DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 11/04/2025.
Claims 1-17 and 19-30 are pending for examination.
Claims 1, 17, 29, and 30 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been cancelled to date.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 11/19/2025 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 17, 29, and 30, Applicant argues that none of the references in the previous Office Action, namely Gholmieh, fairly teach/suggest the amended claim feature of: “…transmitting, to a second wireless device and based at least in part on a measured interference of at least one default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies, a message comprising an indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device,” where support for this feature is indicated as being in paras. [0098] and [0100] of the original disclosure. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 12-13.
The Examiner agrees. However, in the present Office Action, new prior art: Jiang, is relied upon to substantially teach/suggest the above claim feature at issue. As such, Applicant’s arguments against only the prior art of the previous Office Action have effectively been rendered moot.
With respect to the above-contested claim subject matter, Jiang’s UE can measure interference, i.e., self-interference, over a default, i.e., predetermined, device operating frequency associated with a NR/LTE RAT band(s), and then report its interference measurements to a corresponding network BS in an RF capability message (paras. [0046], [0065]-[0066], and [0085]-[0087]; and block(s) 202/302 of Figs. 2-3). This subject matter in Jiang fairly reads on the amended claimed feature of: transmitting a message to second wireless device based at least in part on a measured interference of at least one default operating frequency. The Examiner notes also notes that interference measurement-reporting is widely used for operating frequency selection.
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Gholmieh’s UE capability information reporting, in terms of default operating frequency, with UE measured operating frequency interference reporting, to better inform the network of interference detected over a UE operating frequency in order to improve network resource selection/determination.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 1, 17, 29, and 30, have either been rendered moot based on a new grounds of rejection being applied under §103, or are otherwise determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 14. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-13, 14-17, 19, 20, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2019/0253925 A1, Gholmieh et al. (hereinafter “Gholmieh”), in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0067225 A1, Mo et al. (hereinafter “Mo”), in further view of US PG Pub 2020/0112853 A1, Jiang et al. (hereinafter “Jiang”), in yet further view of US PG Pub No. 2018/0049224 A1, Dinan et al. (hereinafter “Dinan”), in still further view of US PG Pub 2019/0239092 A1, Zhou et al. (hereinafter “Zhou”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Gholmieh teaches:
A method for wireless communication at a first wireless device (para. [0032], UE 104 of Fig. 1 —a UE can communicate with a BS 102 over MIMO communication link 120), comprising:
identifying, by the first wireless device, one or more default operating frequencies for communicating over a bandwidth (paras. [0041] and [0067], RF capability 404 of Fig. 4 —the UE 104 can identify its per frequency band communications capability to a BS 102 over link 120, which has an associated bandwidth), each default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies being predetermined by an antenna array configuration of the first wireless device (paras. [0032], [0053] and [0054] —the NR CA frequency band “combos” of the UE’s RF capability indication, 404 and 1202 (Fig. 12), are predetermined operating frequencies corresponding to the MIMO antenna hardware that the UE is outfitted with to communicate using CA —UE TX/RX MIMO antennas 352 (Fig. 3) depict an antenna array with predetermined RF capability —RF capability is bound at the time of manufacture, para. [0092], lines 15-16);
transmitting, to a second wireless device (para. [0032], BS 102 of Fig. 1), a message comprising an indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device (paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS in the UE Capabilities message); and
communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth based at least in part on the one or more default operating frequencies (paras. [0041] and [0139] —the UE 104 transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS 102 in the UE Capabilities message —this communication can occur over link 120, via its associated bandwidth).
Gholmieh does not explicitly teach:
operating frequencies being predetermined by an inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array.
Mo teaches:
one or more default operating frequencies being predetermined by an inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 7 and 10A-C —the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE antenna array 700 with inter-element spacing, d = 5mm, can be: 30GHz at 0.5λ, 24GHz at 0.4λ, and 39GHz at 0.65λ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh’s UE antenna array with an antenna array having predetermined operating frequencies defined by the inter-antenna element spacing of the antenna array, as taught by Mo.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE as being defined by its antenna array’s physical characteristics, namely its antenna element spacing (a well-known antenna design characteristic), as recognized by Mo (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 7 and 10A-C).
Gholmieh in view of Mo does not explicitly teach:
transmitting the message to second wireless device based at least in part on a measured interference of at least one default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies;
Jiang does teach:
transmitting a message to second wireless device based at least in part on a measured interference of at least one default operating frequency (paras. [0046], [0065]-[0066], and [0085]-[0087]; and block(s) 202/302 of Figs. 2-3 —a UE can measure interference, i.e., self-interference, over a default, i.e., predetermined, device operating frequency associated with a NR/LTE RAT band, and report it to a network BS in an RF capability message —the Examiner notes that interference measurement-reporting is well-known in the art);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo’s UE capability information reporting in terms of default operating frequency with UE measured operating frequency interference reporting, as taught by Jiang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the network of interference detected over a UE operating frequency to improve network resource determination, as recognized by Jiang (paras. [0046], [0065]-[0066], and [0085]-[0087]; and block(s) 202/302 of Figs. 2-3).
Gholmieh in view of Mo and Jiang does not teach:
receiving, based at least in part on the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies, a first system information comprising a parameter that indicates a plurality of cells, wherein the parameter indicates that the second wireless device associated with a cell of the plurality of cells operates using at least one antenna array configuration having a corresponding inter-antenna element spacing that is within a threshold value of the inter antenna element spacing of the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device; and
communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth based on receiving the first system information.
Dinan does teach:
receiving, based at least in part on an indication of the one or more default operating frequencies, a first system information comprising a parameter that indicates a mapping for a plurality of cells, wherein the parameter indicates that the second wireless device associated with a cell of the plurality of cells operates using at least one antenna array configuration having a corresponding inter-antenna element spacing that is within a threshold value of the inter antenna element spacing of the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device (paras. [0218]-[0221], [0238], [0264]-[0268], and [0273]-[0277]; and Figs. 20-21, 28 and 29 —a UE can transmit operating frequency capability information, i.e., for its transmitter/receiver, to the network to indicate supported frequency band information with which it can communicate to support sidelink communications, etc. —a serving BS can then transmit/broadcast one or more frequency mapping parameter(s) within system configuration information/parameters, i.e., SIB configuration(s), via RRC messaging to the UE based on the received UE RF communication capability —the system configuration information, i.e., SIB(s)13/15, can correspond to neighboring cells, i.e., Pcells/Scells, within the UEs area operating at one or more frequencies, i.e., SIB15 SAI-FreqList (inter/intra), corresponding the UE’s own RF capability, paras. [0265] and [0273]-[0275] —a wireless device’s inter-antenna element spacing of its antenna array configuration directly corresponds to its frequency band communications capability within a threshold engineering tolerance)
wherein the parameter indicates a first default operating frequency of the second wireless device (paras. [0220]-[0222], and [0238]; and Fig. 18 —the BS SIB parameter(s) can indicate a default operating frequency/band of the BS);
communicating with a second wireless device over the bandwidth based on receiving the first system information (paras. [0273]-[0276], and [0281] —a UE can communicate with both primary and a secondary serving cells (Pcell/Scells) that operate using a same supported frequency band(s) (i.e., as indicated in SIB15) as a UE, in accordance with the UE’s own reported communication capability).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo and Jiang’s UE antenna array having predetermined operating frequencies defined by the inter-antenna element spacing with SIB-based network device frequency list correlation/mapping, as taught by Dinan.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve determinations of whether or not UE/BS devices are configured to communicate with each other over various compatible frequency resources, as recognized by Dinan (paras. [0214]-[0215], [0218]-[0221] and [0227]-[0230]; and Figs. 19-21 and 28-30).
Gholmieh, Mo, Jiang and Dinan do not explicitly teach:
a plurality of cells each operating using at least one antenna array configuration that is the same as the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device; and
communicating with the second wireless device in accordance with a difference between a second default operating frequency of the first wireless device and a first default operating frequency of the second wireless device satisfying a threshold difference.
Zhou does teach:
a plurality of cells each operating using at least one antenna array configuration that is the same as the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device (paras. [0025]-[0027], [0074]-[0075] and [0086]-[0088]; and PCell 105A and SCell 105B of Fig. 6B —a PCell can operate using a first antenna array configuration that operates at the same frequency (i.e., a sub-6 frequency) as an antenna configuration of the UE, and the SCell can operate using a second antenna array configuration that operates at a same frequency (i.e., a mmW frequency) as an antenna configuration of the UE, as depicted in Fig. 6B).
communicating with the second wireless device in accordance with a difference between a second default operating frequency of the first wireless device and a first default operating frequency of the second wireless device satisfying a threshold difference (paras. [0025], [0075], and [0079]-[0080]; and Fig. 5A-B —a UE can communicate with a serving BS having the same default operating frequency, i.e., in the mmW or Sub6 range(s)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang and Dinan’s UE antenna array having predetermined operating frequencies defined by the inter-antenna element spacing with the antenna array configuration of a wireless device being capable of communicating over both sub-6 and mmW frequencies corresponding to different antenna array configurations of a PCell and a SCell, as taught by Zhou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE communicate with a Pcell and a SCell at the same time using different frequencies associated with different antenna array configurations, as recognized by Zhou (paras. [0025]-[0027], [0074]-[0075] and [0086]-[0088]; and PCell & SCell 105A-B of Fig. 6B).
With Respect to Claim 3, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the second wireless device, a second message comprising an indication of one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0036] and [0037] —the BS can be configured to send a beamformed signal to the UE and perform beam training with the UE —beam training indicates direction of designed operating frequencies of the BS); and
determining the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device based at least in part on the second message (Gholmieh: para. [0037] —beam training a UE over one or more BS frequencies includes a UE identifying operating frequency data of the BS, i.e., identifying frequency w/ angle of arrival (AoA)),
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device are determined by at least an antenna configuration of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: para. [0037] —beam training a UE corresponds to a directional antenna configurations associated with a particular operating frequency of the BS —BS 102 of Fig. 1 is depicted with multiple directional antenna panels), or one or more carrier frequencies associated with an analog beamforming codebook of the second wireless device, or a frequency band from a set of frequency bands, or a channel from a set of channels, or any combination thereof (the alternative term “or,” does not require examination on the merits of the remainder of the alternative claim limitations, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation section).
With Respect to Claim 4, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
selecting one or more communications parameters based at least in part on the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device and the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0070]-[0079], and Tables 1-3 —various band parameters (obps) can be selected by the BS for CA, where the BS communicates with a UE via one or more designated frequency bands),
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the selected one or more communications parameters (Gholmieh: paras. [0175] and [0041], and block 1616 of Fig. 16 —the BS can communicate with the UE based on the UE RF capability, which includes various RF parameters, i.e., obps).
With Respect to Claim 6, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
selecting at least the frequency band, or the channel, or any combination thereof, for communicating with the second wireless device based at least in part on the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device and the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0070]-[0079] —frequency bands can be selected by the BS for CA, where the BS communicates with a UE via one or more designated frequency bands),
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the selected frequency band, or the channel, or any combination thereof (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0175], and block 1616 of Fig. 16 —the BS can communicate with the UE based on the corresponding selected frequency band(s)).
With Respect to Claim 10, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the message comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device comprises:
transmitting, to the second wireless device, a capability message comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS in the UE Capabilities message).
With Respect to Claim 11, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the message comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device comprises:
transmitting, to the second wireless device, control information comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS in the UE Capabilities message —the baseband parameters (obps) sent from the UE to the BS are interpreted to be control information, i.e., bandwidth class and MIMO control data).
With Respect to Claim 12, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device indicate performance metrics for a set of frequencies over the bandwidth (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0141] —the UE transmits the UE Capabilities message which includes RF capability and other parameters that can indication frequency metrics supported by the UE —frequency metrics are interpreted to indicate performance metrics as they are required for the UE to be able to perform basic RF communication).
With Respect to Claim 13, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 1.
Gholmieh does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device indicate the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device, the antenna array configuration comprising the inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array having uniformly spaced antenna elements or non-uniformly spaced antenna elements.
Mo does teach:
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device indicate the antenna array configuration of the first wireless device, the antenna array configuration comprising the inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array having uniformly spaced antenna elements or non-uniformly spaced antenna elements (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 5 and 7-9 —the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE antenna array 700 can be: 30GHz at 0.5λ, 24GHz at 0.4λ, and 39GHz at 0.65λ —the inter-antenna element spacing, d, can be uniform, i.e., 5mm, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 7-9 —The Examiner notes that as a matter of fact, if an antenna array with multiple spaced antenna elements does not have uniformly spaced antenna elements, then the antenna array would naturally have non-uniformly spaced antenna elements at the only other alternative).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh’s UE antenna array with an antenna array having predetermined operating frequencies defined by the inter-antenna element spacing of the antenna array, as taught by Mo.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE as being defined by its antenna array’s physical characteristics, namely its antenna element spacing (a well-known antenna design characteristic), as recognized by Mo (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 7 and 10A-C).
With Respect to Claim 14, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the antenna array configuration comprises a number of radio frequency chains associated with an antenna array of the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0032] and [0050]-[0051] —the RF hardware chain of the UE is depicted in Fig. 3, comprising RF components: 352, 354, 356, 358 and 368, which enable MIMO functionality —MIMO antenna 352 is an antenna array).
With Respect to Claim 15, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more default operating frequencies are specific to the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS that are interpreted to be specific to the UE).
With Respect to Claim 16, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless device or the second wireless device, or both, comprises a user equipment, or a customer premises equipment, or a base station, or an integrated access and backhaul node, or a wireless repeater, or a sidelink node (Gholmieh: para. [0032], UE 104 of Fig. 1 —a UE can communicate with a BS 102 over MIMO communication link 120 —the alternative term “or,” does not require examination on the merits of the remainder of the alternative claim limitations).
With Respect to Claim 17, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 17 is written from the perspective of a base station, as opposed to a UE. Therefore, independent claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on the prior art combination of Gholmieh in view of Mo, Dinan, and Zhou, for the same reasons described above for independent claim 1.
With Respect to Claim 19, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more default operating frequencies, at least the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0036] and [0037] —the BS can be configured to send a beamformed signal to the UE and perform beam training with the UE —beam training a UE corresponds identifying a directional antenna configuration associated with a particular operating frequency of the BS —BS 102 of Fig. 1 is depicted with multiple directional antenna panels), or one or more carrier frequencies corresponding to an analog beamforming codebook of the second wireless device, or any combination thereof; and
selecting the one or more communications parameters based at least in part on the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device (Gholmieh: para. [0037] —beam training a UE corresponds to a selecting directional antenna configurations for the UE associated with a particular operating frequency of the BS), the one or more carrier frequencies, or any combination thereof (the alternative term “or,” does not require examination on the merits of the remainder of the alternative claim limitations).
With Respect to Claim 20, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more default operating frequencies, at least a frequency band from a set of frequency bands, or a channel from a set of channels, or any combination thereof (Gholmieh: para. [0041], — the BS can identify frequency bands for communicating with a UE based on the UE capability information), and
selecting the one or more communications parameters based at least in part on the frequency band, or the channel, or any combination thereof (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0070]-[0079], Tables 1-3 —band parameters (obps) can be selected by the BS for CA, where the BS communicates with a UE via one or more designated frequency bands, i.e., on a per-carrier basis).
With Respect to Claim 26, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein receiving the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device comprises:
receiving, from the second wireless device, a capability message comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS in the UE Capabilities message).
With Respect to Claim 27, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein receiving the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device comprises:
receiving, from the second wireless device, control information comprising the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device (Gholmieh: paras. [0041] and [0139], and UE Capabilities 1202 with RF operating frequencies 1206 of Fig. 12 —the UE transmits is default operating frequencies to the BS in the UE Capabilities message —the baseband parameters (obps) sent from the UE to the BS are interpreted to be control information, i.e., bandwidth class and MIMO control data).
With Respect to Claim 28, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 17.
However, Gholmieh does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device indicate the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device, the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device comprising the inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array having uniformly spaced antenna elements or non-uniformly spaced antenna elements.
Mo does teach:
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device indicate the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device, the antenna array configuration of the second wireless device comprising the inter-antenna element spacing of an antenna array having uniformly spaced antenna elements or non-uniformly spaced antenna elements (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 5 and 7-9 —the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE antenna array 700 can be: 30GHz at 0.5λ, 24GHz at 0.4λ, and 39GHz at 0.65λ —the inter-antenna element spacing, d, can be uniform, i.e., 5mm, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 7-9 —The Examiner notes that as a matter of fact, if an antenna array with multiple spaced antenna elements does not have uniformly spaced antenna elements, then the antenna array would naturally have non-uniformly spaced antenna elements at the only other alternative).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh’s UE antenna array with an antenna array having predetermined operating frequencies defined by the inter-antenna element spacing of the antenna array, as taught by Mo.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate the predetermined operating frequencies of a UE as being defined by its antenna array’s physical characteristics, namely its antenna element spacing (a well-known antenna design characteristic), as recognized by Mo (paras. [0071], [0075], and [0077]; Figs. 7 and 10A-C).
With Respect to Claim 29, this claim recites similar features to independent Claim 1, except Claim 29 is directed to an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless device (Gholmieh: para. [0032], UE 104 of Fig. 1 —the UE can communicate with a BS 102 over MIMO communication link 120), comprising: a processor (processor 359 of Fig. 3); memory coupled with the processor (memory 360 of Fig. 3); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (control data). As such, Claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 1.
With Respect to Claim 30, this claim recites similar features to independent Claim 17, except Claim 30 is directed to an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless device (para. [0032], BS 102 of Fig. 1 —the BS can communicate with a UE 104 over MIMO communication link 120), comprising: a processor (processor 375 of Fig. 3); memory coupled with the processor (memory 376 of Fig. 3); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (control data). As such, Claim 30 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 17.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, in further view of Wiemann et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0329444 A1, hereinafter “Wiemann”).
With Respect to Claim 2, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teach the method of claim 1.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not explicitly teach:
storing first system information comprising the parameter; and
communicating with one or more wireless devices associated with the first cell using the one or more default operating frequencies based at least in part on the comparison.
Wiemann does teach:
storing a first system information comprising a parameter (paras. [0110] and [0113] —the AMF stores the UEModelId and its associated radio capabilities); and
communicating with one or more wireless devices associated with the first cell using the one or more default operating frequencies based at least in part on the comparison (paras. [0119]-[0120] and [0141] —the AMF can communicate the corresponding radio capability of the UE to a network, i.e., one or more gNBs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability evaluation and comparison to incorporate the teachings of Wiemann, in order to provide storage and communication of UE/network frequency capability information.
The motivation for doing so would have been to more efficiently store and communicate device communications capability information, to reduce signaling overhead Wiemann (paras. [0122] and [0149]).
Claims 5, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, in further view of Park et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2018/0123654 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
With Respect to Claim 5, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 4.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach:
wherein the one or more communications parameters comprise beamforming parameters of the analog beamforming codebook associated with an antenna array of the first wireless device.
Park does teach:
communications parameters comprising beamforming parameters of an analog beamforming codebook associated with an antenna array of a wireless device (paras. [0332], [0360], and [0424], and beam indexes of Fig. 12 —beam forming parameters can be associated can be beam indexes for a corresponding beamforming codebook, which is associated with a device’s antenna array).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability information to incorporate communication parameters for the UE corresponding to its antenna, in accordance with a beamforming codebook, as suggested by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to supply the BS with codebook information in terms of beamforming parameters to further reduce complexity of UE communication employing CA beamforming, as taught by Park (paras. [0024] and [0332] —the beamforming complexity is reduced by employing indices for mapping UE antenna ports to a beamforming codebook).
With Respect to Claim 21, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 17.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach:
estimating analog beamforming performance for a set of frequencies over the bandwidth,
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device indicate performance metrics for the set of frequencies.
Park does teach:
estimating analog beamforming performance for a set of frequencies over the bandwidth,
wherein the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device indicate performance metrics for the set of frequencies (paras. [0359], [0360], and [0363] —beam forming performance can be estimated by averaging RSRP per antenna/port group per beam —avg. RSRP is a performance metric per frequency band).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, to incorporate beamforming performance estimation in terms of average RSRP, as suggested by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to supply the BS with feedback information such as RSRP to better determine beamforming performance, as taught by Park (paras. [0332] and [0363] —beamforming complexity/overhead is reduced by incorporating UE beamforming performance in terms of prioritized antenna grouping).
With Respect to Claim 25, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 17.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach:
wherein the one or more communications parameters comprise analog beamforming parameters of an analog beamforming codebook associated with an antenna array of the second wireless device.
Park does teach: communications parameters comprising beamforming parameters of an analog beamforming codebook associated with an antenna array of a wireless device (paras. [0332], [0360], and [0424], and beam indexes of Fig. 12 —beam forming parameters can be associated can be beam indexes for a corresponding beamforming codebook, which is associated with a device’s antenna array).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou to incorporate communication parameters corresponding to a device’s antenna, in accordance with a beamforming codebook, as suggested by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to supply the BS with codebook information in terms of beamforming parameters to further reduce complexity of communication employing CA beamforming, as taught by Park (paras. [0024] and [0332] —the beamforming complexity is reduced by employing indices for mapping UE antenna ports to a beamforming codebook).
Claims 7-9 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, in further view of Wakabayashi (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0327284 A1).
With Respect to Claim 7, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 1.
Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach:
determining that the first default operating frequency of the second wireless device and the second default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device satisfy the threshold difference, wherein the threshold difference is predetermined; and
selecting a third default operating frequency of the first wireless device based at least in part on the determination, the third default operating frequency being different from the first default operating frequency,
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the third default operating frequency.
Wakabayashi does teach:
determining that the first default operating frequency of the second wireless device and the second default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies of the first wireless device satisfy the threshold difference, wherein the threshold difference is predetermined (paras. [0150]-[0152] and Fig. 5 —different operational RF sub-bands can be measured by a UE 102 (Fig. 1) in terms of SINR —when the difference 512 between sub-bands, 502 and 503, exceeds a difference threshold a new sub-band selection is triggered —sub-bands of the UE are interpreted to be default operational frequencies over which the UE can communication); and
selecting a third default operating frequency of the first wireless device based at least in part on the determination, the third default operating frequency being different from the first default operating frequency (paras. [0052] and [0158]—upon the difference threshold being exceeded, a new sub-band size selection is triggered, where the new sub-band is selected to be large to reduce fluctuation of channel quality —the new, larger sub-band is interpreted to be a third default operating frequency of the UE, that can be different from other sub-bands),
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the third default operating frequency (paras. [0211] and [0212] —the UE can thereafter communicate with the BS employing the new sub-band selection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging procedure to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency reselection based on signal feedback from the UE.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to a difference threshold to better select a new frequency for the UE that reduces signal fluctuation and is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177] —a new, wider frequency sub-band improves signal quality).
With Respect to Claim 8, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach, wherein identifying the one or more default operating frequencies comprises:
identifying a first operating frequency boundary and a second operating frequency boundary for each default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies, the first operating frequency boundary being different from the second operating frequency boundary,
wherein the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies comprises an indication of at least the first operating frequency boundary, or the second operating frequency boundary, or any combination thereof.
Wakabayashi does teach:
identifying a first operating frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902 of Fig. 9) and a second operating frequency boundary (lower boundary per frequency 904 of Fig. 9) for each default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies, the first operating frequency boundary being different from the second operating frequency boundary (paras. [0195]-[0199] the upper and lower CQI boundaries, 902 and 904, per frequency are different boundaries),
wherein the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies comprises an indication of at least the first operating frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902), or the second operating frequency boundary (lower boundary per frequency 904), or any combination thereof (paras. [0198]-[0199] —an indication is transmitted of a frequency band lower than lower boundary 904 —likewise, an indication is transmitted of a frequency band higher than the upper boundary).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging indication to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency identification according to a performance quality metric, such as CQI boundaries per frequency band.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to performance boundaries to better select a new frequency for the UE that is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177]).
With Respect to Claim 9, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou, and Wakabayashi teaches the method of claim 8.
However, Gholmieh does not teach:
wherein the first operating frequency boundary comprises an upper frequency boundary and the second operating frequency boundary comprises a lower frequency boundary, and wherein one or more operating frequencies within the upper frequency boundary and the lower frequency boundary provide beamforming performance that satisfies a performance threshold, the performance threshold being based at least in part on a signal strength threshold for communications over the one or more operating frequencies.
Wakabayashi does teach:
wherein the first operating frequency boundary comprises an upper frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902 of Fig. 9) and the second operating frequency boundary comprises a lower frequency boundary (lower boundary per frequency 904 of Fig. 9), and
wherein one or more operating frequencies within the upper frequency boundary and the lower frequency boundary provide beamforming performance (para. [0182] —for dual-layer beamforming wideband CQI is applied because corresponding beamforming can prevent fading —the boundary conditions of Fig. 9 effect the CQI bandwidth to reduce fading and this directly affects beamforming performance) that satisfies a performance threshold, the performance threshold being based at least in part on a signal strength threshold for communications over the one or more operating frequencies (paras. [0108] and [0270] —CQI can be expressed as a function of signal strength or avg. strength over time —the CQI boundary conditions, 902 and 904, are performance thresholds that must be satisfied).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging indication to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency identification according to a performance quality metric, such as CQI boundaries per frequency band.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to performance boundaries to better select a new frequency for the UE that is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177]).
With Respect to Claim 22, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 17.
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach:
determining that the first default operating frequency of the first wireless device and the second default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device satisfy the threshold difference, wherein the threshold difference is predetermined; and
selecting a third default operating frequency of the first wireless device based at least in part on the determination, the third default operating frequency being different from the first default operating frequency,
wherein communicating with the second wireless device within the bandwidth is based at least in part on the third default operating frequency.
Wakabayashi does teach:
determining that the first default operating frequency of the first wireless device and the second default operating frequency of the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device satisfy the threshold difference, wherein the threshold difference is predetermined (paras. [0150]-[0152] and Fig. 5 —different operational RF sub-bands can be measured by a UE 102 (Fig. 1) in terms of SINR —when the difference 512 between sub-bands, 502 and 503, exceeds a difference threshold a new sub-band selection is triggered —sub-bands of the UE are interpreted to be default operational frequencies over which the UE can communication); and
selecting a third default operating frequency of the first wireless device based at least in part on the determination, the third default operating frequency being different from the first default operating frequency (paras. [0052] and [0158]—upon the difference threshold being exceeded, a new sub-band size selection is triggered, where the new sub-band is selected to be large to reduce fluctuation of channel quality —the new, larger sub-band is interpreted to be a third default operating frequency of the UE, that can be different from other sub-bands),
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the third default operating frequency (paras. [0211] and [0212] —the UE can thereafter communicate with the BS employing the new sub-band selection).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging procedure to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency reselection based on signal feedback from the UE.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to a difference threshold to better select a new frequency for the UE that reduces signal fluctuation and is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177] —a new, wider frequency sub-band improves signal quality).
With Respect to Claim 23, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising:
However, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou does not teach, wherein identifying the one or more default operating frequencies comprises:
identifying, from the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies, a first operating frequency boundary and a second operating frequency boundary for the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device, the first operating frequency boundary being different from the second operating frequency boundary,
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the first operating frequency boundary, or the second operating frequency boundary, or any combination thereof.
Wakabayashi does teach:
identifying, from the indication of the one or more default operating frequencies, a first operating frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902 of Fig. 9) and a second operating frequency boundary (lower boundary per frequency 904 of Fig. 9) for the one or more default operating frequencies of the second wireless device, the first operating frequency boundary being different from the second operating frequency boundary (paras. [0195]-[0199] the upper and lower CQI boundaries, 902 and 904, per frequency are different boundaries),
wherein communicating with the second wireless device over the bandwidth is based at least in part on the first operating frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902), or the second operating frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 904), or any combination thereof (paras. [0198]-[0199] —an indication is transmitted of a frequency band lower than lower boundary 904 —likewise, an indication is transmitted of a frequency band higher than the upper boundary)..
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging indication to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency identification according to a performance quality metric, such as CQI boundaries per frequency band.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to performance boundaries to better select a new frequency for the UE that is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177]).
With Respect to Claim 24, Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, Zhou, and Wakabayashi teaches the method of claim 23.
However, Gholmieh does not teach:
wherein the first operating frequency boundary comprises an upper frequency boundary and the second operating frequency boundary comprises a lower frequency boundary, and
wherein one or more operating frequencies within the upper frequency boundary and the lower frequency boundary provide beamforming performance that satisfies a performance threshold, the performance threshold being based at least in part on a signal strength threshold for communications over the one or more operating frequencies.
Wakabayashi does teach:
wherein the first operating frequency boundary comprises an upper frequency boundary (upper boundary per frequency 902 of Fig. 9) and the second operating frequency boundary comprises a lower frequency boundary (lower boundary per frequency 904 of Fig. 9), and
wherein one or more operating frequencies within the upper frequency boundary and the lower frequency boundary provide beamforming performance that satisfies a performance threshold (paras. [0108] and [0270] —CQI can be expressed as a function of signal strength or avg. strength over time —the CQI boundary conditions, 902 and 904, are performance thresholds that must be satisfied), the performance threshold being based at least in part on a signal strength threshold for communications over the one or more operating frequencies (para. [0182] —for dual-layer beamforming wideband CQI is applied because corresponding beamforming can prevent fading —the boundary conditions of Fig. 9 effect the CQI bandwidth to reduce fading and this directly affects beamforming performance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gholmieh in view of Mo, Jiang, Dinan, and Zhou’s UE capability messaging procedure to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi, in order to facilitate frequency reselection based on signal feedback from the UE.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the frequency selection, by comparing real-time signal measurement feedback of its UE to a difference threshold to better select a new frequency for the UE that reduces signal fluctuation and is resistant to signal fading, as taught by Wakabayashi (paras. [0158] and [0177] —a new, wider frequency sub-band improves signal quality).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US Patent No. 12,401,990 B2, Jin et al.: teaches UE radio capability reporting between multiple wireless devices.
US PG Pub 2019/0053175 A1, Kubota et al.: teaches UE radio capability reporting, relating to the EHF bands, between multiple wireless devices.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418