DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to amendment for Application 18/575995 filed on 05/22/2026. 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 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-20 and 22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Examiner statements in the mailed non-final with respect to obvious limitations including common knowledge or well-known in the art are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
4. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 05/22/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been considered and found unpersuasive.
a. Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach “determination being at least partially based on a quality of service (QoS) requirement” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner disagrees because the limitation is not claimed.
There is nothing claimed with such language making the argument irrelevant. Despite that, Tabet still teaches QoS in ¶0079.
b. Applicant argues that a skilled person would not be motivated by Zhang because Zhang would not use secondary frequency band, selected based on a sequence, to assess the quality of the selected sequence (Remarks p. 12). Examiner disagrees because the art still teaches the claimed limitation.
The new amendment is still taught by the cited art. As initial matter, generally performance includes probing unless the claims specifically state otherwise. Would not probing is same as assessing performance?
Also, Tabet still teaches this limitation in ¶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 this is similar to probing. Further Tabet teaches in ¶0079; monitoring of one or more link quality metrics being performed on a secondary carrier, on a unlicensed frequency band which is also similar to performance. Further, in ¶0068-¶0072 Tabet teaches quality of available bands which is also similar to probing and performance.
Also, Wei teaches performing frequency hopping to improve performance using unlicensed and licensed cell. See ¶0059.
Zhang on the other hand was used only to show simultaneous transmission. See the updated rejection. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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).
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 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-17, 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 and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) US 2017/0188366 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).
transmitting the data simultaneously over the selected at least one first frequency band and the selected at least one second frequency band, the at least one first frequency band being used for performance, and the at least one second frequency band being used for probing (obvious because Tabet still teaches this limitation in ¶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 this is similar to probing. Further Tabet teaches in ¶0079; monitoring of one or more link quality metrics being performed on a secondary carrier, on unlicensed frequency band which is also similar to performance. Further, in ¶0068-¶0072 Tabet teaches quality of available bands which is also similar to probing and performance).
Tabet does not expressly teach “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration” & “…simultaneously…”
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).
Tabet in view of Wei does not expressly teach “…simultaneously…” However, to send data simultaneously over two frequency bands is withing the common knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art. Despite that Examiner cites to Zhang.
Zhang teaches a process for selecting optimal method for transmission after which transmission can commence over multiple frequency bands simultaneously. See ¶0047-¶0049. Further, see abstract for simultaneously used for communication.
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 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 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 12, Tabet in view of Wei and Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, 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 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 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).
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 simultaneously 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), the at least one first frequency band being used for performance, and the at least one second frequency band being used for probing (obvious because Tabet still teaches this limitation in ¶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 this is similar to probing. Further Tabet teaches in ¶0079; monitoring of one or more link quality metrics being performed on a secondary carrier, on unlicensed frequency band which is also similar to performance. Further, in ¶0068-¶0072 Tabet teaches quality of available bands which is also similar to probing and performance).
Tabet does not expressly teach “…second frequency… based on a sequence, the sequence being based on a dynamically adjustable configuration” & “…simultaneously…”
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).
Tabet in view of Wei does not expressly teach “…simultaneously…” However, to send data simultaneously over two frequency bands is withing the common knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art. Despite that Examiner cites to Zhang.
Zhang teaches a process for selecting optimal method for transmission after which transmission can commence over multiple frequency bands simultaneously. See ¶0047-¶0049. Further, see abstract for simultaneously used for communication.
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).
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.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights