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 . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-04-21 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-14, 19-20, 25-26, 28 are pending for consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the Reply is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive because
With regards to the first argument that the Examiner does not use the exact wording of 35 USC 121 in the restriction stating that "two or more independent and distinct inventions" is so entirely different form the Examiner’s wording of "the inventions are patently distinct, independent, non-obvious in view of each other" that the restriction defective is not persuasive. They are effectively the conveying the same thing and the Reply fails to articulate as to why the phrases are so vastly different that the restriction is not proper. In other words, the Reply’s argument is effectively “The Examiner did copy the exact phrase from 35 USC 121 and therefore the restrict is improper regardless of whether Examiner’s text is effectively equivalent.”
With regards to the second argument regarding search burden. The Reply alleges there is no fact-based evidence. Using the Applicant’s own logic above: The Applicant has mischaracterized and misapplied the use of MPEP 803 as it applies in rebutting the restriction requirement as MPEP 803 does not recite any instant of the phrase “fact-based evidence” – phrase is absent in the entire MPEP 803 section - it is unclear where the Applicant got this phrase. Examiner submits that the Applicant’s ultra vires rebuttal runs afoul of the MPEP 803 rules language. The Reply disregards the showing of different classification identified for each respective invention and explanation of how these inventions are different.
Second, MPEP 803 explicitly states:
For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious search burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02.
First, we note the absent of any citation of “fact-based evidence” requirement in the quote above. In the restriction, the Examiner clearly identified separate classification and provides an explanation as to why the inventions are separate. Nowhere does MPEP 803 require that a pre-search be performed as the Reply suggests.
Third with regards to the invention having similar language/elements, this is in no way, per the USC or MPEP, a sufficient way of showing whether search burden exist between two inventions. A chair can be described as having “arms” and “legs”. A bear can be described as having “arms” and “legs.” A chair is not a bear. They are two things with vastly different classifications that would require separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Non-elected claims 15, 29, and 16-27 are considered WITHDRAWN.
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610)
Claim(s) 1, 28
CHOI_610 teaches
at least one memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to: Base station having processor and executable code. <FIG(s). 21, 3A; para. 0040-0042, 0087-0088, 0305-0306>.
participate in spectrum sharing to communicate with at least a first user equipment (UE) subscribed to the first mobile network, wherein the first network entity is associated with at least a first identifier (ID) of a first mobile network having first frequency resources and Base station, such as a 5G base station, provides resource allocation including frequency-domain of resources to a 5G capable terminal. In one embodiment, frequency-domain mapping position of a PDCCH is determined by the identifier (ID) of each terminal, and is propagated to the entire system transmission band (ID) of each terminal. <FIG. 3, 4; para. 0062, 0080-0110>.
the spectrum sharing allows the first network entity to use second frequency resources of a second mobile network; Base station allocates both LTE and 5G resources to the 5G-capable terminal. Resources can include frequency resources such as carrier frequency. <FIG(s). 3, 4; para. 0080-0110>.
transmit first reference signals (RSs) on the first frequency resources; and Base station sends the 5G terminal reference signals over 5G resources. <para. 0153, 0221, 0225>.
coordinate with a second network entity for transmission of second RSs on the second frequency resources, wherein the second network entity is associated with the second mobile network. Second network is LTE network. Base stations from the LTE and 5G system coordinate to allocated resources of both networks to terminal. In one embodiment, one of the base station manages the resource allocation between the two networks, in another embodiment, a controller performs the management. LTE transmission and 5G transmission may be divided based on frequency resources in the MBSFN subframe for 5G terminals and LTE terminals; in LTE the MBSFN subframe can include reference signals. <FIG(s). 4, 4A, 4B; para. 0107-0108, 0143-0144, 0152, 0219-0221, 0242>.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of JEON_008 (US20210022008)
Claim(s) 2
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least a first ID comprises at least one of:
a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID or
a non-public network (NPN) ID.
However in a similar endeavor, JEON_008 teaches
wherein the at least a first ID comprises at least one of:
a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID or BS is associated with PLMN. <para. 0135-0137>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by JEON_008. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved synchronization of wireless base stations for facilitating inter-base station communication in coordinated shared spectrum networks. <para. 0002>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of JEON_305 (US20200221305)
Claim(s) 3
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein coordinating with the second network entity for transmission of the second RSs on the second frequency resources comprises:
communicating with the second network entity to identify a first subset of resources in the second frequency resources that are reserved for the second network entity; and
transmitting the second RSs on a second subset of resources in the second frequency resources,
wherein the first and second subsets of resources are non-overlapping.
However in a similar endeavor, JEON_305 teaches
wherein the first and second subsets of resources are non-overlapping. Network entity identifies resources that are to be used by the neighboring network entity(ies) that the network entity successfully transmitted the coordination request message to and received the coordination response message from and identify other resources to reserve as the reserved resources that avoid overlap with the resources that are to be used by the neighboring network entity(ies). Embodiments can be applied to reference signals. <para. 0064, 0125-0126>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by JEON_305. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved resource reservation operation in an advanced shared spectrum wireless communication system. <para. 0002>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of XU_785 (US20200314785)
Claim(s) 4
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein:
the first reference signals (RSs) are transmitted on the first frequency resources via a first radio unit (RU) associated with the first mobile network; and
the first network entity coordinates with the second network entity for transmission of the second RSs on the second frequency resources via a second RU associated with the second mobile network.
However in a similar endeavor, XU_785 teaches
the first reference signals (RSs) are transmitted on the first frequency resources via a first radio unit (RU) associated with the first mobile network; and the first network entity coordinates with the second network entity for transmission of the second RSs on the second frequency resources via a second RU associated with the second mobile network. Different network elements coordinate such that they each send reference signals via their respective frequency resources to UEs that are orthogonal to one another. <FIG(s). 16, 17, 18; para. 0057-0058, 0068; Claim(s) 4>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by XU_785. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce interference as well as provide convenience for interference estimation and cancellation for the UEs with an advanced receiver. <para. 0040>.
Claim(s) 7
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to:
configure the first UE to measure the second RSs transmitted on the second frequency resources.
However in a similar endeavor, XU_785 teaches
configure the first UE to measure the second RSs transmitted on the second frequency resources. UE receives and performs channel estimation measurements on the received reference signals. <para. 0040-0042>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by XU_785. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce interference as well as provide convenience for interference estimation and cancellation for the UEs with an advanced receiver. <para. 0040>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of XU_785 (US20200314785), and further view of JOHN WILSON_472 (US20180316472)
Claim(s) 6
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein the second RSs comprises RSs transmitted periodically in the time-domain on the second frequency resources by the second mobile network.
However in a similar endeavor, JOHN WILSON_472 teaches
wherein the second RSs comprises RSs transmitted periodically in the time-domain on the second frequency resources by the second mobile network. LTE BS 206 may periodically transmit a reference signal. <para. 0059>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 and XU_785 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by JOHN WILSON_472. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable inter-RAT quasi-co-location (QCL). <para. 0002>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of SRIKANTESWARA_953 (US20130273953)
Claim(s) 14
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to at least one of:
transmit signaling, to a UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled; or
receive signaling, from the UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled or a request to enable spectrum sharing.
However in a similar endeavor, SRIKANTESWARA_953 teaches
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to at least one of:
receive signaling, from the UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled or a request to enable spectrum sharing. UE 101 makes a request for spectrum sharing <para. 0043-0047>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by SRIKANTESWARA_953. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide policy-driven spectrum allocation and sharing of multiple workloads in a distributed computing environment. <para. 0003>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI_610 (US20190281610) in view of JIN_486 (CN101741486)
Claim(s) 14
CHOI_610 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to at least one of:
transmit signaling, to a UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled; or
receive signaling, from the UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled or a request to enable spectrum sharing.
However in a similar endeavor, JIN_486 teaches
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the first network entity to at least one of:
transmit signaling, to a UE, indicating spectrum sharing is enabled; or Notification of the frequency spectrum agency, spectrum sharing notification to the main user, informing the current spectrum in a shared state <para. 0026-0028>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by CHOI_610 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by JIN_486. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a dynamic spectrum resource sharing based on interference temperature measuring method so as to further improve system throughput and spectrum utilization ratio, and so that the system can support longer distance communication and expands the application range. <para. 0005>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 5
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Closest prior art is CHOI_610 as discussed herein in the prior art reject to base claim 4, however the reference does not teach transmitting, to the second network entity, a request to transmit the second RSs on the second frequency resources via the second RU and receiving a response to the request allowing the first network entity to transmit the second RSs on the second frequency resources via the second RU.
Claim(s) 8 and 9-13
The claim(s) is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Closest prior art MUHAMMAD - WO2020030283 making a second random access attempt for uplink to the first base station on a second frequency corresponding to secondary uplink, the second frequency being different from the first frequency but does not teach the second frequencies are associated with a second mobile network.
In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter).
Relevant Cited References
US20200092763
US20180234912
Examiner’s Notes
English Translations of Non-English Documents
Text herein may rely upon a non-English document. Any citations used herein for said document refers to paragraphs numbers in the (English) translated document, not the original non-English document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights