DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 10/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of 63/546,898, filed 11/1/2023. The assignee of record is Skyworks Solutions, Inc. The listed inventor(s) is/are: Raghavan, Anand; Pehlke, David Richard.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025, 3/28/2025, 6/5/2025, 7/17/2025, & 9/1/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation(s) in the claim: “each antenna of the plurality of antennas.”
It appears an amendment such as “each antenna of a plurality of antennas” would be one way to correct the antecedent issue. Thank you, appropriate correction is required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/931,524. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the listed patent(s) with obvious wording variations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotamraju (WO 2022266599 A1, published 12/22/2022; hereinafter Kot9) in view of Kotamraju et al. (US 20230055613 A1, published 2/23/2023; hereinafter Kot3), and further in view of Gopal et al. (US 20210320697 A1, published 10/14/2021; hereinafter Gop).
For Claim 1, Kot9 teaches a mobile device comprising: a plurality of antennas (Please see screenshot of Kot9 Fig. 4 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
758
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a front… system coupled to the plurality of antennas and configured to transmit over a first frequency band and to a receive over a second frequency band (Kot9 ¶ 0051 In a dual connectivity mode between the LTE RAT and the NR RAT, such as an ENDC mode, both the LTE RAT and the NR RAT are active at the same time. However, to reduce UE manufacturing costs and support a small form factor, and for some band combinations, a UE 120 may not have enough antennas to dedicate (that is, orthogonalize) each antenna to only the LTE RAT or to only the NR RAT. As a result, the UE 120 may need to share antennas between the LTE RAT and the NR RAT, such that a particular antenna is used for the LTE RAT at one time and for the NR RAT at another time. This antenna sharing is particularly applicable to MIMO communications, where data is communicated simultaneously on multiple data streams (or MIMO layers), and the multiple data streams are received simultaneously by the UE 120 via different antennas
Kot ¶ 0052 The NR RAT supports a variety of SRS configurations, such as a “1T4R” configuration in which SRSs are transmitted for four NR antennas (to sound all four antennas) and a “1T2R” configuration in which SRSs are transmitted for two NR antennas (to sound two out of four antennas). For example, the UE 120 may transmit SRSs from multiple antennas serially (e.g., one antenna after another) on different subframes or symbols within an SRS period. Thus, antenna switching can occur multiple times, and multiple subframes can be impacted within an SRS period (with potentially different sets of antennas impacted in each SRS transmission). The NR RAT also supports periodic SRS transmission (configured in an RRC message) and aperiodic SRS transmission (triggered by downlink control information (DCI)).
Please also see Kot9 ¶ 0048, 0050, 0053, thank you); and
a radio configured to control the front… system to perform a sounding reference signaling for the first frequency band on the plurality of antennas (Kot9 ¶ 0052-0054, ¶ 0052 the UE 120 may transmit SRSs from multiple antennas serially (e.g., one antenna after another) on different subframes or symbols within an SRS period),
the radio operable to detect an antenna puncturing scenario arising from the sounding reference signaling for a first radio configuration in which each antenna of the plurality of antennas is used for receiving a corresponding data layer of the second frequency band (Kot9 ¶ 0051, 0058-0066, 0068.
Kot9 ¶ 0051 In a dual connectivity mode between the LTE RAT and the NR RAT, such as an ENDC mode, both the LTE RAT and the NR RAT are active at the same time. However, to reduce UE manufacturing costs and support a small form factor, and for some band combinations, a UE 120 may not have enough antennas to dedicate (that is, orthogonalize) each antenna to only the LTE RAT or to only the NR RAT. As a result, the UE 120 may need to share antennas between the LTE RAT and the NR RAT, such that a particular antenna is used for the LTE RAT at one time and for the NR RAT at another time. This antenna sharing is particularly applicable to MIMO communications, where data is communicated simultaneously on multiple data streams (or MIMO layers), and the multiple data streams are received simultaneously by the UE 120 via different antennas.
Kot9 ¶ 0064 For example, with a lower rank, the UE 120 may be able to decode a PDSCH successfully even if a subset of receive chains are interrupted, incurring no penalties from OLLA. As just one example, for a 20ms SRS periodicity, with 3 LTE subframes impacted, performance may be improved at a maximum rank of 2 for a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of approximately 12 dB to approximately 30 dB (relative to a maximum rank of 3 or 4). In some aspects, the performance may be a function of, for example, a channel model, a number of RS ports available, a total number of receive antennas available, the maximum rank (that is, the upper bound), or one or more other factors.
Kot9 ¶ 0068 the UE 120 may identify a set of potential ranks so that the identified set of potential ranks is less than or equal to the upper bound and may select the rank from the identified set of potential ranks. For example, a CSI processing block of the UE 120 may determine the rank based at least in part on a channel measurement. The CSI processing block may select the rank from a set of potential ranks. For example, if a UE 120 is capable of supporting communication with 4 MIMO layers, the set of potential ranks may include 1, 2, 3, and 4. The UE 120 may limit the set of potential ranks from which the CSI processing block can select a rank. For example, if the upper bound is 2, then the UE 120 may limit the set of potential ranks to include only 1 and 2. Limiting the set of potential ranks may conserve processing resources relative to other techniques for selecting a rank. Furthermore, limiting the set of potential ranks may ensure that the selected rank does not exceed the upper bound, while also ensuring that PMI and CQI, which are selected jointly with the rank, align to the selected rank).
Kot9 does not explicitly teach the radio further configured to indicate to a base station a second radio configuration in which a subset of the antennas are used at a given time for receiving the second frequency band to avoid the antenna puncturing scenario.
However, Kot3 teaches the radio further configured to indicate to a base station a second radio configuration in which a subset of the antennas are used at a given time for receiving the second frequency band to avoid the antenna puncturing scenario (Kot3 ¶ 0101, 0108-0112. Kot3 ¶ 0112 a mitigation action may include blanking one or more samples received in the one or more symbols (e.g., and via the one or more antennas) identified by the UE 120 as being impacted by the antenna switching. For example, the UE 120 may blank one or more samples received via an impacted antenna and in an impacted symbol. In some aspects, blanking a sample may include zeroing out the sample, dropping the sample, disregarding the sample, discarding the sample, or refraining from using the sample to interpret a signal received (e.g., in the symbol). The UE 120 may perform this blanking using a digital component of the UE 120 (e.g., a digital baseband component) and/or an analog component of the UE 120 (e.g., an analog radio frequency component). In some aspects, the UE 120 may select the mitigation action of blanking regardless of whether the impacted symbol is a data symbol (e.g., that carries data on a data channel, such as a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)) or a cell-specific reference signal (CRS) symbol (e.g., that carries a CRS). Please see Kot3 screenshot of Fig. 5 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image2.png
892
1182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kot3 and Kot9 are analogous art because they are both related to SRS antenna switching.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mitigation action of Kot3 with the system of Kot9 because by blanking samples in symbols impacted by antenna switching, the UE 120 avoids inaccuracies associated with those samples (e.g., due to a downlink communication not being received during the impacted symbols), thereby mitigating downlink performance degradation (Kot3).
Kot9-Kot3 does not explicitly use the term “front-end.”
However, Gop uses the term “front-end” and teaches a front-end system (Gop ¶ 0096 The RF front end 422 may include a set of switches (e.g., first and second cross-switches, XSW1 and XSW2) that may dictate the route that transmission signaling will traverse from a transceiver (or SDR) through the RF front end 422 and to one of the antenna 426a-d and that reception signaling will traverse from one of the antennas 426a-d through the RF front end 422 and a transceiver.
PNG
media_image3.png
626
952
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gop and Kot9-Kot3 are analogous art because they are both related to SRS antenna switching.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the front-end techniques of Gop with the system of Kot9-Kot3 to mitigate or avoid interruption or blanking on the first carrier 410a when sounding over (at least a portion of) the second carrier 410b (e.g., sounding with antenna switching) (Gop ¶ 0098).
For Claim 2, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the subset of the antennas is selected in hardware (Kot3 ¶ 0112).
For Claim 3, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 2, wherein the subset of the antennas is selected using at least one switch in the front-end system or radio (Gop ¶ 0096-0097).
For Claim 4, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the subset of the antennas is selected using software in the radio (Kot9 ¶ 0102, Kot3 ¶ 0069, 0112).
For Claim 5, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the subset of the antennas is dynamically changed by the radio over time (Kot9 ¶ 0052, Kot3 ¶ 0108-0112).
For Claim 6, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the subset of the antennas excludes a punctured antenna (Kot3 ¶ 0112).
For Claim 7, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 6 wherein the punctured antenna is used by the radio for signal diversity (Gop ¶ 0105, 0110, 0120).
For Claim 8, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the radio decodes a plurality of data layers received from a base station on the plurality of antennas, a number of the plurality of antennas greater than a number of the plurality of data layers (Kot9 ¶ 0038, 0050, 0065, 0068, 0072. Kot3 ¶ 0112).
For Claim 9, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the second radio configuration has a multiple-input multiple-output order that is smaller than that of the first radio configuration (Kot9 ¶ 0037-0038, 0050, 0065-0066, 0072. Kot3 ¶ 0112).
For Claim 12, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1 wherein the first frequency band is a fifth generation frequency band that is time-division duplexed (Gop ¶ 0067-0068, 0073-0074).
For Claim 13, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 12 wherein the second frequency band is fourth generation frequency band serving as an anchor carrier for dual connectivity (Kot9 ¶ 0045-0047. Gop ¶ 0066).
For Claim 14, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 12 wherein the second frequency band is time-division duplexed and asynchronous with the first frequency band (Gop ¶ 0066-0067, 0073-0074).
For Claim 15, Kot9 teaches a method of radio frequency communication, the method comprising: transmitting over a first frequency band and receiving over a second frequency band using a front-end system of a mobile device (Kot9 ¶ 0047, 0050-0054, 0076-0077); controlling the front-end system to perform a sounding reference signaling for the first frequency band on a plurality of antennas of the mobile device (Kot9 ¶ 0052-0054, 0076); detecting an antenna puncturing scenario arising from the sounding reference signaling for a first radio configuration in which each antenna of the plurality of antennas is used for receiving a corresponding data layer of the second frequency band (Kot9 ¶ 0051, 0058-0066, 0068). Kot9 does not explicitly teach indicating to a base station a second radio configuration in which a subset of the antennas are used at a given time for receiving the second frequency band to avoid the antenna puncturing scenario. However, Kot3 teaches indicating to a base station a second radio configuration in which a subset of the antennas are used at a given time for receiving the second frequency band to avoid the antenna puncturing scenario (Kot3 ¶ 0101, 0108-0112). Kot3 and Kot9 are analogous art because they are both related to SRS antenna switching. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mitigation action of Kot3 with the system of Kot9 because by blanking samples in symbols impacted by antenna switching, the UE 120 avoids inaccuracies associated with those samples (e.g., due to a downlink communication not being received during the impacted symbols), thereby mitigating downlink performance degradation (Kot3). Kot9-Kot3 does not explicitly use the term “front-end.” However, Gop uses the term “front-end” and teaches a front-end system (Gop ¶ 0096). Gop and Kot9-Kot3 are analogous art because they are both related to SRS antenna switching. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the front-end techniques of Gop with the system of Kot9-Kot3 to mitigate or avoid interruption or blanking on the first carrier 410a when sounding over (at least a portion of) the second carrier 410b (e.g., sounding with antenna switching) (Gop ¶ 0098).
For Claim 16, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the method of claim 15 further comprising dynamically changing the subset of the antennas over time (Kot9 ¶ 0052. Kot3 ¶ 0108-0112).
For Claim 17, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the method of claim 15 wherein the second radio configuration has a multiple-input multiple-output order that is smaller than that of the first radio configuration (Kot9 ¶ 0037-0038, 0050, 0065-0066, 0072. Kot3 ¶ 0112).
For Claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 20, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the radio system of claim 19 wherein the second radio configuration has a multiple-input multiple-output order that is smaller than that of the first radio configuration (Kot9 ¶ 0037-0038, 0050, 0065-0066, 0072. Kot3 ¶ 0112).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kot9-Kot3-Gop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 4G Americas (MIMO and Smart Antennas for Mobile Broadband Systems, June 2013; hereinafter 4GA).
For Claim 10, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 9, Kot9-Kot-3-Gop does not explicitly teach wherein the first radio configuration has a 4x4 order and the second radio configuration has a 4x2 order or a 4x3 order.
However, 4GA teaches wherein the first radio configuration has a 4x4 order and the second radio configuration has a 4x2 order or a 4x3 order (4GA Section 2.4 teaches 4x4 and 4x2 configurations, Kot9 ¶ 0065-0069 teaches selecting fewer rows while retaining the transmit dimension and Kot3 ¶ 0112 teaches excluding the punctured data input- therefore the combination as a whole teaches the claim).
4GA and Kot9-Kot3-Gop are analogous art because they are both related to antenna configurations.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antenna configuration techniques of 4GA with the system of Kot9-Kot3-Gop because improvements to interference (4GA Section 2.4).
Claim(s) 11 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kot9-Kot3-Gop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuang (WO 2020192782 A1, published 10/1/2020, English PE2E Machine Translation provided with the NF mailed 10/2026, all citations refer to the attached copy of Kua; hereinafter Kua).
For Claim 11, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the mobile device of claim 1, Kot9-Kot3-Gop does not explicitly teach wherein the second radio configuration is established by a capability signaling from the mobile device to a base station.
However, Kua teaches wherein the second radio configuration is established by a capability signaling from the mobile device to a base station (Kua Pg 12-14).
Kua and Kot9-Kot3-Gop are analogous art because they are both related to SRS antenna switching.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fallback techniques of Kua with the system of Kot9-Kot3-Gop because in a power consumption reduction scenario, based on the number of fallback MIMO layers, the network device configures the UE with a fallback SRS capability based on the SRS capability reported by the UE, effectively reducing power consumption (Kua Pg 3).
For Claim 18, Kot9-Kot3-Gop teaches the method of claim 15, Kot9-Kot3-Gop does not explicitly teach further comprising establishing the second radio configuration by a capability signaling from the mobile device to a base station. However, Kua teaches further comprising establishing the second radio configuration by a capability signaling from the mobile device to a base station (Kua Pg 12-14).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. TS 38.306 V17.2.0 Oct 2022
Please see PTO-892 for additional listing of relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon, thank you.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached on 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights