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 Amendments and Arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the 103 rejections to the claims except for claims 55-60 and 67-68, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On pages 9-10 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Ansari’s “quality indicators” and corresponding “first requirement” do not disclose the claimed “reliability target for a wireless transmission.” Applicant also asserts that a reliability target relates to the likelihood or probability of successful transmission, whereas Ansari’s quality indicators merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a user equipment, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Characterize channel quality, such as CQI, channel cleanliness, channel usage, or interference. Applicant therefore contends that Ansari does not discloses or suggest determining a reliability target, and that the combination of Ansari and 3GPP1 fails to disclose or suggest controlling carrier aggregation based on such a reliability target.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Ansari’s first requirement” is merely a channel-quality requirement and does not constitute the claimed “reliability target.” The examiner disagrees. Ansari discloses, “determining a reliability target for a wireless transmission from the wireless device to the wireless communication network notes.”
For example, Ansari states:
[0007] According to a first aspect, a device for determining a channel width of a channel used in a wireless communication network is provided. The device is configured to determine a quality indicator for each of a plurality of channels, determine, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels, the quality indicators of which meeting a first requirement, combine at least two adjacent channels of the first subset of channels to a combined channel, and perform a listen before talk, LBT, operation in the combined channel.
[0023] The first requirement may define that a value of the respective quality indicator is above a first threshold value.
[0038] The device of any of the first to third aspect may be configured to determine the quality indicator based on at least one of the following parameters, link quality, cleanliness of the respective channel, historic behavior on the channel usage and on the channel bandwidth, presence of collocated wireless communication networks, required Quality of Service, QoS, in terms of signal to noise ratio, SNR, regulatory limits of an allowed maximum output power and/or maximum EIRP, Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power, limits, regulatory limits of an allowed minimum and/or maximum channel bandwidth in a sub-band, in which the respective channel is located, device capability of the device, deployment scheme, and policy constraints.
[0039] Each of the aforementioned parameters may be expressed independently, e.g., as digital value (0 or 1) or as numerical value (e.g., values equal to or larger than zero). The parameter link quality may be measured in terms of channel quality indicator (CQI) or similar, reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio), etc.
As can be seen from the above-mentioned portions of Ansari, Ansari discloses, that the quality indicator may be based on “link quality” (see [0038]), which may be measured using a “reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio, etc.) (see [0039]), and that the “first requirement” defines a threshold value for the quality indicator (see [0023]). Thus, in Ansari, the quality indicator is a reliability metric, as described above. When the quality indicator is a reliability metric, the first requirement” establishes a threshold criterion for that reliability metric. Accordingly, the first requirement of Ansari corresponds to the claimed “reliability target”.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant’s proposed definition on dictionary of “reliability target” is applied. Applicant’s definition on dictionary does not requires a different result, as the claims do not require the reliability target to be determined by calculating, a probability or likelihood of successful transmission.
With regard to the 103 rejections to claims 55-60 and 67-68, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 53 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”)1.
Regarding claim 53, Ansari discloses, a method of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication network [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0176], the method comprising:
a wireless device [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0176; further see ¶0007-0009, wireless device] determining a set of carriers [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177, the method comprises a first step 1102 of determining a quality indicator for each of a plurality of channels; note that in order to determine a quality indicator for each of the plurality channels, each of the plurality of channels/carriers should be determined], the carriers . . . requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure before transmitting on the carrier [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177, a fourth step 1108 of performing a listen before talk, LBT, operation in the combined channel; further see ¶0177, “combining at least two adjacent channels of the first subset of channels to a combined channels; note that since the at least two adjacent channels are selected from the plurality of channels, the plurality of channels correspond to carriers requiring the LBT procedure before transmitting on each channel];
the wireless device determining a reliability target [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, a second step 1104 of determining, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels, the quality indicators of which meeting a first requirement (i.e., reliability target); further see ¶0023 and 0194-0195, the first requirement may define that a value of the respective quality indicator is above a first threshold value (or pre-selected for a particular scenario or deployment setup as well as reconfigured (e.g., by the network); further see ¶0038, the device of any of the first to third aspect may be configured to determine the quality indicator based on at least one of the following parameters, link quality; further see ¶0039, the parameter link quality may be measured in terms of channel quality indicator (CQI) or similar, reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio); note that the quality indicator is a reliability metric, as described above. When the quality indicator is a reliability metric, the first requirement” establishes a threshold criterion for that reliability metric. Accordingly, the first requirement of Ansari corresponds to the claimed “reliability target] for a wireless transmission from the wireless device to the wireless communication network [¶0043, uplink data transmission from the wireless device to a radio node];
depending on the reliability target [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, a second step 1104 of determining, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels, the quality indicators of which meeting a first requirement (i.e., reliability target); note that the first requirement can be used as a threshold to determine the first subset of channels by determining whether the quality indicators of the channels meet the first requirement], the wireless device controlling aggregation of carriers from the set for . . . performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, the wireless device combines at least two adjacent channels of the first subset of channels for performing the uplink transmission on the combined channels].
Although Ansari discloses, “the carriers . . . requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure before transmitting on the carrier” and “depending on the reliability target, the wireless device controlling aggregation of carriers from the set for . . . performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers” as set forth above, Ansari does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the carriers “each” requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure and “redundantly” performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers.
However, the above-mentioned features are well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard, i.e., 3GPP1.
In particular, 3GPP1 discloses, the carriers “each” requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure [see section 2.1 Tx carrier selection for packet duplication, if UE transmits packets that require high reliability of advanced driving use case, the UE should decide which carriers should be selected to guarantee required high reliability. Assuming that a selected Tx carrier is busy then the carrier may not be suitable to support high reliability requirement. In this case, the UE would select another carrier for packet duplication which guarantees packet transmission. Thus, reliability should be considered as a factor to select Tx carrier, especially in case of packet duplication; note that determining whether carriers are busy is performed for each carrier (e.g., see “selected Tx carrier” and “another carrier”)] and “redundantly” performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers [see section 2.1 Tx carrier selection for packet duplication, if UE transmits packets that require high reliability of advanced driving use case (i.e., reliability target), the UE should decide which carriers should be selected to guarantee required high reliability. Assuming that a selected Tx carrier is busy then the carrier may not be suitable to support high reliability requirement. In this case, the UE would select another carrier for packet duplication (i.e., redundantly performing the wireless transmission) which guarantees packet transmission. Thus, reliability should be considered as a factor to select Tx carrier, especially in case of packet duplication].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Ansari, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world.
Regarding claim 71, Ansari discloses, a wireless device [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0180, a device 1300; the device 1300 may be a wireless device] for operation in a wireless communication network, the wireless device comprising:
at least one processor [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0181, processor 1304], and
a memory containing program code executable by the at least one processor, the program code being configured such that execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the wireless device to [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0181, memory 1306; further see ¶0098, memory is encoded with one or more programs; note that every wireless device has at least one memory containing program codes executable by the processor].
Since claim 71 recites similar features to claim 53 without further additional features, claim 71 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 53.
Claims 54, 61-64, 66, 69-70 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Sun et al (US Publication No. 2020/0077439).
Regarding claim 54, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 discloses, the method of claim 53 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sun discloses, the wireless device determining the set of carriers based on a resource grant received from the wireless communication network [¶0043, UE 115 receives a grant from base station 105 to transmit on both channels], the resource grant indicating the set of carriers and resources allocated on each carrier of the set [¶0047, the UL grant indicates resources in the channels].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sun in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 in order to cause the system to be able to avoid delay transmission or reduction of the effective bandwidth of a channel in a base station attempting eCCA on each channel [e.g., ¶0004 of Sun].
Regarding claim 61, Ansari discloses, a method of controlling wireless transmissions in a wireless communication network [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0176], the method comprising:
an access node of the wireless communication network determining a reliability target for a wireless transmission from a wireless device to the wireless communication network [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, a second step 1104 of determining, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels, the quality indicators of which meeting a first requirement (i.e., reliability target); further see ¶0023 and 0194-0195, the first requirement may define that a value of the respective quality indicator is above a first threshold value (or pre-selected for a particular scenario or deployment setup as well as reconfigured (e.g., by the network); note that the first requirement/reliability target is reconfigured/determined by the network/radio node for a wireless communication from the UE to the network/radio node]; and
. . . the carriers . . . requiring a listen-before- talk (LBT) procedure before transmitting on the carrier [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177, a fourth step 1108 of performing a listen before talk, LBT, operation in the combined channel; further see ¶0177, “combining at least two adjacent channels of the first subset of channels to a combined channels; note that since the at least two adjacent channels are selected from the plurality of channels, the plurality of channels correspond to carriers requiring the LBT procedure before transmitting on each channel], to enable the wireless device to meet the reliability target by . . . performing the wireless transmission on aggregated carriers from the set of carriers [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, based on the comparison of the quality indicators meeting the first requirement the first requirement (i.e., reliability target)], the wireless device combines at least two adjacent channels of the first subset of channels for performing the uplink transmission on the combined channels].
Ansari does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the carriers “each” requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure and “redundantly” performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers.
However, the above-mentioned features are well known/established in the telecommunication art as recited in 3GPP standard, i.e., 3GPP1.
In particular, 3GPP1 discloses, the carriers “each” requiring a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure [see section 2.1 Tx carrier selection for packet duplication, if UE transmits packets that require high reliability of advanced driving use case, the UE should decide which carriers should be selected to guarantee required high reliability. Assuming that a selected Tx carrier is busy then the carrier may not be suitable to support high reliability requirement. In this case, the UE would select another carrier for packet duplication which guarantees packet transmission. Thus, reliability should be considered as a factor to select Tx carrier, especially in case of packet duplication; note that determining whether carriers are busy is performed for each carrier (e.g., see “selected Tx carrier” and “another carrier”)] and “redundantly” performing the wireless transmission on the aggregated carriers [see section 2.1 Tx carrier selection for packet duplication, if UE transmits packets that require high reliability of advanced driving use case (i.e., reliability target), the UE should decide which carriers should be selected to guarantee required high reliability. Assuming that a selected Tx carrier is busy then the carrier may not be suitable to support high reliability requirement. In this case, the UE would select another carrier for packet duplication (i.e., redundantly performing the wireless transmission) which guarantees packet transmission. Thus, reliability should be considered as a factor to select Tx carrier, especially in case of packet duplication].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Ansari, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sun discloses, the access node determining a set of carriers [¶0043 and 0047, UE 115 receives an UL grant from base station 105 to transmit on both channels, the UL grant indicating the both channels for the UE to transmit; which requires that the base station 105/access node determines the channels].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sun in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 in order to cause the system to be able to avoid delay transmission or reduction of the effective bandwidth of a channel in a base station attempting eCCA on each channel [e.g., ¶0004 of Sun].
Regarding claim 62, claim 62 is merely different from claim 54 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of an access node, but recites similar features to claim 54 without further additional features. Thus, claim 62 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 54.
Regarding claim 63, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 61 and particularly, “the access node determining the set of carriers“ as set forth above.
Ansari further discloses, . . . determining the set of carriers based on the reliability target [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, a second step 1104 of determining, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels, the quality indicators of which meeting a first requirement (i.e., reliability target); note that the first set of channels are determined based on the first requirement (i.e., reliability target)].
Regarding claim 64, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 61 as set forth above.
Ansari view of 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sun discloses, the access node determining an individual reliability metric for each of multiple available carriers [¶0055, base station 105 may perform eCCA on multiple channels (for example, first channel 305-a, second channel 305-b, third channel 305-c, and fourth channel 305-d). At base station 105, first channel 305-a and third channel 305-c pass eCCA 315-a (including CCA 310-a), and second channel 305-b fails eCCA 315-b (despite passing CCA 310-b)]; and
the access node determining the set of carriers based on the individual reliability metrics of the multiple available carriers [¶0055, the base station 105 determines the first and third channels 305-a and 305-c based on performing eCCA].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sun in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 61.
Regarding claim 66, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 64 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sun discloses, the access node determining the individual reliability metrics of the carriers based on measurements performed by the access node [¶0055, base station 105 may perform eCCA on multiple channels (for example, first channel 305-a, second channel 305-b, third channel 305-c, and fourth channel 305-d). At base station 105, first channel 305-a and third channel 305-c pass eCCA 315-a (including CCA 310-a), and second channel 305-b fails eCCA 315-b (despite passing CCA 310-b); further see ¶0045, “For example, base station 105-a or UE 115-a may perform a CCA on a channel by detecting a threshold energy level”].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Sun to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Sun into the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring maintain data transmission reliability without affecting data transmission efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 69, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 64 as set forth above.
Ansari discloses, wherein each of the individual reliability metrics is based on an energy level measured on the carrier [¶0039, the parameter link quality may be measured in terms of channel quality indicator (CQI) or similar, reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio), etc. The parameter cleanliness of the channel may correspond to an inverse of a detected radio frequency (RF) energy; further see, the parameter related to the regulatory limits may relate to the allowed maximum output power, to a maximum allowed EIRP, Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power].
Regarding claim 70, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 61 as set forth above.
Ansari discloses, the access node indicating an alternative carrier for performing the wireless transmission to the access node, the alternative carrier not requiring an LBT procedure before transmitting on the carrier ¶0042, wherein at least one of the channels, which have been determined to be clear in the listen before talk, LBT, operation, is used for carrier aggregation with another channel; further see ¶0044, the another channel may be a channel in a licensed or unlicensed frequency spectrum. In case the “another channel” is in the licensed frequency spectrum, there is no requirement for LBT and this channel may simply be used without performing an LBT operation in it].
Regarding claim 72, Ansari discloses, an access node [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0180, a device 1300; the device 1300 may be a radio node] for a wireless communication network, the access node comprising:
at least one processor [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0181, processor 1304], and
a memory containing program code executable by the at least one processor, the program code being configured such that execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the access node to [FIG. 13; its related descriptions; ¶0181, memory 1306; further see ¶0098, memory is encoded with one or more programs; note that network device has at least one memory containing program codes executable by the processor].
Since claim 72 recites similar features to claim 61 without further additional features, claim 72 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 61.
Claims 55 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2015/0264577).
Regarding claim 55, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 discloses, the method of claim 53 as set forth above.
Although Ansari discloses, the wireless device selecting carriers from the set of carriers to determine a candidate set of aggregated carriers [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, a second step 1104 of determining, from the plurality of channels, a first subset of channels]; the wireless device determining a . . . reliability metric for the candidate set of aggregated carriers [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009 and ¶0038-0039, the method comprises a first step 1102 of determining a quality indicator (i.e., reliability metric) for each of a plurality of channels; further see ¶0040-0041, “determine the quality indicator by determining a plurality of weighted parameters by multiplying each of the the considered parameters with a predefined weight value, and determining the quality indicator to correspond to the sum of the weighted parameters” and 0184-0185], the . . . reliability metric reflecting a reliability of wireless transmission for the aggregated carriers [¶0038, the device of any of the first to third aspect may be configured to determine the quality indicator based on at least one of the following parameters, link quality; further see ¶0039, the parameter link quality may be measured in terms of channel quality indicator (CQI) or similar, reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio); note that the quality indicator reflects a reliability of wireless transmission for the first subset of channels]; and based on a comparison of the . . . reliability metric to the reliability target [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, based on the comparison of the quality indicators meeting the first requirement the first requirement (i.e., reliability target)], the wireless device deciding whether to use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0177 and ¶0007-0009, the wireless device determines the first subset of channels from the plurality of channels], Ansari in view of 3GPP1 does not explicitly disclose, the reliability metric for the candidates set of aggregated carries is modified to be “a combined reliability metric”.
However, Yang discloses, determining a combined reliability metric for the candidate set of aggregated carriers, the combined reliability metric reflecting a reliability of wireless transmission for the aggregated carriers as a whole [¶0028, the channel selector 330 may determine a quantity of channels to select and which particular channels to select when interference, noise, radiated power, and/or reliability measurements satisfy particular thresholds. As an example, channel selector 330 may determine a quantity of channels to select based on a target reliability value, and current reliability measurements of a communication between hub unit 220 and a network device associated with external network 240; further see ¶0029, As illustrated in Table 1, using additional channels may generally increase the increase the overall reliability (i.e., combined reliability metric) of the aggregated link. As an example, for a target reliability of 99.5%, channel selector 330 may select two channels when the reliability of one link is 93%. Channel selector may select three channels when the reliability of one link is 90%, 91%, or 92%], and based on a comparison of the combined reliability metric to the reliability target, the wireless device deciding whether to use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the transmission [¶0028, channel selector 330 may determine a quantity of channels to select and which particular channels to select when interference, noise, radiated power, and/or reliability measurements satisfy particular thresholds].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yang in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 in order to cause the system to be able to increase transmission performance [e.g., ¶0014 of Yang].
Regarding claim 60, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang discloses, the method of claim 55 as set forth above.
Ansari discloses, the wireless device determining the individual reliability metrics of the carriers of the candidate set based on measurements performed by the wireless device and determining the combined reliability metric based on the individual reliability metrics [¶0039, the parameter link quality may be measured in terms of channel quality indicator (CQI) or similar, reliability metric (packet error ratio, block error ratio), etc.].
Claims 56-57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2015/0264577) and further in view of Damnjanovlc et al (US Publication No. 2011/0143675).
Regarding claim 56, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang discloses, the method of claim 55 as set forth above.
Although Ansari discloses, “based on a comparison of the combined reliability metric to the reliability target, the wireless device deciding whether to use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission” as set forth above in claim 55, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Damnjanovlc discloses, based on a comparison of the combined reliability metric to the reliability target, the wireless device deciding whether to add a further carrier of the set to the candidate set of aggregated carriers [¶0070, based on an analysis of the channel quality indicator measurements, active carrier update component 440 may be configured to add a new carrier to the active set of carriers (e.g., because the quality of the new carrier exceeds a quality threshold, because the quality of the new carrier exceeds the quality of a carrier currently included in the active set, etc.)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Damnjanovlc to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Damnjanovlc into the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring or maintaining a service quality in challenging or variable radio conditions, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 57, Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc discloses, the method of claim 56 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Damnjanovlc discloses, in response to the combined reliability metric being at least equal to the reliability target, the wireless device deciding to use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission [¶0070, based on an analysis of the channel quality indicator measurements, active carrier update component 440 may be configured to add a new carrier to the active set of carriers (e.g., because the quality of the new carrier exceeds a quality threshold, because the quality of the new carrier exceeds the quality of a carrier currently included in the active set, etc.); note that the new carrier being added when the quality of the new carrier exceeds a threshold implies that the new carrier would not be added (i.e., deciding to use the candidate set) when the quality of the new carrier is equal to or below the threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Damnjanovlc in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 56.
Regarding claim 59, Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc discloses, the method of claim 56 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Damnjanovlc discloses, in response to deciding to add a further carrier of the set to the candidate set of aggregated carriers, the wireless device selecting, from the set of carriers, the carrier which has a highest individual reliability metric among those carriers in the set of carriers that are not yet a member of the candidate set of aggregated carriers and adding the selected carrier as the further carrier to the candidate set of aggregated carriers [¶0070, based on an analysis of the channel quality indicator measurements, active carrier update component 440 may be configured to add a new carrier to the active set of carriers (e.g., because the quality of the new carrier exceeds a quality threshold, because the quality of the new carrier exceeds the quality of a carrier currently included in the active set, etc.); note that since the quality of the new carrier exceeds the quality of a carrier currently included in the active set, the new carrier (which is yet a member of the active set) has the highest quality].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Damnjanovlc in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Yang for similar rationales set forth above in claim 56.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Yang et al (US Publication No. 2015/0264577) and further in view of Damnjanovlc et al (US Publication No. 2011/0143675) and further in view of Iwahashi et al (US Publication No. 2014/0055280).
Regarding claim 58, Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc discloses, the method of claim 56 as set forth above.
Although Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc discloses, “in response to the combined reliability metric being (larger than) the reliability target, the wireless device deciding to add one further carrier of the set to the candidate set of aggregated carriers and then use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission [¶0070 of Damnjanovic, based on an analysis of the channel quality indicator measurements, active carrier update component 440 may be configured to add a new carrier to the active set of carriers (e.g., because the quality of the new carrier exceeds a quality threshold, because the quality of the new carrier exceeds the quality of a carrier currently included in the active set, etc.)] as set forth above in claim 56, Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), in response to the combined reliability metric being at least “equal” to the reliability target, the wireless device deciding to add one further carrier of the set to the candidate set of aggregated carriers and then use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission. In other words, Damnjanovlc is different from the above-identified claim limitation in that Damnjanovlc does not disclose, a condition that the combined reliability metric being at least “equal” to the target, but only discloses, a condition that the combined reliability metric “larger than” to the target.
However, Iwahashi discloses, changing a channel for use in communication in response to determining that the error rate is equal to or larger than a threshold value [¶0004].
Since Damnjanovlc discloses, “in response to the combined reliability metric being (larger than) the reliability target, the wireless device deciding to add one further carrier of the set to the candidate set of aggregated carriers and then use the candidate set of aggregated carriers for performing the wireless transmission” as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “in response to the combined reliability metric being (larger than) the reliability target“ to be “in response to the combined reliability metric being “equal” to the reliability target” as taught by Iwahashi in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1, Yang and Damnjanovlc to reach the claimed feature in order to cause the system to be able to prevent a dropout of data in communication [e.g., ¶0010 of Iwahashi].
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Sun et al (US Publication No. 2020/0077439) and further in view of You et al (US Publication No. 2021/0168660).
Regarding claim 65, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 64 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but You discloses, the access node determining the individual reliability metrics of the carriers based on information received from the wireless device [¶0081, the network device may directly determine, based on the indication information, whether the carrier or the frequency meets the reliability requirement of the first data; further see, “the terminal device may alternatively send, to the network device, a measurement quantity (a CBR, an RSSI, or an RSRP) corresponding to a carrier or a frequency. The measurement quantity is the indication information, indicating reliability of the carrier or the frequency (namely, the second resource)”; note that in order for the network device determine whether the carrier meets the reliability requirement based on the indication information (received from the terminal device), the network device is required to determine the indication information/reliability metrics beforehand].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by You in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun in order to cause the system to be able to improve overall performance without reducing data transmission reliability and affecting data transmission efficiency when different terminal devices performance communication for the same resource for data sending [e.g., ¶0040 of You].
Claims 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al (US Publication No. 2018/0235005) in view of “Consideration on Required Reliability for Tx carrier selection” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #101 Athens, Greece, 26 February - 2 March 2018 (R21802600) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) and further in view of Sun et al (US Publication No. 2020/0077439) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Publication No. 2021/0274550).
Regarding claim 67, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun discloses, the method of claim 64 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhang discloses, wherein the individual reliability metrics are based on a failure rate associated with wireless transmissions on the carrier [¶0034, the at least one first carrier is selected from the multiple carrier resources based on at least one of the following: a carrier selection threshold, a carrier load, a success rate of LBT, and a failure rate of LBT].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Zhang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Zhang into the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensuring maintain data transmission reliability without affecting data transmission efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 68, Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun and Zhang discloses, the method of claim 67 as set forth above.
Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Zhang discloses, wherein the failure rate comprises a rate of failures of the LBT procedure on the carrier [¶0034, the at least one first carrier is selected from the multiple carrier resources based on at least one of the following: a carrier selection threshold, a carrier load, a success rate of LBT, and a failure rate of LBT].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhang in the system of Ansari in view of 3GPP1 and Sun for similar rationales set forth above in claim 67.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al (US Publication No. 2016/0066193) [¶0048]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 3GPP1 was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights