DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to 9/18/2024.
Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-22 are rejected.
Claim 6 is objected to.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 9/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the terminal device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the terminal device” will be understood as referring to “a communication device” in line 1.
Claims 21-22 are rejected by the virtue of its dependency on claim 15.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ioffe et al. US 20230254778 A1, hereinafter Ioffe.
Regarding Claim 1, Ioffe discloses a method for canceling multi-carrier real self-interference (Ioffe [0033-0034] discloses operation over certain frequency combinations for carrier aggregation or dual connectivity; techniques to mitigate interference), performed by a terminal device, comprising:
conducting, in response to determining that potential self-interference is encountered by a multi-carrier combination of the terminal device, real self-interference determination on the potential self-interference (Ioffe [0034] discloses the UE receiving an indication of self-interference at the UE; and determines if there is sufficient self-interference, e.g., if the self-interference exceeds a threshold); and
transmitting, in response to determining that real self-interference is encountered by in the multi-carrier combination, an instruction message to a network device, wherein the instruction message is configured to instruct the network device to conduct interference avoidance on the multi-carrier combination (Ioffe [0034-0035] discloses that if there is sufficient self-interference, then the one or more base stations may configure the UE for operations to avoid transmission interfering with reception; the UE may periodically or occasionally send the indication of self-interference to the one or more base stations; also may be event-driven).
Regarding Claim 2, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the conducting real self-interference determination on the potential self-interference comprises:
determining interference information of the potential self-interference (Ioffe Fig. 16, [0066] discloses an indication of self-interference; determined based on a receive signal quality (e.g., Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal-to-Interference & Noise Ratio (SINR), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ)) at the receiver 54 of the UE 10 in the victim component carrier, a receive signal power (e.g., Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)) at the receiver 54 in the victim component carrier, and so on); and
determining whether the potential self-interference is the real self-interference according to the interference information (Ioffe Fig. 16, [0067] discloses at block 314, the processor 12 determines whether the self-interference is greater than a threshold value).
Regarding Claim 3, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the determining whether the potential self-interference is the real self-interference according to the interference information comprises:
determining that a plurality of potential self-interference are encountered by the multi-carrier combination (Ioffe at least [0067] discloses that any of the self-interference criteria may be combined to determine the indication of self-interference); and
determining, for potential self-interference, whether the potential self-interference is the real self-interference according to the interference information of the potential self-interference (Ioffe at least [0067] discloses at block 314, the processor 12 determines whether the self-interference is greater than a threshold value; further, that any of the self-interference criteria may be combined to determine the indication of self-interference).
Regarding Claim 4, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the determining whether the potential self-interference is the real self-interference comprises:
determining current first transmission power of the terminal device and maximum second transmission power supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference (Ioffe [0067] discloses if the indication of self-interference is related to the transmission power at the transmitter (at a UE); the transmission power at transmitter 52 is the equivalent of “current first transmission power of the terminal device” and the maximum transmission power of the transmitter 52 is the equivalent of “maximum second transmission power supported by the terminal device”; [0062] discloses that the UE transmitting signals with a higher (e.g., maximum) transmission power may result in self-interference);
obtaining a difference between the first transmission power and the second transmission power (Ioffe [0067] discloses the threshold value may be such as a certain dB less than the maximum transmission power of the transmitter); and
determining, in response to determining the difference to be greater than a set value, that the potential self-interference is the real self-interference (Ioffe [0067] discloses the threshold value may be such as a certain dB less than the maximum transmission power of the transmitter).
Regarding Claim 5, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the determining current first transmission power of the terminal device and maximum second transmission power supported by the terminal device according to the interference information of the potential self-interference comprises:
determining one carrier or a plurality of carriers causing interference from the multi-carrier combination according to the interference information of the potential self-interference (Ioffe at least [0077] discloses the self-interference parameters may include any that indicate that the UE 10 transmitting signals over certain frequencies can cause harmonic or intermodulation interference with received signals over other frequencies);
computing the sum of the transmission power of the one carrier or the plurality of carriers causing interference, and obtaining the first transmission power (Ioffe [0067] discloses if the indication of self-interference is related to the transmission power at the transmitter (at a UE); the transmission power at transmitter 52); and
determining maximum transmission power supported by the one carrier or the plurality of carriers causing interference as the second transmission power (Ioffe [0067] discloses if the indication of self-interference is related to the transmission power at the transmitter (at a UE); the maximum transmission power of the transmitter 52).
Regarding Claim 7, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the determining that potential self-interference is encountered by a multi-carrier combination of the terminal device comprises:
determining whether the potential self-interference is encountered by the multi-carrier combination according to frequency information of a carrier in the multi-carrier combination of the terminal device (Ioffe at least [0059] discloses that certain specifications may not enable the UE to perform simultaneous operation over certain frequency combinations for carrier aggregation or dual connectivity because transmitting signals over certain frequencies can cause harmonic or intermodulation interference (which may generally be referred to as self-interference) with receiving signals over other frequencies).
Regarding Claim 8, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising:
continuing, in response to determining that no real self-interference is encountered by the multi-carrier combination, monitoring the potential self-interference and determining the real self-interference (Ioffe at least Fig. 16, [0034, 0068] discloses that if the processor determines that the self-interference is not greater than the threshold value, the UE does not perform to avoid (or decrease the likelihood of) transmission interfering with reception).
Regarding Claim 9, Ioffe discloses a method for canceling multi-carrier real self-interference (Ioffe [0033-0034] discloses operation over certain frequency combinations for carrier aggregation or dual connectivity; techniques to mitigate interference), performed by a network device, comprising:
receiving an instruction message transmitted by a terminal device, wherein the instruction message is transmitted by the terminal device in response to determining that real self-interference is encountered by a multi-carrier combination used (Ioffe [0034-0035] discloses that if there is sufficient self-interference, then the one or more base stations may configure the UE for operations to avoid transmission interfering with reception; the UE may periodically or occasionally send the indication of self-interference to the one or more base stations; also may be event-driven); and
conducting interference avoidance operation on the multi-carrier combination according to the instruction message (Ioffe [0034-0035] discloses that if there is sufficient self-interference, then the one or more base stations may configure the UE for operations to avoid transmission interfering with reception; the UE may periodically or occasionally send the indication of self-interference to the one or more base stations; also may be event-driven).
Regarding Claim 10, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the conducting interference avoidance operation on the multi-carrier combination comprises:
scheduling uplink and downlink work of two carriers encountering self-interference at different times (Ioffe at least [0051] discloses that restrictions on uplink and/or downlink allocations per component carrier (CC) may be introduced by a network scheduler (e.g., of a network implemented using base stations) to ensure that the UE 10 does not simultaneously transmit on the first component carrier 104 while receiving on a second component carrier 106).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 15 recites similar features as in claim 1 for an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 16, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses a communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory, such that the communication device executes the method according to claim 9 (Ioffe see at least Fig. 5, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses a communication device, comprising a processor and an interface circuit, wherein the interface circuit is configured to receive a code instruction and transmit the code instruction to the processor; and the processor is configured to run the code instruction, so as to execute the method according to claim 1 (Ioffe see at least Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses communication device, comprising a processor and an interface circuit, wherein the interface circuit is configured to receive a code instruction and transmit the code instruction to the processor; and the processor is configured to run the code instruction, so as to execute the method according to claim 9 (Ioffe see at least Fig. 5, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 19, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses a computer-readable storage medium, configured to store an instruction, wherein when the instruction is executed, the method according to claim 1 is implemented (Ioffe see at least Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses a computer-readable storage medium, configured to store an instruction, wherein when the instruction is executed, the method according to claim 9 is implemented (Ioffe see at least Fig. 5, [0050]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claims 2-3, respectively. Claims 21-22 recite similar features as in claims 2-3, respectively, for an apparatus.
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.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe, as applied to claims above, in view of Jung et al. US 20130044621 A1 (as cited in IDS), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding Claim 11, Ioffe discloses the method of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conducting interference avoidance operation on the multi-carrier combination comprises:
adjusting transmission power of the two carriers encountering the self-interference.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jung more specifically discloses wherein the conducting interference avoidance operation on the multi-carrier combination comprises:
adjusting transmission power of the two carriers encountering the self-interference (Jung [0089] discloses applying power reduction to some symbols of the subframe; blanking or applying power reduction on the minimum set of UL symbols at the aggressor carrier that de-senses DL symbols at the victim carrier; may also boost DL transmit power due to self-interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ioffe with the teachings of Jung for the avoidance or reduction of self-interference in carrier aggregation communication systems.
Regarding Claim 12, Ioffe in view of Jung discloses the method of claim 11. In the obvious combination, Jung more specifically discloses wherein the adjusting transmission power of the two carriers encountering the self-interference comprises:
adjusting transmission power of one of the two carriers encountering the self-interference, and maintaining transmission power of the other carrier; and alternatively, adjusting the transmission power of the two carriers encountering the self-interference simultaneously (Jung [0089] discloses applying power reduction to some symbols of the subframe; blanking or applying power reduction on the minimum set of UL symbols at the aggressor carrier that de-senses DL symbols at the victim carrier; may also boost DL transmit power due to self-interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ioffe with the teachings of Jung for the avoidance or reduction of self-interference in carrier aggregation communication systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Menkhoff et al. US 20220069861 A1
Hsia et al. US 20130244720 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWON KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, GARY MUI can be reached at (571)270-1420. 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.
/Y.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights