of different types (Tables 7 and 8 on page 18, prioritizes power allocation for different transmissions to different carriers etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate prioritize between transmissions as taught by Park into a maximum sensitivity degradation type as taught by Wang into a safe output power level as taught by Furuichi into Cairns’s device in order to improve functionality and performance.
Regarding claim 6, Park further teaches cause the device to prioritize between uplink and downlink transmissions (Tables 7 and 8 on page 18, prioritizes power allocation for different transmissions to different carriers etc.).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Park further teaches cause the device to control power levels of said transmissions on a slot-to-slot basis (Tables 7 and 8 on page 18, prioritizes power allocation of symbols of a slot for different transmissions to different carriers etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights