DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/575995 filed on 01/2/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)s comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 limitations “the quality of the respective available frequency bands” lack antecedent basis. The original limitation appears in claim 5. Applicant may correct the dependency or correct the antecedent basis to overcome the rejection.
Claim 11 limitations “configured in the UE settings, configurable in the UE software” lack antecedent basis. Thus, the claim is rejected.
Claim 13 limitation “network node informs the UE of which” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the claim is rejected.
Claim 14 limitation “network node informs the UE about the sequence” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the claim is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 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 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet et al. (hereinafter Tabet) US 2015/0156636 A1 in view of Wei US 2017/0041042 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Tabet teaches a method performed by a network node for handling communication of data in a communication network (¶0004-¶0006 & Fig. 7; BS [network node]), the method comprising:
selecting at least one first frequency band for a transmission of the data, when a quality of the first frequency band is above a threshold value (¶0062-¶0065; base station [network node] configuring a primary carrier with the UE corresponding to a channel in a licensed frequency band, the configuration performed based on signal strength and/or signal quality measurements of primary cell, among other possible criteria. One skilled in the art understands that signal strength/quality measurements is similar to a threshold value);
and selecting at least one second frequency band for a transmission of the data (¶0069-¶0070; the base station [network node] selecting one or more channels in the unlicensed frequency band as potential channels on which to establish a secondary carrier, and providing a list of potential channels in the unlicensed frequency band to the UE).
Tabet does not expressly teach “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration”
Wei teaches “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration” (Fig. 5 & ¶0051; base station [network node] configuring a frequency hopping sequence for the operation of the secondary serving cell, changing the operating carrier frequency from time to time. ¶0053; the frequency hopping sequence can be dynamically configured based on the current interference levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Wei into the system of Tabet in order to improve communication performance. For example, configuring a frequency hopping sequence of the system to transmit the frequency hopping sequence to the Scell through the Pcell. Utilizing such teachings enable the system to control the Scell to operate according to the frequency hopping sequence (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the sequence is known to both a user equipment, UE, and the network node (¶0059; the UE receiving a frequency hopping sequence through the Pcell (established in the base station)).
Regarding claim 3, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the sequence is dynamically adjusted when a condition fulfilled or not, wherein the condition is based on a quality and a knowledge of available frequency bands (¶0053; the sequence being dynamically configured based on the current interference levels, involving performing carrier sensing of a plurality of carrier frequencies of the unlicensed spectrum).
Regarding claim 4, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Tabet further teaches wherein the at least one first frequency band is used for robust performance, and wherein the at least one second frequency band is used for probing (¶0059; a component carrier being on a licensed frequency band for which the potential for interference is substantially limited to that caused by network controlled wireless communication, the carrier advantageously being used for high priority data. ¶0079; monitoring of one or more link quality metrics being performed on a secondary carrier, on a unlicensed frequency band).
Regarding claim 5, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Tabet further teaches wherein the method further comprises: identifying available frequency bands in the communication network and a quality of respective available frequency band (¶0068-¶0072; BS scanning the channels, measuring various channel condition metrics and after scanning is performed, basing channel selection one or more scanning measurements, e.g., availability).
Regarding claim 8, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Tabet further teaches wherein the at least one first frequency band and/or the at least one second frequency band is one or both of a licensed carrier and an unlicensed carrier (obvious from ¶0074 & ¶0079-¶0080; Using cross-carrier scheduling may enable the network to keep control communications on the licensed frequency band, which as previously noted with respect to FIG. 6, may be subject to less (or at least less external) interference than the unlicensed frequency band).
Regarding claim 9, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Tabet further teaches wherein the quality of the respective available frequency bands is associated with one or more of: a lower degree of occupancy, a historically observed higher reliability, a local deployment spectrum policy and traffic Quality-of-Service, QoS, requirements (¶0079; the BS 102 may monitor one or more link quality metrics (e.g., signal strength and/or quality metrics such as RSRP and/or RSRQ, packet loss rate, etc.)).
Regarding claim 11, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 5, Wei further teaches wherein the available frequency bands are identified by one or more of: a semi static configuration, predefined in a product, configured in the UE settings (¶0035-¶0037; frequencies in the hopping sequence are determined by the base station according to the instantaneous network interference condition and stored in the UE), configurable in the UE software.
Regarding claim 13, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Tabet further teaches wherein the network node informs the UE of which of the at least one first frequency band and the at least one second frequency band that are selected (obvious from ¶0065-¶0066 because the UE 106 may be capable of discovering, detecting signals from, and possibly communicating with some or all of multiple neighboring cells, e.g., depending on signal strength/quality, permission, technological interoperability, etc. The primary cell may be selected and configured/established on the basis of one or more signal strength and/or signal quality measurements of the primary cell and/or other nearby cells, among other possible criteria (e.g., wireless traffic congestion of the cell(s), operator of the cell(s), wireless technology according to which the cell(s) operate, etc.)).
Regarding claim 14, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the network node informs the UE about the sequence of frequency bands, or parameters specifying the sequence of frequency bands (¶0059; the UE receiving a frequency hopping sequence through the Pcell (established in the base station)).
Regarding Claim 19, Tabet teaches a method performed by a user equipment, UE, for handling communication of data in a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving information, from the network node, of which of at least one first frequency band and at least one second frequency band that have been selected (¶0062-¶0065; base station [network node] configuring a primary carrier with the UE corresponding to a channel in a licensed frequency band, the configuration performed based on signal strength and/or signal quality measurements of primary cell, among other possible criteria. ¶0069-¶0070; the base station [network node] selecting one or more channels in the unlicensed frequency band as potential channels on which to establish a secondary carrier, and providing a list of potential channels in the unlicensed frequency band to the UE), wherein the at least one second frequency band is based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration;
and transmitting the data over the selected at least one first frequency band and the selected at least one second frequency band (¶0064; the primary carrier being used for control and user data communication between the UE and BS. ¶0078; transmitting uplink and/or downlink data between the user equipment and BS on a secondary carrier).
Tabet does not expressly teach “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration”
Wei teaches “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration” (Fig. 5 & ¶0051; base station [network node] configuring a frequency hopping sequence for the operation of the secondary serving cell, changing the operating carrier frequency from time to time. ¶0053; the frequency hopping sequence can be dynamically configured based on the current interference levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Wei into the system of Tabet in order to improve communication performance. For example, configuring a frequency hopping sequence of the system to transmit the frequency hopping sequence to the Scell through the Pcell. Utilizing such teachings enable the system to control the Scell to operate according to the frequency hopping sequence (abstract).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 19, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 6-7, 12, 15 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet in view of Wei and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) US 2017/0188366 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the data over the selected at least one first frequency band and the selected at least second frequency band.
Zhang teaches wherein the method further comprises: transmitting the data over the selected at least one first frequency band and the selected at least second frequency band (using multiple frequency bands are obvious. See ¶0047-¶0049; a process for selecting an optimal method or scenario for transmission, after which transmission can commence over multiple frequency bands simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the system of Tabet in view of Wei in order to monitor communications and can report link performance for adaptive control of the selected communication methods (abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Tabet in view of Wei and Zhang teaches the method according to claim 6, Zhang further teaches wherein the data is transmitted simultaneously over the at least one first frequency band and the at least second frequency band (see abstract for simultaneously used for communication. using multiple frequency bands are obvious. See ¶0047-¶0049; a process for selecting an optimal method or scenario for transmission, after which transmission can commence over multiple frequency bands simultaneously).
Regarding Claim 12, Tabet in view of Wei and Zhang teaches the method according to claim 6, Tabet further teaches wherein the data transmission is based on one or both of reliability requirements and a quality of available frequency bands (obvious from ¶0065 because communication depends on strength/quality).
Regarding Claim 15, Tabet in view of Wei and Zhang teaches the method according to claim 6, Tabet further teaches wherein the data is transmitted on a licenced carrier or on a dedicated control channel different from the selected at least one first frequency band and the at least one second frequency band (obvious from ¶0074 & ¶0079-¶0080; Using cross-carrier scheduling may enable the network to keep control communications on the licensed frequency band, which as previously noted with respect to FIG. 6, may be subject to less (or at least less external) interference than the unlicensed frequency band).
Regarding Claim 16, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the bandwidth of the at least one first frequency band and the at least one second frequency band is different.
Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the bandwidth of the at least one first frequency band and the at least one second frequency band is different (¶0021; obvious because multiband wireless communication. Frequency bands and/or transmission formats are identified as available within a range for wireless communication. Signal quality metrics for each frequency band are evaluated by a receiver to identify qualified frequency bands. The qualified frequency bands can be ranked according to one or more combination of signal quality metrics, where the list of qualified bands can be communicated to a transmitter. The transmitter is arranged to evaluate the list of qualified bands and select a communication method based on the available frequency bands and a selected communication optimization scenario. Multiple frequency bands and communication methods can be utilized by the transmitter such that a combination of licensed, unlicensed, semilicensed, and overlapped frequency bands can be used for communication simultaneously. The receiver continually monitors communications and can report link performance to the transmitter for adaptive control of the selected communication methods).
Regarding Claim 17, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein one or both: the bandwidth of the at least one first frequency band is different; and the bandwidth of the at least one second frequency band is different
Zhang teaches wherein one or both: the bandwidth of the at least one first frequency band is different; and the bandwidth of the at least one second frequency band is different (¶0021; obvious because multiband wireless communication. Frequency bands and/or transmission formats are identified as available within a range for wireless communication. Signal quality metrics for each frequency band are evaluated by a receiver to identify qualified frequency bands. The qualified frequency bands can be ranked according to one or more combination of signal quality metrics, where the list of qualified bands can be communicated to a transmitter. The transmitter is arranged to evaluate the list of qualified bands and select a communication method based on the available frequency bands and a selected communication optimization scenario. Multiple frequency bands and communication methods can be utilized by the transmitter such that a combination of licensed, unlicensed, semilicensed, and overlapped frequency bands can be used for communication simultaneously. The receiver continually monitors communications and can report link performance to the transmitter for adaptive control of the selected communication methods).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet in view of Wei and further in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li) Us 2017/0367110 A1.
Regarding Claim 18, Tabet in view of Wei teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the sequence is semi-static, wherein at least a part of the sequence can be reused.
Li teaches wherein the sequence is semi-static, wherein at least a part of the sequence can be reused (¶0102-¶0103; semi-static configuration where the codes/sequences are being reused by different groups of UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Li into the system of Tabet in view of Wei in order to enable codes and sequences be reused by different groups of UEs contending for different contention spaces. Id. Utilizing such teachings enable the system to provide short latency and high reliability for delivering small of medium size data when UL contention is allocated using semi-static and same sequence. Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455