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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are duplicate. Appropriate correction is required by removing one of them.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 15-19, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 10,455,429 B2), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Mukherjee et al. (US 20190349991 A1), hereinafter “Mukherjee”.
Claims 1, 15, 26, and 30:
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method for wireless communication () at a first wireless device (Wang: Fig.2, user device 102), comprising:
monitoring a plurality of frequencies of a shared radio frequency spectrum band (Wang: FIG. 2 illustrates an example networking environment 200 in which two base stations may communicate with one or more user devices in accordance with one or more aspects of inter-RAT spectrum sharing”.);
receiving, from a second wireless device (Base station 206 in Fig.2), signaling that indicates access information that indicates an accessible set of frequencies of the plurality of frequencies of the shared radio frequency spectrum band that are accessible for communications by the first wireless device (Wang: Col.6, lines 46-48, “the shared spectrum manager 128 receives a notification of available communication resources from another base station of another wireless network.”; Fig.9, “Transmit, to the user device, a grant of a second set of communication resources that includes a portion of the additional communication resources” (step 906)); and
communicating on one or more of the accessible set of frequencies of the shared radio frequency spectrum band based at least in part on the access information (implied by disclosures in Fig.9, “Transmit, to the user device, a grant of a second set of communication resources that includes a portion of the additional communication resources” (step 906); and “Communicate with the user device over the second set of communication resources” (step 908) ).
Wang however does not expressly teach, monitoring a plurality of frequencies of a shared radio frequency spectrum band.
Mukherjee in the same field of endeavor teaches monitoring frequencies of a shared frequency band by a user device, in e.g. “monitor a frequency band over a time interval; determine that the frequency band is not occupied by transmissions to or from another device based on information obtained from monitoring the frequency band over the time interval” (Clm.1), “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is an evolved node B (eNB), a gNB, or a user equipment (UE) device” (Clm.7), and “The device of claim 1, wherein the frequency band comprises: an unlicensed spectrum; or a shared spectrum.” (Clm.8).
Monitoring by the user device for frequencies in the shared spectrum is motivated by use of extra resource when available.
Claim 15 is for the first base station which when communicating with the user device implements method complimentary to the method of claim 1. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 26 is for a device implementing method of claim 1. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Existence of processor and memory are implied.
Claim 30 is for device implementing method of claim 15. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Existence of processor and memory are implied.
Claims 2 and 27:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim (discussed above).
Though the claim of method further comprising: monitoring for a presence of the signaling on a first frequency of the plurality of frequencies, wherein the presence of the signaling on the first frequency implicitly indicates to the first wireless device that the first frequency is included in the accessible set of frequencies, is not expressly taught by combination of Wang and Mukherjee, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the process of monitoring by the user device for frequencies in the shared band, as disclosed by Mukherjee, and requesting for resource to the based station as discussed above in claim 1, that the grant provided by the base station to the user device would comprise at least a subset of those signals where signals are detected, so that they may be allocated when available or free.
Regarding claim 27, claim elements are discussed above in claim 2.
Claims 3 and 28:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches, the method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: decoding a message based at least in part on the received signaling, wherein the message comprises the access information (Fig.9, “Transmit, to the user device, a grant of a second set of communication resources that includes a portion of the additional communication resources” (step 906)); decoding is implied after receipt of a message with access information).
Regarding claim 28, claim elements are discussed above in claim 3.
Claims 4, 17, and 29:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches, the method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: transmitting a request message comprising a request for the access information (Fig.2 request 214), wherein receiving the signaling (resource grant 212) is based at least in part on the request message (implied by disclosure col.8, ll 12-14, “the base station 104 transmits the request for additional resources 216 based on receiving the resource request 214.”)
Regarding claim 17 and 29, claim elements are discussed above in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 23:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: receiving the signaling using a first radio access technology (RAT) (implied based on the fact that communication between the user equipment and base station 104 using a first RAT; Fig.8, step 802, “Provide a wireless network over a first set of communication resources using a first RAT”); and
communicating on the one or more of the accessible set of frequencies using a second RAT different from the first RAT (implied by the disclosure that accessible set of frequencies are from additional resources received from base station 106 using the second RAT; Fig.8, step 808, “Provide the wireless network over a second set of communication resources that includes the additional resources”)
Regarding claim 23, claim elements are discussed above in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 18:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising: receiving the signaling on a radio frequency spectrum band that is outside of the shared radio frequency spectrum band (implied by the discussion above that signaling received from base station 104 is the spectrum band used by the first RAT which is different from the shared radio frequency spectrum from for which the grant is received).
Regarding claim 18, claim elements are discussed above in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 19:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 6 (discussed above), wherein the signaling comprises a recurring transmission (implied by disclosure in Col.8, ll 1-3; multiple requests may receive multiple grants ) on the radio frequency spectrum band that is outside of the shared radio frequency spectrum band (discussed above in claim 6).
Regarding claim 19, claim elements are discussed above in claim 7.
Claims 10, 22, and 25:
Regarding claim 10, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the signaling comprises a system information block (SIB), a synchronization signal block (SSB), a sidelink transmission, a periodic broadcast transmission, or a combination thereof (Col.8, ll 64-66, “the base station 206 may allocate the available communication resources as multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS) communication resources.”; Col.12, ll 22-27, “In some implementations, the communication resources occupying a bandwidth 602 are allocated to maintain a wireless network provided by the base station 206 (the second wireless network). The communication resources occupying the bandwidth 602 may include one or more of a PRACH, PSSs, SSSs, MIBs, or SIBs.”; the disclosure implies that the signaling shall comprise some of the resources as per the claim.).
Regarding claim 22 and 25, claim elements are discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the second wireless device has direct access to the access information (implied by the disclosure in Col. 8, “The base station 206 transmits a notification of available resources 218 to the base station 104 to identify communication resources that are available to the base station 104 for providing the first wireless network. In some implementations, the notification of available resources 218 requests a confirmation from the base station 104 that the base station 104 will use the available communication resources. In such instances, the request for additional resources 216 may include the confirmation, or the confirmation may be sent independently.”).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the second wireless device comprises a gNodeB, a sidelink relay device, a roadside unit (RSU), a sidelink UE, or a sidelink scheduling device (Base station 104 is second wireless device; Col.5, ll 59-64, “The base station 104 can be configured as any suitable type of base station or network management node, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) base station, a node base (Node B) transceiver station (e.g., for UMTS), an evolved NodeB (eNB, e.g., for LTE), or a next generation Node B (gNB, e.g., for 5G NR).”).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 15 (discussed above), wherein the signaling comprises a message comprising the access information (discussed above in claim 1).
Regarding 24, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 15 (discussed above).
Wang however does not expressly teach the method further comprising: retrieving the access information from a local storage media of the first wireless device.
Though not taught expressly by the prior arts, the claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the storage process in a device. It is obvious that once the access information is received by the device, it is stored in the local media before transmission to the user device.
Claims 8-9, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Wang and Mukherjee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RICHARDS et al. (US 2016/0242180 A1), hereinafter “Richards”.
Claims 8 and 20:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Wang however fails to expressly teach, the method further comprising: receiving the signaling on a radio frequency spectrum band that is within the shared radio frequency spectrum band.
In the same field of endeavor Richards teaches regarding use of shared band by different radio access technologies like LTE and WiFi using unlicensed shared band, as e.g., disclosed in [0093], “LTE is expanding into new spectrum traditionally reserved for low power indoor radio technologies such as WiFi. Some embodiments enable MPTCP to operate over separate carriers on separate bands, e.g. one carrier in the operator's licensed spectrum and an additional carrier in the unlicensed, shared band.”.
When the shared unlicensed band is used by the user equipment and the first base station, it is implied that received signaling would happen on a radio frequency spectrum band that is within the shared radio frequency spectrum band, as per the claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure in Richards with that of combination of Wang and Mukherjee motivated by expansion of communication resource.
Regarding claim 20, claim elements are discussed above in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 21:
Regarding claim 9, combination of Wang and Richards teaches the method of claim 8 (discussed above), wherein the signaling comprises a recurring transmission (recurring transmission is discussed above in claim 7) on the radio frequency spectrum band that is within the shared radio frequency spectrum band (discussed above in claim 8).
Regarding claim 21, claim elements are discussed above in claim 9.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Wang and Mukherjee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalenahalli et al. (US-20220224496-A1), hereinafter “Kalenahalli”.
Regarding claim 13, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
combination of Wang and Mukherjee however fails to teach the method, wherein the access information comprises automated frequency control information.
Kalenahalli in the same field of endeavor teaches automatic frequency coordination, serving the purpose of automated frequency control information per the claim, in the following:
Clm.1. An automatic frequency coordination (AFC) system for authorizing unlicensed operator utilization of a shared spectrum band comprising channels licensed to incumbent operators
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Kalenahalli with that of combination of Wang and Mukherjee motivated by use of shared spectrum and calculation of exclusion zone, as disclosed by Kalenahalli in “Systems and methods for automatic frequency coordination are provided. In one embodiment, an automatic frequency coordination (AFC) system for authorizing unlicensed operator utilization of a shared spectrum band comprising channels licensed to incumbent operators” ([abstract]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Wang and Mukherjee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smyth et al. (US 20190280763 A1), hereinafter “Smyth”.
Regarding claim 14, combination of Wang and Mukherjee teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Wang and Mukherjee however fails to teach the method wherein the shared radio frequency spectrum band comprises a first band from 5.925 GHz to 6.425 GHz or a second band from 6.525 GHz to 6.875 GHz.
Smyth in the same field of endeavor teaches the following:
[0161] The second segment of the 6.425-7.125 GHz band is the 6.525-6.875 GHz segment (hereinafter the “Upper 6 GHz” band, or FS band) … The usage of these upper 6 GHz band though, is growing, in the present embodiments offer advantageous solutions to successfully manage this increased usage; and
[0369] “System operators and the FCC are presently considering to additional spectrum within the 3.7-4.2 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, and 6.425-7.125 GHz bands for flexible use, such as for mobile communication (5G in particular) in the United States”. ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to come up with the claimed invention by combining disclosure by Smyth with that of combination of Wang and Mukherjee motivated expansion of shared spectrum use in 5G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462