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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-2, 9-10, 14, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183).
Regarding claim 1, Landis teaches a network node of a mobile communication system, the network node comprising: at least one processor: and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Col 2, lines 11-26), cause the node at least to:
receive, from a user equipment, an indication that the user equipment has the capability to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for multi- band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24, especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3…….a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) includes transmitting an indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation at one or more center frequencies); and
transmit, to the user equipment, an approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24 especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3……. receiving an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. Further, Col 13, lines 5-24….. the base station may determine an uplink allocation, MCS, and/or whether to use full duplex operation or half duplex operation based at least in part on the indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation. The base station may transmit an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. In this way, the base station and the UE may be configured to communicate using parameters (e.g., uplink allocation size and/or location, MCS, and/or full duplex mode or half duplex mode) based at least in part on capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation).
Regarding claim 2, Landis teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the node is caused to: receive, from the user equipment, at least one proposed parameter to be used for mitigating self-interference at the user equipment for the multi- band operation; and determine the approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation based on the at least one proposed parameter (Col 15, lines 42-56……. Based at least in part on the indication of capabilities for self-interference cancellation, and based at least in part on the base station transmitting an indication of a configuration, the base station and the UE may be configured to communicate using parameters that may reduce or avoid a failure of the UE to receive downlink communications based at least in part on self-interference in a full-duplex mode. In this way, the UE and the base station may conserve computing, network, and/or power resources that may have otherwise been consumed to detect and/or correct failure by the UE to receive a downlink communications using a downlink allocation that overlaps an uplink allocation that is a distance from a center frequency that satisfies an offset threshold (e.g., such that the UE is unable to sufficiently suppress interference from an uplink transmission).
Regarding claim 9, Landis teaches a user equipment of a mobile communication system, the user equipment comprising: at least one processor: and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Col 2, lines 11-26) cause the user equipment at least to:
transmit, to a network node, an indication that the user equipment has the capability to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for multi- band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24, especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3…….a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) includes transmitting an indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation at one or more center frequencies); and
receive, from the network node, an approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24 especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3……. receiving an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. Further, Col 13, lines 5-24….. the base station may determine an uplink allocation, MCS, and/or whether to use full duplex operation or half duplex operation based at least in part on the indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation. The base station may transmit an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. In this way, the base station and the UE may be configured to communicate using parameters (e.g., uplink allocation size and/or location, MCS, and/or full duplex mode or half duplex mode) based at least in part on capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation).
Regarding claim 10, Landis teaches the user equipment of claim 9, wherein the user equipment is caused to: transmit, to the network node, at least one proposed parameter to be used for mitigating self-interference at the user equipment for multi-band operation (Col 15, lines 42-56……. Based at least in part on the indication of capabilities for self-interference cancellation, and based at least in part on the base station transmitting an indication of a configuration, the base station and the UE may be configured to communicate using parameters that may reduce or avoid a failure of the UE to receive downlink communications based at least in part on self-interference in a full-duplex mode. In this way, the UE and the base station may conserve computing, network, and/or power resources that may have otherwise been consumed to detect and/or correct failure by the UE to receive a downlink communications using a downlink allocation that overlaps an uplink allocation that is a distance from a center frequency that satisfies an offset threshold (e.g., such that the UE is unable to sufficiently suppress interference from an uplink transmission). .
Regarding claim 14, Landis teaches the user equipment of claim 9, wherein the user equipment is caused to: control user equipment transmissions to mitigate self interference at the user equipment (Col 9, lines 4-53).
Regarding claim 20, Landis teaches the user equipment of claim 9,wherein the multi-band operation as being one of inter-band carrier aggregation, CA, operation or dual connectivity, DC, operation (Col 6, line 45-Col 7, line 6).
Regarding claim 22, Landis teaches a method, comprising: transmitting, from a user equipment to a network node, an indication that the user equipment has the capability to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for multi- band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24, especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3…….a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) includes transmitting an indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation at one or more center frequencies); and
receiving, at the user equipment from the network node, an approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation (See Abstract; Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 58; Col 13, lines 5-24 especially Col 1, line 64-Col 2, line 3……. receiving an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. Further, Col 13, lines 5-24….. the base station may determine an uplink allocation, MCS, and/or whether to use full duplex operation or half duplex operation based at least in part on the indication of capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation. The base station may transmit an indication of a configuration, based at least in part on the indication of capabilities, associated with one or more subsequent communications. In this way, the base station and the UE may be configured to communicate using parameters (e.g., uplink allocation size and/or location, MCS, and/or full duplex mode or half duplex mode) based at least in part on capabilities of the UE for self-interference cancellation).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Furuichi (US 2022/0264312).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Landis fails to teach the network node of claim 2, wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a safe transmit power level of the user equipment, and wherein said safe transmit power level is a transmit power level of the user equipment below which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the user equipment by no more than a threshold amount.
However, in related art, Furuichi teaches the network node of claim 2, wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a safe transmit power level of the user equipment, and wherein said safe transmit power level is a transmit power level of the user equipment below which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the user equipment by no more than a threshold amount (Paragraph [0426]….. the protection point is set not only in a plane but also in a space. The protection point is an interference calculation point. The communication control device controls the communication parameters at the radio transmission point such that the interference power level at the protection point set in this manner is suppressed to be below an allowable value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Furuichi’s teaching about wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a safe transmit power level of the user equipment, and wherein said safe transmit power level is a transmit power level of the user equipment below which self-interference would affect sensitivity of a receiver of the user equipment by no more than a threshold amount with Landis’s invention in order to enable the use of wireless communication with optimal quality.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Furuichi (US 2022/0264312) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0406879).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination of Landis and Furuichi fail to teach the network node of claim 3, wherein the safe transmit power level is determined based, at least in part, on a maximum sensitivity degradation value, and wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a configuration of the multi-band operation at the user equipment.
However, Wang teaches the network node of claim 3, wherein the safe transmit power level is determined based, at least in part, on a maximum sensitivity degradation value (Paragraph [0005]……… a method includes ceasing uplink transmissions on a transmitter of user equipment, receiving a first indication of reference sensitivity at a receiver of the user equipment when a base station is not sending a downlink transmission to the receiver, and setting the transmitter to transmit at a predetermined power level. The method also includes causing the transmitter to transmit the uplink transmissions at the predetermined power level, receiving a second indication of interference power at the receiver, and causing the transmitter to transmit a maximum sensitivity degradation (MSD) value based on the reference sensitivity and the interference power), and wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a configuration of the multi-band operation at the user equipment (Paragraphs [0022, 0036-0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Wang’s teaching about wherein the safe transmit power level is determined based, at least in part, on a maximum sensitivity degradation value, and wherein the maximum sensitivity degradation value is based, at least in part, on a configuration of the multi-band operation at the user equipment with Landis’s and Furuichi’s invention for scheduling a frequency band combination for uplink and/or downlink communication.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Abdelmonem et al. (US Patent #11,509,072).
Regarding claim 5, Landis fails to teach the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust at least one of a primary component carrier and a secondary component carrier for the multi-band operation; and transmit a new approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation based on the adjusting.
However, in related art, Abdelmonem teaches the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust at least one of a primary component carrier and a secondary component carrier for the multi-band operation; and transmit a new approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation based on the adjusting (Col 37, lines 24-33…….. the method can include electronically adjusting polarizations of signals relating to radiating elements of an antenna system, the electronically adjusting being performed for multiple frequency bands and facilitating mitigation of the interference or the PIM. For example, similar to that described elsewhere herein, polarizations of signals relating to radiating elements of an antenna system may be electronically adjusted, the electronically adjusting being performed for multiple frequency bands and facilitating mitigation of the interference or the PIM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Abdelmonem’s teaching about wherein the node is caused to: adjust at least one of a primary component carrier and a secondary component carrier for the multi-band operation; and transmit a new approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment for the multi-band operation based on the adjusting with Landis’s invention in order to ensure that control was consistent throughout the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Pitzely (US 2016/0183196).
Regarding claim 6, Landis fails to teach the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust the user equipment transmissions based on the approval.
However, in related art, Pitzely teaches the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust the user equipment transmissions based on the approval. (Claims 7, 10, and 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Pitzely’s teaching about wherein the node is caused to: adjust the user equipment transmissions based on the approval with Landis’s invention in order to achieve desired performance and keep the gain relatively constant across operating conditions.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Choi (US 2019/0174200).
Regarding claim 7, Landis fails to teach the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the user equipment based on the approval.
However, in related art, Choi teaches the network node of claim1, wherein the node is caused to: adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the user equipment based on the approval (Paragraph [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Choi’s teaching about wherein the node is caused to: adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the user equipment based on the approval with Landis’s invention in order to efficiently utilize resources of the MS in a wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 16, Landis fails to teach the user equipment o
However, in related art, Choi teaches the user equipment o(Paragraph [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Choi’s teaching about wherein controlling said user equipment transmissions includes asking permission from the network node to adjust timings of one or more uplink transmissions of the user equipment with Landis’s invention in order to efficiently utilize resources of the MS in a wireless communication system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2024/0381137).
Regarding claim 13, Landis fails to teach the user equipment of claim 10,wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a transmit power level of the user equipment.
However, in related art, Kanamarlapudi teaches the user equipment of claim 10, wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a transmit power level of the user equipment (Paragraph [0128]……. wherein the one or more communication parameters comprise the transmission power level). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Kanamarlapudi’s teaching about wherein the at least one proposed parameter comprises a transmit power level of the user equipment with Landis’s invention in order to maintain a desired power level.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Sanders et al. (US 2007/0060190).
Regarding claim 15, Landis fails to teach the user equipment of claim 14, wherein controlling said user equipment transmissions includes capping a transmit power level of the user equipment to a determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded by implementing a transmit power control command received at the user equipment from the network node.
However, in related art, Sanders teaches the user equipment of claim 14, wherein controlling said user equipment transmissions includes capping a transmit power level of the user equipment to a determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded by implementing a transmit power control command received at the user equipment from the network node (Paragraphs 0026 and 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Sander’s teaching about wherein controlling said user equipment transmissions includes capping a transmit power level of the user equipment to a determined safe output power level in the event that it is determined that the safe output power level would be exceeded by implementing a transmit power control command received at the user equipment from the network node with Landis’s invention in order to achieve desired performance and keep the gain relatively constant across operating conditions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Tayamon et al. (US 2019/0174435).
Regarding claim 17, Landis fails to teach the user equipment of claim 14, wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to control transmit power levels of said transmissions.
However, in related art, Tayamon teaches the user equipment of claim 14, wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to control transmit power levels of said transmissions (Claims 43 and 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Tayamon’s teaching about wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to control transmit power levels of said transmissions with Landis’s invention so that more efficient and highly reliable communication can be realized.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Auffret et al. (US 2016/0230692).
Regarding claim 18, Landis fails to teach the user equipment of claim 14,wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to prioritise between at least one primary component carrier and one secondary component carrier.
However, in related art, Auffret teaches the user equipment of claim 14,wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to prioritise between at least one primary component carrier and one secondary component carrier (Claim 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Auffret’s teaching about wherein controlling said user equipment transmission includes asking permission from the network node to prioritise between at least one primary component carrier and one secondary component carrier with Landis’s invention in order to achieve best quality of signal by comparing with the received noise measurement and enhance better communication.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landis et al. (US Patent #11,606,183) in view of Pan (US 2019/0199776).
Regarding claim 19, Landis fails to teach the user equipment of claim 9,wherein the approval comprises an automatic approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment.
However, in related art, Pan teaches the user equipment of claim 9,wherein the approval comprises an automatic approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment (Paragraph [0088] …… By displaying approval sending options to the source user, the source user can intuitively determine and select whether to send an approval message to the approval user, to avoid causing any interference to the approval user even if the approval is canceled in time when the approval message is automatically sent to the approval user. In particular, the approval user is usually a management member within a group, and likely has an approval authority for file transmission of many group members at the same time. In this case, displaying approval sending options to each group member, the group member can cancel unnecessary or not urgent approval messages in time, which can greatly reduce interference to the management member as compared to manual cancellation after automatic transmission of the approval messages). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Pan’s teaching about wherein the approval comprises an automatic approval to allow the user equipment to mitigate self-interference at the user equipment with Landis’s invention in order to achieve a maximum transmission duration capability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharma et al. (US Patent #12,375,971), Bacon et al. (US 2024/0421966), Elshafie et al. (US 2024/0292433), Zeng et al. (US 2024/0129948), Abdelmonem (US 2024/0129016), Zhang et al. (US Patent #11,864,120), Kim (US 2023/0388935), Li et al. (US 2023/0388934), Zhou et al. (US 2023/0319728), Zhang et al. (US 2023/0107353), Wang et al. (US 2023/0100287), Abotabl et al. (US 2023/0091901), Abotabl et al. (US 2023/0059029), Kumar et al. (US 2022/0408286), Huang et al. (US 2022/0312471), Lim et al. (US 2022/0224460), Su et al. (US 2022/0159580), Zhang et al. (US 2021/0153214), Ang et al. (US 2021/0144657), Park et al. (US 2020/0359331), Wang et al. (US 2020/0022097), Jeon et al. (US 2017/0164301), Kim et al. (US 2016/0323830), Davydov et al. (US 2014/0321369), Jung et al. (US 2013/0044621), Pedersen et al. (US 2011/0212739), and Borran et al. (US 20090197629).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. 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, 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights