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 with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 for independent claims 8 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The “in response to a determination that certain measurements of inter-DU communication characteristics meet certain criteria” is disclosed in section 0046 where measurement control information is transferred from the first DU to the second DU.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 10, location is misspelled as “locaiotn”. For claim 17, I think that “a location the UE” should be “a location of the UE” as in claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ode et al. US 20210274406 A1 (Domestic Priority December 6, 2018) in view of Kubota et al. US 20180014218 A1 (Domestic Priority July 5, 2016), and in further view of Liu et al. US 20200015132 A1 (Foreign Priority April 11, 2017).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Ode discloses a method comprising receiving certain measurements of inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) communication characteristics of communication (see, DUs connected with each other via an Xd line that is also known as an inter-DU line or inter-wireless-device line, section 0077) between a plurality of distributed units (DUs) managing cells (see, the switching between multiple DUs, section 0085; noted, each DU can have a cell ID, section 0025) in a Radio Access Network (RAN) of a wireless cellular telecommunication network (see, DU included in a gNB that is included in a wireless communication system that terminates the control plane in a radio access network (RAN), section 0030), wherein the cells provide wireless cellular telecommunication network services to a plurality of UEs (see, wireless communication between UE and cells, sections 0024-0025); in response to a determination that certain measurements of inter-DU communication characteristics meet certain criteria (see, measurement unit that measures the downlink wireless channel quality with the DU, section 0043; noted, measurement unit in the DU measures the uplink wireless channel quality such as RS received quality (RSRQ) and RS received power (RSRP) using the SRS from the UE, section 0038), determining whether any UEs of the plurality of UEs are high priority UEs (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057) based on channel quality information (CQI) reported from the UEs (see, UE receiving uplink transmission control information from a DU to generate a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a DU, section 0052; noted, control information can be a channel quality indicator (CQI), section 0043), wherein the certain criteria include one or more of criteria regarding: inter-DU link quality, inter-DU link latency, inter-DU link bandwidth availability, and inter-DU link current usage; and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
Ode discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
However Kubota from a similar field of endeavor discloses: for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells (see, scheduling entity that allocates resources for communication among devices within its cell, section 0060 Kubota), electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located (see, UE operating in a multicarrier system also known as carrier aggregation, section 0091 Kubota) or instead use dual connectivity for the cells (see, the use of dual-connectivity by the UE to sends and receives data from two BSs in two separate streams when the UE is in range of two cell towers in two adjacent cells at the same time, section 0092 Kubota) based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, the scheduling to the UE to help with load balancing, sections 0092-0096 Kubota).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the DUs of Ode with the carrier aggregation and dual-connectivity of Kubota. The motivation would have been to communicate with the cell based on the determination.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: wherein the certain criteria include one or more of criteria regarding: inter-DU link quality, inter-DU link latency, inter-DU link bandwidth availability, and inter-DU link current usage; and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE.
However Liu from a similar field of endeavor discloses: wherein the certain criteria include one or more of criteria regarding: inter-DU link quality (see, measurement report of signal quality of a first DU and second DU for a terminal device, section 0312 Liu; noted, terminal device can perform a primary cell change between the first distributed unit and the second distributed unit where the signal quality of the target cell administered by the second distributed unit is higher than signal quality of the source cell administered by the first distributed unit, section 0128 Liu), inter-DU link latency, inter-DU link bandwidth availability, and inter-DU link current usage; and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the signal quality of multiple distributed units of Liu. The motivation would have been to improve mobility management.
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Ode discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the dual connectivity uses an F 1 interface to split Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) packets (see, gNB is a type of high layer split (HLS) that separates between a PDCP layer and an RLC layer at the time of separating the CU and the DU, section 0031; noted, CU connects with the first DU and the second DU in the DU via an F1 line that is a line of an F1 interface, section 0032) across different respective distributed units (DUs) of the plurality of DUs managing the cells (see, the switching between multiple DUs, section 0085; noted, each DU can have a cell ID, section 0025; noted, CU connects with the access and mobility management function (AMF) while also connecting with multiple DU via an F1 line of an F1 interface, section 0032).
Claims 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ode et al. US 20210274406 A1 (Domestic Priority December 6, 2018) in view of Kubota et al. US 20180014218 A1 (Domestic Priority July 5, 2016).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Ode discloses a system comprising: at least one computer processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one computer processor, wherein the memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor (see, processor configured to measure uplink wireless channel quality with the terminal device, section 0008), cause operations to be performed, the operations including: receiving certain measurements of inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) communication characteristics of communication (see, DUs connected with each other via an Xd line that is also known as an inter-DU line or inter-wireless-device line, section 0077) between a plurality of distributed units (DUs) managing cells (see, the switching between multiple DUs, section 0085; noted, each DU can have a cell ID, section 0025) in a Radio Access Network (RAN) of a wireless cellular telecommunication network (see, DU included in a gNB that is included in a wireless communication system that terminates the control plane in a radio access network (RAN), section 0030), wherein the cells provide wireless cellular telecommunication network services to a plurality of UEs (see, wireless communication between UE and cells, sections 0024-0025); in response to a determination that certain measurements of inter-DU communication characteristics meet certain criteria (see, measurement unit that measures the downlink wireless channel quality with the DU, section 0043; noted, measurement unit in the DU measures the uplink wireless channel quality such as RS received quality (RSRQ) and RS received power (RSRP) using the SRS from the UE, section 0038), determining whether any UEs of the plurality of UEs are high priority UEs (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057) based on channel quality information (CQI) reported from the UEs (see, UE receiving uplink transmission control information from a DU to generate a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a DU, section 0052; noted, control information can be a channel quality indicator (CQI), section 0043); and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
Ode discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
However Kubota from a similar field of endeavor discloses: and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells (see, scheduling entity that allocates resources for communication among devices within its cell, section 0060 Kubota), electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located (see, UE operating in a multicarrier system also known as carrier aggregation, section 0091 Kubota) or instead use dual connectivity for the cells (see, the use of dual-connectivity by the UE to sends and receives data from two BSs in two separate streams when the UE is in range of two cell towers in two adjacent cells at the same time, section 0092 Kubota) based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, the scheduling to the UE to help with load balancing, sections 0092-0096 Kubota).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the DUs of Ode with the carrier aggregation and dual-connectivity of Kubota. The motivation would have been to communicate with the cell based on the determination.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Ode discloses the system of claim 8 wherein the dual connectivity uses an F 1 interface to split Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) packets (see, gNB is a type of high layer split (HLS) that separates between a PDCP layer and an RLC layer at the time of separating the CU and the DU, section 0031; noted, CU connects with the first DU and the second DU in the DU via an F1 line that is a line of an F1 interface, section 0032) across different respective distributed units (DUs) of the plurality of DUs managing the cells (see, the switching between multiple DUs, section 0085; noted, each DU can have a cell ID, section 0025; noted, CU connects with the access and mobility management function (AMF) while also connecting with multiple DU via an F1 line of an F1 interface, section 0032).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Ode discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer- executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor (see, processor configured to measure uplink wireless channel quality with the terminal device, section 0008), cause operations to be performed, the operations including: receiving certain measurements of inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) communication characteristics of communication (see, DUs connected with each other via an Xd line that is also known as an inter-DU line or inter-wireless-device line, section 0077) between a plurality of distributed units (DUs) managing cells (see, the switching between multiple DUs, section 0085; noted, each DU can have a cell ID, section 0025) in a Radio Access Network (RAN) of a wireless cellular telecommunication network (see, DU included in a gNB that is included in a wireless communication system that terminates the control plane in a radio access network (RAN), section 0030), wherein the cells provide wireless cellular telecommunication network services to a plurality of UEs (see, wireless communication between UE and cells, sections 0024-0025); in response to a determination that certain measurements of inter-DU communication characteristics meet certain criteria (see, measurement unit that measures the downlink wireless channel quality with the DU, section 0043; noted, measurement unit in the DU measures the uplink wireless channel quality such as RS received quality (RSRQ) and RS received power (RSRP) using the SRS from the UE, section 0038), determining whether any UEs of the plurality of UEs are high priority UEs (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057) based on channel quality information (CQI) reported from the UEs (see, UE receiving uplink transmission control information from a DU to generate a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a DU, section 0052; noted, control information can be a channel quality indicator (CQI), section 0043); and for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
Ode discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells, electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located or instead use dual connectivity for the cells based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, CU selects the DU with the best uplink wireless channel quality to switch with the first DU where a DU is associated with an UE, section 0057).
However Kubota from a similar field of endeavor discloses: for each UE of the plurality of UEs that is located within the cells (see, scheduling entity that allocates resources for communication among devices within its cell, section 0060 Kubota), electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located (see, UE operating in a multicarrier system also known as carrier aggregation, section 0091 Kubota) or instead use dual connectivity for the cells (see, the use of dual-connectivity by the UE to sends and receives data from two BSs in two separate streams when the UE is in range of two cell towers in two adjacent cells at the same time, section 0092 Kubota) based on the determination whether the UE is a high priority UE (see, the scheduling to the UE to help with load balancing, sections 0092-0096 Kubota).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the DUs of Ode with the carrier aggregation and dual-connectivity of Kubota. The motivation would have been to communicate with the cell based on the determination.
Claim 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ode et al. US 20210274406 A1 (Domestic Priority December 6, 2018) in view of Kubota et al. US 20180014218 A1 (Domestic Priority July 5, 2016), and in further view of Liu et al. US 20200015132 A1 (Foreign Priority April 11, 2017), and in further view of Johansson et al. US 20130083672 A1 (Domestic Priority June 22, 2010).
The combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 2 (Original), the method of claim 1 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the method of claim 1 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), the method of claim 2 wherein the method includes determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on a location of the UE being close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the method of claim 2 wherein the method includes determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on a location of the UE being close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 4 (Original), the method of claim 3 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the method of claim 3 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), the method of claim 1 wherein the method includes determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on the CQI indicating the UE is located closer to an edge of a cell relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the method of claim 1 wherein the method includes determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on the CQI indicating the UE is located closer to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson) relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point (see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 6 (Original), the method of claim 5 further comprising: using carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located instead of using dual connectivity for the cells to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI indicating the UE is located closer to an edge of a cell relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the method of claim 5 further comprising: using carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located instead of using dual connectivity for the cells to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI (see, interference from the uplink carrier(s) cause degraded downlink performance is detecting that CQI of the most adjacent carrier 105a is systematically degraded due to self-interference, for example compared to the CQI of the downlink carrier associated with the maximum frequency separation from the uplink carrier(s) and/or compared to the CQI of same downlink carrier when no data transmissions occur in uplink, section 0044 Johansson, also seen in claim 32) indicating the UE is located closer to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson) relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point (see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode, Kubota, and Liu with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
Claims 9-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ode et al. US 20210274406 A1 (Domestic Priority December 6, 2018) in view of Kubota et al. US 20180014218 A1 (Domestic Priority July 5, 2016), and in further view of Johansson et al. US 20130083672 A1 (Domestic Priority June 22, 2010).
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 9 (Original), the system of claim 8 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the system of claim 8 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), the system of claim 9 wherein the operations include determining to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located instead of using dual connectivity for the cells based on a locaiotn the UE being close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the system of claim 9 wherein the operations include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells based on a locaiotn the UE being close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 11 (Original), the system of claim 10 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the system of claim 10 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), the system of claim 8 wherein the operations include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on the CQI indicating the UE is close to an edge of a cell relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the system of claim 8 wherein the operations include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity based on the CQI indicating the UE is close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson) relative to one or more other UEs or a reference point (see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), the system of claim 12 wherein the operations further include: using carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells in order to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the system of claim 12 wherein the operations further include: using carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells in order to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI (see, interference from the uplink carrier(s) cause degraded downlink performance is detecting that CQI of the most adjacent carrier 105a is systematically degraded due to self-interference, for example compared to the CQI of the downlink carrier associated with the maximum frequency separation from the uplink carrier(s) and/or compared to the CQI of same downlink carrier when no data transmissions occur in uplink, section 0044 Johansson, also seen in claim 32) indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 16 (Original), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the electronically determining whether to use carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located is based on the CQI indicating how close to an edge of a cell the UE is (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 wherein the operation include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells based on a location the UE being located close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 wherein the operation include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells based on a location the UE being located close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 18 (Original), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein a lower CQI reported from the UE generally indicates the UE is closer to the edge of the cell than a higher CQI reported from the UE (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the operation include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells based on the CQI indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15 wherein the operation include determining to use carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells based on the CQI indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson; noted, CQI of carrier, section 0039 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
The combination of Ode and Kubota discloses all claim limitations but fail to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 wherein the operations further include: using carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells in order to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell.
However Johansson from a similar field of endeavor discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 wherein the operations further include: using carrier aggregation instead of dual connectivity for the cells in order to provide larger coverage area for the UE based on the CQI (see, interference from the uplink carrier(s) cause degraded downlink performance is detecting that CQI of the most adjacent carrier 105a is systematically degraded due to self-interference, for example compared to the CQI of the downlink carrier associated with the maximum frequency separation from the uplink carrier(s) and/or compared to the CQI of same downlink carrier when no data transmissions occur in uplink, section 0044 Johansson, also seen in claim 32) indicating the UE is located close to an edge of a cell (see, poor CQI indicating that the UE is close to the cell edge, section 0043 Johansson)(see, detecting whether the UE is close to the cell-edge through detection of poor CQI based on neighbor cell measurement reports from the UE, section 0043 Johansson).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to modify the combination of Ode and Kubota with the poor CQI close to cell edge of Johansson. The motivation would have been to balance the benefits of using multi-carrier operation.
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 PATRICK YIPAO PEI whose telephone number is (703)756-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Kwang Yao can be reached at (571) 272-3182. 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.
/PATRICK YIPAO PEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights