DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Appeal Brief filed 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-16 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-11 and 17-25 remain pending.
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 3/2/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (US20180295637A1; “Mano”) in view of Lee et al. (US20130208662A1; “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1 and 21,
Mano (Title: Coexistence Interference Mitigation in Wireless Systems) discloses an apparatus comprising a processor (Fig. 9, processor 920; paragraph 9-10, 26-27, 99-105, 119-120) configured to cause a wireless device (Fig. 2, UE 115a; Fig. 9, device/UE 905) to perform a method comprising establish communication with an access point (AP) according to a first radio access technology (RAT) (Fig. 2, UE 115a to AP 105-b over link 210-b) and establish communication with a second device according to a second RAT different from the first RAT (Fig. 2, UE 115a to Base Station 105-a over link 210-a; Fig. 4, step 405 “yes”; multiple active RATs), and further shows, in response to determining that the communication with the second device comprises periodic communication (Fig. 4, step 410; paragraph 76-88; UE sends indication to base station/1st RAT based on detected IDC of 2nd RAT including periodic CSIRS), determine and transmit at least one of a periodicity of the periodic communication or a duration of the periodic communication (Fig. 4, step 415; paragraph 6, 76-91; indication identifying sub-bands/periodicity where interference was detected).
While Mano discloses establishing communication with an access point (AP) according to a first RAT as well as with a second device according to a second RAT different from the first RAT, Mano does not expressly show transmitting determined characteristics of communication with the second device according to the second RAT to the AP according to the first RAT.
Lee discloses analogous art (Title: Transmitting/Receiving Data in Wireless Access System for Supporting Multi-Radio Access Technology) including transmitting determined characteristics of communication with the second device according to the second RAT to the AP according to the first RAT (Fig. 4-5; paragraphs 112-125; multi-RAT mobile device transmits secondary RAT scan report message including beacon period & scanning interval information about preferred APs to the Base Station according to the first RAT if a scan report trigger condition is satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano by transmitting determined characteristics of communication with the second device according to the second RAT to the AP according to the first RAT, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling optimum multi-RAT system selection by taking scanned characteristics of the secondary RAT system(s) into consideration and inform the multi-RAT device of the selected optimum system.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 25,
The combination of Mano and Lee discloses determine that, for a current period of the periodic communication, the communication with the second device ends prior to an end of the current period and transmit, to the AP, an indication transmitted to the AP via the first RAT that the communication with the second device ends prior to the end of the current period comprises one of: an uplink data communication; or an action frame (Mano: paragraph 76; additional periodic CSIRS until the base station receives an indication (UL/action frame) to stop transmitting the additional periodic CSIRS; Lee: Fig. 4-5; paragraphs 112-125; multi-RAT mobile device transmits secondary RAT scan report message including beacon period & scanning interval information about preferred APs to the Base Station according to the first RAT if a scan report trigger condition is satisfied). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Mano and Lee discloses transmit, to the AP, an indication that the periodic communication is ending (paragraph 76; additional periodic CSIRS until the base station receives an indication to stop (i.e. end) transmitting the additional periodic CSIRS; Lee: Fig. 4-5; paragraphs 112-125; multi-RAT mobile device transmits secondary RAT scan report message including beacon period & scanning interval information about preferred APs to the Base Station according to the first RAT if a scan report trigger condition is satisfied). See motivation above.
Claims 2, 10, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Lee further in view of Fischer et al. (US20170142592A1; “Fischer”).
Regarding claims 2 and 22,
The combination of Mano and Lee discloses the indication/configuration request implements new periodicities for a set length of time (Mano: paragraph 76-84) and transmitting such characteristics to the AP (Lee: Fig. 4-5; paragraphs 112-125; multi-RAT mobile device transmits secondary RAT scan report message including beacon period & scanning interval information about preferred APs to the Base Station according to the first RAT if a scan report trigger condition is satisfied) but fails to expressly disclose determining a start time of a first period of the periodic communication.
Fischer discloses analogous art (Title: Coexistence Management via Scheduling) including transmitting a start time of a first period of the periodic communication to the AP (Fig. 2E; paragraph 38, 42, 45, 96-100, 113, 120-125; multi-RAT scheduling coordinates transmission/receptions across RATs including indications of start time/duration to reserve channel for periodic communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano by determining a start time of a first period of the periodic communication, as shown by Fischer, and transmitting to the AP, as shown in Lee, thereby enabling multi-RAT coexistence with increased throughput.
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Mano and Lee discloses mitigating interference in response to the first indication (Mano: paragraph 72; mitigate interference/increase throughput based on indication/configuration request) but fails to expressly disclose to avoid communication according to the first RAT during a periodic communication duration of the periodic communication.
Fischer discloses analogous art (Title: Coexistence Management via Scheduling) including to avoid communication according to the first RAT during a periodic communication duration of the periodic communication (paragraph 38+; multi-RAT coexistence by scheduling coordination to avoid overlap in time and frequency across multi-RATs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano and Lee by avoiding communication according to the first RAT during a periodic communication duration of the periodic communication, as shown by Fischer, thereby enabling multi-RAT coexistence with increased throughput.
Regarding claim 17,
Mano (Title: Coexistence Interference Mitigation in Wireless Systems) discloses a method, comprising: at an access point (AP): establishing communication with a wireless device according to a first radio access technology (RAT) (Fig. 4, step 405 “yes”; multiple active RATs) and receiving, from the wireless device, a first indication that the wireless device is performing periodic communication with a second device according to a second RAT (Fig. 4, step 415; indication based on IDC detected among multiple active RATs), wherein the first indication comprises at least one of: a periodicity of the periodic communication; or a periodic communication duration of the periodic communication (paragraph 6, 76-84; UE sends indication to base station based on detected IDC; indication such as configuration request including CSIRS periodicity/pattern/etc.).
Mano does not expressly show receiving the indication at the AP according to the first RAT, in response to indication of communication with the second device according to the second RAT.
Lee discloses analogous art (Title: Transmitting/Receiving Data in Wireless Access System for Supporitng Multi-Radio Access Technology) including receiving the indication at the AP according to the first RAT, in response to indication of communication with the second device according to the second RAT (Fig. 4-5; paragraphs 112-125; multi-RAT mobile device transmits secondary RAT scan report message including beacon period & scanning interval information about preferred APs to the Base Station according to the first RAT if a scan report trigger condition is satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano by receiving the indication at the AP according to the first RAT, in response to indication of communication with the second device according to the second RAT, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling optimum multi-RAT system selection by taking scanned characteristics of the secondary RAT system(s) into consideration and inform the multi-RAT device of the selected optimum system.
Mano also discloses mitigating interference in response to the first indication (paragraph 72; mitigate interference/increase throughput based on indication/configuration request) but fails to expressly disclose avoiding scheduling communication with the wireless device during an instance of the periodic communication.
Fischer discloses analogous art (Title: Coexistence Management via Scheduling) including avoiding scheduling communication with the wireless device during an instance of the periodic communication (paragraph 38+; multi-RAT coexistence by scheduling coordination to avoid overlap in time and frequency across multi-RATs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano and Lee by avoiding scheduling communication with the wireless device during an instance of the periodic communication, as shown by Fischer, thereby enabling multi-RAT coexistence with increased throughput.
Regarding claim 18,
The combination of Mano, Lee, and Fischer discloses receiving a second indication that, for a first periodic communication duration, the periodic communication finishes prior to an end of the first periodic communication duration and transmit data to the wireless device prior to the end of the first periodic communication duration (Mano: paragraph 76; additional periodic CSIRS until the base station receives an indication (i.e. uplink communication/action frame) to stop transmitting the additional periodic CSIRS). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 19,
The combination of Mano, Lee, and Fischer discloses receiving, from the wireless device, a third indication indicating an end time of the periodic communication; and resuming communication with the wireless device without avoiding scheduling communication with the wireless device based on the periodic communication (Mano: paragraph 80; resume default periodicity based on indication). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 20,
The combination of Mano, Lee, and Fischer discloses receiving, from the wireless device, a fourth indication updating a start time of a subsequent period of the periodic communication; and updating a schedule for communication with the wireless device during the subsequent period (Mano: paragraph 79; Fischer: paragraph 113). See motivation above.
Claims 3, 4, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano, Lee, and Fischer as applied to claims 2 and 22 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US20160295538A1; “Sun”).
Regarding claims 3 and 23,
The combination of Mano, Lee, and Fischer discloses determining a start time of a subsequent period of the periodic communication; and transmitting, to the AP, an indication of the start time of the subsequent period (Fischer: Fig. 2E; paragraph 38, 42, 45, 96-100, 113, 120-125; multi-RAT scheduling coordinates transmission/receptions across RATs including indications of start time/duration to reserve channel for periodic communication) but does not expressly disclose determining that a first clock associated with the first RAT is drifting relative to a second clock associated with the second RAT.
Sun discloses analogous art (Title: Clock Drift Management for Coexistence and Concurrency) including determining that a first clock associated with the first RAT is drifting relative to a second clock associated with the second RAT (Abstract; paragraphs 8, 82; mutual clock drifts over multiple RATs by maintaining a guard interval set relative to scheduled interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano and Fischer by determining that a first clock associated with the first RAT is drifting relative to a second clock associated with the second RAT, as shown by Sun, thereby allowing multi-RAT coexistence resynchronization while avoiding excessive overhead.
Regarding claims 4 and 24,
The combination of Mano, Lee, Fischer, and Sun discloses the indication of the start time (see rejection of claims 2, 22 above) of the subsequent period comprises one of: a clock synchronization action frame (Sun: paragraph 43-44, 68; clock re-synchronization); an A-control header transmitted with uplink data (Fischer: paragraph 84; header); or a field in a block acknowledgement frame (Fischer: paragraph 99; ack/nack; Sun: paragraph 47, 53-57). See motivation above.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano and Lee in view of Hasegawa et al. (US20240187903A1; “Hasegawa”).
Regarding claim 7-9,
The combination of Mano and Lee discloses indication of frequency band/eCC and pattern (Mano: paragraph 14, 63, 68, 77) but fails to expressly disclose indication of a first center frequency, frequency hopping pattern or bandwidth.
Hasegawa discloses analogous art (paragraph 44; WTRU/UE communicating via multiple RATs) including indication of a first center frequency, frequency hopping pattern and bandwidth (paragraph 276-278; indications of hopping pattern/center frequency/BWP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mano and Lee by indicating a first center frequency, frequency hopping pattern or bandwidth, as shown by Hasegawa, thereby enabling user positioning with reduced latency during dynamic reconfiguration of the network.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477