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 .
This office action is responsive to the RCE and amendment filed 1/9/26.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 23-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 23, the limitation “the radio” (line 4) lacks an antecedent basis. Also, the limitation “a component carrier that exceeds a threshold activation/deactivation rate” is indefinite since it is not clear what characteristic of the component carrier “exceeds a threshold activation/deactivation rate.” The dependent claims 23-28 fall in view of claim 23.
For purposes of applying prior art, the above-identified vague and indefinite claim limitations are interpreted to read on the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23 and 28 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Ma et al., US 2011/0026422, (“Ma”).
Regarding independent claim 23, Nam teaches “Wireless circuitry (Fig. 9, device 905) comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit radio-frequency signals using a set of component carriers that are concurrently active (Fig. 9, transceiver 920; paragraph no. 0042, “a UE may exchange signaling with a base station on multiple component carriers (CCs) in a carrier aggregation (CA) configuration”; see also, paragraph nos. 0114, 0116); and
one or more processors configured to control the radio to remove, from the set of component carriers used to transmit the radio-frequency signals, a component carrier” (Fig. 9, processor 940; paragraph no. 0114, “a quantity of active CCs in the CA configuration may change. For example, a new CC may be activated, or a previously active CC may be deactivated”).
Nam does not teach but Ma teaches the limitation “that exceeds a threshold activation/deactivation rate” (paragraph no. 0168, “In Step 24, cells A and B are in a dual-carrier frequency common working mode. In a period of time, this embodiment is in a time inspection window, if the average error rate of BERs of the carrier frequency of the cell B is higher than a preconfigured threshold of average error rate at this state, an order of deactivating the cell B is triggered”; the claimed “a threshold deactivation rate” (“/” is interpreted as an “or”) reads on the preconfigured threshold of average error rate since if this threshold is exceeded, cell B is deactivated or removed as one of the component carriers from the active set of component carriers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Nam by incorporating the teachings of Ma to remove one of the component carriers based on the bit error rate of the removed component carrier exceeding a threshold, as suggested by Ma in paragraph no. 0168. Such a modification would improve the reliability of communications between the UE and the base station in carrier aggregation mode.
Regarding claim 28, Nam and Ma do not teach “the one or more processors being further configured to remove an additional component carrier that exceeds the threshold activation/deactivation rate from the set of component carriers used to transmit the radio-frequency signals.” However, these limitations would be an obvious modification since the removal of an additional component carrier based on the same condition as in claim 23 would be a logical extension of the removal of one component carrier in accordance with the combined teachings of Nam and Ma. In other words, since the removal of one component carrier is obvious, it logically follows that the removal of a second component carrier is also obvious given the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam and Ma as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Geekie.
Regarding claim 26, Nam and Ma teach “the one or more processors being further configured to remove the component carrier that exceeds the threshold activation/deactivation rate” but not “after a temperature of the wireless circuitry exceeds a threshold temperature.”
Geekie teaches a UE may conserve power and reduce operating temperatures by dropping carriers associated with secondary cells if a skin temperature and/or junction temperature of the UE exceeds certain thermal thresholds, see paragraph no. 0035.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Nam and Ma by incorporating the teachings of Geekie to enable the UE to conserve power and reduce operating temperatures, as suggested by Geekie in paragraph no. 0035.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam and Ma as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Attar et al., US 2010/0105336, (“Attar”).
Regarding claim 27, Nam and Ma teach “the one or more processors being further configured to remove the component carrier that exceeds the threshold activation/deactivation rate” but not “after a power consumption of the wireless circuitry exceeds a threshold power consumption.”
Attar teaches that if the reverse link transmit power differential exceeds the second threshold, an existing carrier is removed from the active set, see paragraph no. 0035.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Nam and Ma by incorporating the teachings of Attar to enable the UE to mitigate interference to the reverse link, as suggested by Attar in paragraph no. 0004.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 29-30 are allowed.
Claims 24-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitation “the removed CC comprises a CC from the set of CCs having a highest activation/deactivation rate.” Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-13 depend from claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 29, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitation “the radio-frequency signals using the set of component carriers except for a component carrier from the set of component carriers that is associated with an activation/deactivation rate that exceeds a threshold.” Dependent claim 30 depends from claim 29.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitation “wherein the component carrier that exceeds the threshold activation/deactivation rate is a component carrier that exhibits a highest activation/deactivation rate of the set of component carriers.”
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitation “the one or more processors being further configured to measure activation/deactivation rates of the component carriers in the set of component carriers.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414