DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submit that Raghavan is limited to describe a base station that transmits beam training reference signals from base station beams to the UE beams, see paragraph [0111]. Whilst claim 1 requires the device to form the transmit beam patterns, the device being the UE, CPE, relay, or IAB node, Raghavan is limited to a base station that forms transmit beams.
Examiner submits that claim 1 requires the device to form the transmit beam patterns, the device being the UE, CPE, relay, or IAB node. Raghavan teaches of the base station 105 being capable of performing the carrier aggregation, where the base station 105 may be of any types of base stations and may communicate with network equipment including macro eNBs, cell eNBs, gNBs, relay base stations, and the like (Paragraph 0029). Therefore, Raghavan teaches of the device to form the transmit beam patterns can be relay base stations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 3, 6, 9 – 10, 12 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al (US 2021/0068077).
Re claim 1, Raghavan teaches of a device configured for operating in a wireless communication network and for performing communication with a communication partner within the wireless communication network by exchanging a wireless signal (Figures 1 – 2); wherein the device is configured for communicating with the communication partner using a beamforming technique (beamforming, Paragraphs 0041 – 0046) to form a transmit beam pattern (shape or steer an antenna beam, Paragraph 0042) being a beam pattern selected from a plurality of transmit beam patterns being formable by the device (selecting a preferred beam, #205, Paragraph 0049); wherein the device is configured for providing, responsive to a trigger event (trigger event, Paragraph 0107 and #1020, Fig.10), a number of transmit beam patterns (beams #1204, Fig.12) being at least a subset of the plurality of formable transmit beam patterns to the communication partner or a different entity of the wireless communication network (beams #1202 – #1206); wherein the device is configured for receiving feedback information relating to the beam patterns of the number of beam patterns (measurement report, #1014, Fig.10 and Paragraphs 0049 and 0105); and wherein the device is configured for using at least one of the provided number of beam patterns based on the feedback information as a selected beam pattern (selecting a preferred beam, #205, Paragraph 0049); and wherein the device is configured for using an aggregation of carriers for the communication (Interband carrier aggregation, Fig.10 and Paragraph 0106); wherein the device comprises an antenna arrangement (#1004 and #1022, Antenna set selection, Paragraph 0104) and a control unit (Paragraph 0066) configured for controlling the antenna arrangement for forming the selected transmit beam pattern for the aggregation of carriers (Paragraphs 0105 – 0106 and 0108), wherein the device comprises one of a user equipment, UE, a customer premises equipment, CPE, a relay node of the wireless communication network and an integrated access and backhaul, IAB, node (relay, Paragraph 0029).
Re claim 2, Raghavan teaches of wherein the device is configured for selecting, based on the feedback information, the at least one selected beam pattern by considering an optimization criterion relating to the communication within the wireless communication network (highest signal strength, highest signal-to-noise ratio, Paragraph 0045).
Re claim 3, Raghavan teaches of wherein the device is configured for providing, responsive to the trigger event (#1020, Fig.10 and Paragraph 0107), the number of transmit beam patterns to the communication partner or a different entity of the wireless communication network (#1022, Fig.10 and Paragraphs 0107 – 0111) (Figures 11 – 12); wherein the feedback information indicates a beam pattern of the provided number of beam patterns (measurement report, Paragraph 0049); wherein the device is configured for using the indicated beam pattern as the selected beam pattern or to evaluate that a different beam pattern is to be used as selected beam pattern (#1016, Fig.10).
Re claim 6, Raghavan teaches of wherein the feedback information comprises information that indicates a best beam pattern amongst the provided number of beam patterns in view of the optimization criterion (highest signal strength, highest signal-to-noise ratio, Paragraph 0045) and/or comprises information indicating all beam patterns below or above a given threshold.
Re claim 9, Raghavan teaches of wherein the device is configured for providing the number of transmission beam patterns based on a beam sweeping of a specific transmission beam pattern (beam sweeping, Paragraphs 0049, 0108 and 0111).
Re claim 10, Raghavan teaches of wherein the device is configured for receiving the feedback information indicating the specific beam/beam pattern (selecting a preferred beam, #205, Paragraph 0049), wherein the device is configured for receiving a first transmission-beam sweeping request from the network (#1012, Fig.10), and for performing a transmission-beam sweeping process responsive to the first transmission-beam sweeping request using the specific beam pattern (Paragraphs 0049, 0108 and 0111 – 0112); and for receiving a second transmission-beam sweeping request from the network and for performing a transmission-beam sweeping for a transmission beam pattern indicated in the second request responsive to the second transmission-beam sweeping request (repeating 1012 – 1014 after 1024, Fig.10).
Re claim 12, Raghavan teaches of wherein the optimization criterion relates to the communication with the communication partner (highest signal strength, highest signal-to-noise ratio, Paragraph 0045) and/or to interference caused at other entities of the wireless communication network.
Re claim 13, Raghavan teaches of wherein the device is configured for further selecting the transmit beam pattern without variation in the intra-band carrier aggregation based on the trigger event (carrier aggregation, #1026, Fig.10).
Re claim 15, Raghavan teaches of wherein the antenna arrangement is an antenna panel of the device that is holistically controlled by the device (#1004, #1024, Fig.10 and Paragraph 0104).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Lundborg et al (US 2021/0105057).
Re claim 4, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 3 except of wherein the device is configured for using the indicated beam pattern if no conflict is found during an evaluation of the feedback information; and/or for using the different beam pattern is a conflict is found during the evaluation.
Lundborg teaches of device configured for using the indicated beam pattern if no conflict is found during an evaluation of the feedback information; and/or for using the different beam pattern is a conflict is found during the evaluation (conflict situations at beam allocation, Fig.3 and Paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have assigned a beam pattern based on whether there is a conflict found during the evaluation for efficient communication.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Akkarakaran et al (US 2017/0366994).
Re claim 5, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the each transmit beam pattern of the number of provided beam pattern is adapted to at most one single carrier of the aggregation; wherein the device is configured for using the selected beam pattern jointly for all carriers of the aggregation.
Akkarakaran teaches of each transmit beam pattern of the number of provided beam pattern is adapted to at most one single carrier of the aggregation (when using different antennas pointed in different directions, Paragraph 0040); wherein the device is configured for using the re-selected beam pattern jointly for all carriers of the aggregation (when sharing the same antenna, Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted carrier aggregation based on the beam direction for efficient multicarrier beamformed communication.
Re claim 8, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the device is configured for establishing communication with the communication partner using a first carrier and a first transmit beam pattern; and for aggregating a second carrier to the first carrier to acquire the trigger event; and for selecting the transmit beam pattern and for using the selected transmit beam pattern jointly for the intra-band carrier aggregation.
Akkarakaran teaches of a device configured for establishing communication with the communication partner using a first carrier and a first transmit beam pattern; and for aggregating a second carrier to the first carrier to acquire the trigger event (Paragraphs 0040 – 0041 and 0060 – 0063); and for selecting the transmit beam pattern and for using the selected transmit beam pattern jointly for the intra-band carrier aggregation (when sharing the same antenna, Paragraphs 0040 – 0041 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted carrier aggregation based on the beam direction and a trigger event for efficient multicarrier beamformed communication.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Luo et al (US 2019/0059129).
Re claim 7, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the feedback information comprises information that indicates that the indicated beam pattern comprises a joint performance metric for the intra-band carrier aggregation above or below a predefined threshold for the communication partner and/or for a different entity of the network.
Luo teaches of feedback information that comprises information that indicates that the indicated beam pattern comprises a joint performance metric for the aggregation of carriers above or below a predefined threshold for the communication partner and/or for a different entity of the network (Paragraphs 0082 and 0115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the indicated beam pattern comprise a joint performance metric for the aggregation of carriers above or below a predefined threshold for the communication partner so as to determine whether a beam update procedure is needed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Subramanian et al (US 2019/0109625).
Re claim 11, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 10, except of wherein the device is configured for receiving the first transmission-beam sweeping request and/or the second transmission-beam sweeping request by use of at least one of signaling methods being based on:- a radio resource control (RRC) signaling; - a medium access control (MAC) control element; - downlink control information (DCI); - uplink control information (UCI); - side link control information and - a combination thereof.
Subramanian teaches of a device is configured for receiving the first transmission-beam sweeping request and/or the second transmission-beam sweeping request by use of at least one of signaling methods being based on:- a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (downlink beam training sent in a RRC message, Paragraph 0085); - a medium access control (MAC) control element; - downlink control information (DCI); - uplink control information (UCI); - side link control information and - a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have received the beam sweeping request based on RRC to ensure that devices can communicate effectively on the network.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Zhou et al (US 2021/0135801).
Re claim 14, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, except of wherein the device is configured for selecting the transmit beam pattern based on a continuous frequency range being spanned by a lowest frequency and a highest frequency of the aggregation.
Zhou teaches of a device configured for selecting the transmit beam pattern based on a continuous frequency range being spanned by a lowest frequency and a highest frequency of the aggregation (bandwidth part, Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for selected the transmit beam pattern based on a continuous frequency range being spanned by a lowest frequency and a highest frequency of the aggregation to enable more flexibility in carrier aggregation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Hwang et al (US 2018/0332659).
Re claim 16, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as wherein the device is configured for transmitting, to an entity of the wireless communication network, a capability information indicating a capability of the device to perform carrier aggregation (#1002, Fig.10). However, Raghavan does not specifically teach of the capability information indicating a capability to perform beamforming for the communication.
Hwang teaches of a device configured for transmitting, to an entity of the wireless communication network, a capability information indicating a capability of the device to perform carrier aggregation and a capability to perform beamforming for the communication and/or receiving such capability information relating to another device (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device configured for transmitting a 5G radio capability information to perform both carrier aggregation and beamforming so as to enable 5G communication.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan in view of Lo et al (US 2019/0253119).
Re claim 23, Raghavan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as adapted to use one of a beamforming weight set associated with a first carrier and a second carrier of the carrier aggregation (beamforming weight set, Paragraphs 0042 – 0043).
Lo teaches of adapted to use one of a first beamforming weight set associated with a first carrier of the carrier aggregation and a second beamforminq weight set associated with a second carrier of the carrier aggregation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different beamforming weight sets for different component carriers to optimize the performance of each carrier independently based on its specific channel conditions and requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached on (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633