DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1- 13 are pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 9/12/2025, claims 1- 13 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed in the remarks on 2/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner has considered secondary reference Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1). Chen described the congestion relates to frequency band associated with IOT protocols; Chen states in an abstract regarding ….a device providing network communications services to user devices using a frequency band and to machine-to-machine (M2M) communication devices in the Internet of Things (IoT). The device monitors traffic loads in the frequency band due to the user devices and due to the M2M communication devices (i.e. usages). Depending on the traffic loads, the M2M communication devices use a narrowband carrier within the frequency band, within the adjacent guard band, or separate from the frequency band and guard band as a standalone carrier. The narrowband M2M carriers are dynamically deployed to support the user devices and IoT devices; see Fig. 4 regarding steps 406, 408, 410 and 412 where as stated above in abstract also see [0027- 0029] regarding if the NB-IoT traffic is congested (step 406), the decision engine 201 directs deployment of one or more in-band and/or guard-band NB-IoT carriers, depending on the congestion state of the LTE carrier band (step 408). If the LTE traffic and the NB-IoT traffic both remain congested (step 410), additional NB-IoT carriers are deployed as standalone carriers (step 412) (i.e. here standalone NB IOT carrier/s and non-standalone NB IOT carries are associated with their frequency bands and both standalone and non-standalone NB-IOT operates on different IOT protocol (i.e. LTE Cat-NB1 (Release 13) and LTE Cat-NB2 (Release 14) can be standalone NB-IOT and In-Band LTE, Guard Band LTE, Control Plane (CP) CIoT EPS Optimization, and User Plane (UP) CIoT EPS Optimization can be non-standalone NB-IOT protocol).
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.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 9- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivas teaches a method for downlink capacity augmentation for Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices in a network (in context with [0005] pls refer to Fig. 18), the method comprising:
determining that at least one base station has a first IoT protocol defined in a first frequency band; determining that the at least one base station has a second IoT protocol defined in a second frequency band first band (in context with [0048] refer to [0144] about the UE may perform wireless communications with a base station on a first band, which may be an LTE/LTE-A (i.e. IoT protocol) unlicensed spectrum band….that the control capacity on the first band is overloaded, then the UE may use a second band, which may be an unlicensed band (e.g., WIFI band (i.e. IoT protocol)), to transmit the CSI reports to the base station);
determining that the first frequency band is congested (see Fig. 18, #1802, 1804);
determining that usage of the first IoT protocol exceeds a predetermined first downlink threshold (see Fig. 18, #1804; overloaded (i.e. hence there must be some comparison for (threshold) in order to determine that it is overloaded or not…) );
determining that the usage of second IoT protocol is below a predetermined second IoT usage threshold; determining that at least one IoT device supports the second frequency band (see [0144].. if the UE determines, at block 1804, that the control capacity on the first band is overloaded, then the UE may use a second band (i.e. id it has usage lower than the first band), which may be an unlicensed band (e.g., WIFI band), to transmit the CSI reports to the base station…); and
based on the determining, scheduling the at least one IoT device in the second IoT protocol (see Fig. 18 #1808, 1806).
But Srinivas is silent about determining that frequency band is congested based on IOT protocol usage and based on scheduling downlink traffic for the IOT device in the second frequency band; however Chen described the congestion relates to frequency band associated with IOT protocols; Chen states in an abstract regarding ….a device providing network communications services to user devices using a frequency band and to machine-to-machine (M2M) communication devices in the Internet of Things (IoT). The device monitors traffic loads in the frequency band due to the user devices and due to the M2M communication devices (i.e. usages). Depending on the traffic loads, the M2M communication devices use a narrowband carrier within the frequency band, within the adjacent guard band, or separate from the frequency band and guard band as a standalone carrier. The narrowband M2M carriers are dynamically deployed to support the user devices and IoT devices; see Fig. 4 regarding steps 406, 408, 410 and 412 where as stated above in abstract also see [0027- 0029] regarding if the NB-IoT traffic is congested (step 406), the decision engine 201 directs deployment of one or more in-band and/or guard-band NB-IoT carriers, depending on the congestion state of the LTE carrier band (step 408). If the LTE traffic and the NB-IoT traffic both remain congested (step 410), additional NB-IoT carriers are deployed as standalone carriers (step 412) (i.e. scheduling in the second frequency band that is standalone carriers)(i.e. here standalone NB IOT carrier/s and non-standalone NB IOT carries are associated with their frequency bands and both standalone and non-standalone NB-IOT operates on different IOT protocol (i.e. LTE Cat-NB1 (Release 13) and LTE Cat-NB2 (Release 14) can be standalone NB-IOT and In-Band LTE, Guard Band LTE, Control Plane (CP) CIoT EPS Optimization, and User Plane (UP) CIoT EPS Optimization can be non-standalone NB-IOT protocol). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Srinivas to make system more reliable. Having a mechanism wherein determining that frequency band is congested based on IOT protocol usage and based on scheduling downlink traffic for the IOT device in the second frequency band; however Chen described the congestion relates to frequency band associated with IOT protocols; more reliable way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches claim 1, wherein the second IoT protocol is adjacent to the first IoT protocol (Srinivas see [0083] Operators have so far looked at WIFI as the primary mechanism to use unlicensed spectrum to relieve ever increasing levels of congestion in cellular networks. However, a new carrier type (NCT) based on LTE in an unlicensed spectrum (LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum) may be compatible with carrier-grade WIFI, making LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum an alternative to WIFI. LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum may leverage LTE concepts and may introduce some modifications to physical layer (PHY) and media access control (MAC) aspects of the network or network devices to provide efficient operation in the unlicensed spectrum and to meet regulatory requirements. The unlicensed spectrum may range from 600 Megahertz (MHz) to 6 Gigahertz (GHz), for example).
Regarding claim 3, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches claim 2, wherein a second IoT protocol frequency band in the second frequency band is adjacent to a first IoT protocol frequency band in the first frequency band (Srinivas see [0083] Operators have so far looked at WIFI as the primary mechanism to use unlicensed spectrum to relieve ever increasing levels of congestion in cellular networks. However, a new carrier type (NCT) based on LTE in an unlicensed spectrum (LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum) may be compatible with carrier-grade WIFI, making LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum an alternative to WIFI. LTE/LTE-A with unlicensed spectrum may leverage LTE concepts and may introduce some modifications to physical layer (PHY) and media access control (MAC) aspects of the network or network devices to provide efficient operation in the unlicensed spectrum and to meet regulatory requirements. The unlicensed spectrum may range from 600 Megahertz (MHz) to 6 Gigahertz (GHz), for example).
Regarding claim 9, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches claim 1, wherein scheduling the at least one IoT device in the second IoT protocol includes scheduling at least one physical resource block (PRB) in the second frequency band; Srinivas in context with [0143] and abstract and Fig. 7, 10 refer to [0144] about resource for second channel.
Regarding claim 10, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches claim 9, wherein the at least one PRB is scheduled in a first segment of the second frequency band; Srinivas in context with abstract (i.e. CSI-RS and/or IMR resources may be staggered across subframes and/or within slots of subframes. .. CSI reporting may be provided on a second unlicensed spectrum band, such as a WIFI band, for a first unlicensed spectrum band, such as an LTE/LTE-A unlicensed band. ) and Fig. 7, 10 refer to [0144] about resource is scheduled in a first segment of the second frequency band.
Regarding claim 11, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches claim 10, wherein the at least one PRB is scheduled in a second segment of the second frequency band; Srinivas in context with abstract (i.e. CSI-RS and/or IMR resources may be staggered across subframes and/or within slots of subframes. .. CSI reporting may be provided on a second unlicensed spectrum band, such as a WIFI band, for a first unlicensed spectrum band, such as an LTE/LTE-A unlicensed band. ) and Fig. 7, 10 refer to [0144] about resource is scheduled in a second segment of the second frequency band.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0139912 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches as per claim 1, but Srinivas silent about wherein determining if the first frequency band is congested is based on a number of devices using the first frequency band; however Zhang states in [0046- 0047] regarding congestion is based on number of devices using first/second frequency. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 6, Srinivas in view of Chen and Zhang teaches as per claim 4, but silent about wherein the number of devices using the first frequency band includes IoT devices and user equipments (UEs); Zhang see [0046- 0047, 0056].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0139912 A1) and in further view of Spapis et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0252998 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Srinivas in view of Chen and Zhang teaches as per claim 4, but Srinivas is silent about further comprising determining if the number of devices using the first frequency band exceeds an operator defined congestion threshold; however Spapis states in [0006] regarding …In this case each operator provides in advance a set of predefined rules for communication regarding, for example, transmission power, spectrum pools, congestion control parameters, and each user equipment (UE) uses these rules for communication. In a congested environment, this approach however results in collisions because of the simultaneous transmission of all the UEs and increases end-to-end delays due to retransmissions.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Spapis with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen and Zhang to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1) and further in view of Kassir et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0146061 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches as per claim 1, but Srinivas is silent about wherein determining if the first frequency band is congested is based on a number of devices using the first frequency band at the at least one base station; however Kassir states in [0091] regarding ….The measure of congestion, in some aspects is at least one of a measured reference signal received power (RSRP), a channel busy ratio (CBR), a first number of UEs communicating with the wireless device (e.g., the BS/RSU 502), a second number of UEs participating in the radar measurement sharing, or a packet delay associated with communication between the UE and the wireless device (e.g., the BS/RSU 502).. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kassir with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1) and in view of Kassir et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0146061 A1) and in further view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0172033 A1), hereafter Zhang1.
Regarding claim 8, Srinivas in view of Chen and Kassir teaches as per claim 7, but Srinivas is silent about wherein the usage of the first frequency band is based on guaranteed bit rate (GBR) traffic and non-GBR traffic; howeverZhang1 states in [0130] regarding carrying non-GBR as well as GBR scenarios. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Zhang1 with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen and Kassir to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 12- 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0055588 A1), hereafter Srinivas in view of Chen et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0027356 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0388884 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches as per claim 10, but Srinivas is silent about wherein the first segment of the second frequency band is 1 MHz; however Freda states in [0050] regarding …Sub 1 GHz modes of operation are supported by 802.11af and 802.11ah. The channel operating bandwidths, and carriers, are reduced in 802.11af and 802.11ah relative to those used in 802.11n, and 802.11ac. 802.11af supports 5 MHz, 10 MHz and 20 MHz bandwidths in the TV White Space (TVWS) spectrum, and 802.11ah supports 1 MHz, 2MHz….; further see [0051]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 13, Srinivas in view of Chen teaches as per claim 11, but Srinivas is silent about wherein the second segment of the second frequency band is 1 MHz; however Freda states in [0050] regarding …Sub 1 GHz modes of operation are supported by 802.11af and 802.11ah. The channel operating bandwidths, and carriers, are reduced in 802.11af and 802.11ah relative to those used in 802.11n, and 802.11ac. 802.11af supports 5 MHz, 10 MHz and 20 MHz bandwidths in the TV White Space (TVWS) spectrum, and 802.11ah supports 1 MHz, 2MHz….; further see [0051]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda with the teachings of Srinivas in view of Chen to make system more standardized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Watts (US Pub. No. 2018/0324148 A1), published in 2018 states about network hub 102 may further include various communications connection(s) that allow the network hub 102 to communicate with other connected devices. Such communication connections may include, without limitation, one or more of a software defined radio (SDR) hardware (HW) component(s) 208(1), a WiFi radio 210, a cellular radio 212, a Z-Wave™ radio 214, a Zigbee™ radio 216, a Bluetooth™ radio 218, and/or an Ethernet interface 220, among other communication connections that may be present in the network hub 102…. see [0040]; now refer to [0079].. SDR 208 of the network hub 102 can be configured to operate. For example, A response to the query submitted at block 406(1) may include, for a given geographic location included in the query, the multiple available frequencies around (e.g., within a threshold distance from, within a designated geographic area that contains, etc.) the given geographic location. For example, the multiple available frequencies returned for a query may include 600 MHz, 620 MHz, 1900 MHz, 700 MHz, and 3.5 GHz frequencies; now refer to [0082] At 414, the configuration manager 274 of the network hub 102 may compare the current conditions determined at block 410 and/or the known characteristics determined at block 412 between pairs of available frequencies, which allows the configuration manager 274 to determine which frequency might be preferable over (e.g., better than) others in the set of available frequencies received at block 408. For example, a level of congestion for the first available frequency of 600 MHz may be determined to be greater than or less than a level of congestion for the second available frequency of 620 MHz, as determined from the comparison of the current conditions at block 414. As another example, the material penetration ability of the first available frequency of 600 MHz may be determined to be greater than or less than the material penetration ability of the second available frequency of 620 MHz, as determined from the comparison of the known characteristics at block 414. Current conditions and/or known characteristics associated with pairs of available frequencies may be compared in a similar manner for any pair of available frequencies in this manner to determine a frequency with optimal conditions and/or characteristics that may be preferable over the other available frequencies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479