DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 03/11/2024.
Claims 23-42 are pending.
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 23-42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recited, “A processor configured to:” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “A processor for performing opportunistic radio resource allocation in multi-carrier communication systems, the processor configured to:”
Claim 31 recited, “An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “A apparatus for performing opportunistic radio resource allocation in multi-carrier communication systems, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:”
Claim 42 recited, “A method, comprising:” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “A method for opportunistic radio resource allocation in multi-carrier communication systems, the method, comprising:”
All other dependent claims 24-31 and 32-41 are also objected since they are depended on the objected claim 23 and 31 respectively.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as patent.
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Claims 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of AHMADI (US Patent No 11,968,650) (referred as AHMADI’s 650).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of AHMADI (US Patent No 11,968,650) by adding the well-known elements and functions as set forth below.
Regarding claim 11, AHMADI’s 650 discloses a computer system for facilitating communications within a processing environment, said computer system comprising:
Regarding claim 23, AHMADI’s 650 discloses a processor configured to:
detect an unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum (See claim 1, lines 1-7);
generate, for transmission to a network, a message identifying the unused resource (See claim 1, lines 8-9);
process, based on signals received from a first cell of the network, an identification of the unused resource as available to be used for data and control signaling with the network (See claim 1, lines 10-12); and
generate, for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier, data or control signaling, wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource (See claim 1, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 24, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource (See claim 2).
Regarding claim 25, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 24, wherein the processor determines whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on signals received from radio frequency (RF) circuitry sensing the unused resource (See claim 2).
Regarding claim 26, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate, for transmission to the network, an indication of termination of use of the unused resource in the unlicensed spectrum (See claim 3).
Regarding claim 27, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processor is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest; and compare the energy to a threshold (See claim 4).
Regarding claim 28, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein the network is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network or an LTE-Advanced network (See claim 5).
Regarding claim 29, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource (See claim 6).
Regarding claim 30, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the processor of claim 23, wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to generating the message identifying the unused resource, generate, for transmission to the second cell of the network using the secondary carrier, a second message (See claim 7).
Regarding claim 31, AHMADI’s 650 discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
detect an unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum (See claim 8, lines 6-7);
generate, for transmission to a network, a message identifying the unused resource (See claim 8, lines 7-8);
process, based on signals received from a first cell of the network, an identification of the unused resource as available to be used for data and control signaling with the network (See claim 8, lines 9-11); and
generate, for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier, data or control signaling, wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource (See claim 8, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 32, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource (See claim 9).
Regarding claim 33, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to sense the unused resource, wherein the processing circuitry determines whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on sensing signals received from the RF circuitry (See claim 9).
Regarding claim 34, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate, for transmission to the network, an indication of termination of use of the unused resource in the unlicensed spectrum (See claim 10).
Regarding claim 35, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest; and compare the energy to a threshold (See claim 11).
Regarding claim 36, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 35, further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to sample a radio frequency environment of the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry calculates the energy based on samples received from the RF circuitry (See claim 11).
Regarding claim 37, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the network is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network or an LTE-Advanced network (See claim 12).
Regarding claim 38, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource (See claim 13).
Regarding claim 39, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to generating the message identifying the unused resource, generate, for transmission to the second cell of the network using the secondary carrier, a second message (See claim 14).
Regarding claim 40, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 39, further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to transmit the message to the network (See claim 15).
Regarding claim 41, AHMADI’s 650 discloses the apparatus of claim 39, wherein the RF circuitry is further configured to transmit the second message to the second cell prior to transmitting the message (See claim 16).
Regarding claim 42, AHMADI’s 650 discloses a method, comprising:
detecting an unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum (See claim 15, lines 7-8);
generating, for transmission to a network, a message identifying the unused resource (See claim 15, lines 9-10);
processing, based on signals received from a first cell of the network, an identification of the unused resource as available to be used for data and control signaling with the network (See claim 15, lines 11-14); and
generating, for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier, data or control signaling, wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource (See claim 15, lines 15-17).
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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.
Claims 23, 28-31, 37-39, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2014/0328306) in view of Kaur et al. (US 2015/0131536).
Regarding claim 23, Gao discloses a processor configured to [See Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶ 57-64, 86; a control module of device B],
detect an unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum [See ¶¶ 62, 86; detect an indication of an unused part of resources allocated in said second band to another device, wherein the second band is referred to unlicensed band (See ¶ 43)];
generate, for transmission to a network, a message identifying the unused resource [See ¶ 63; configure, for transmission to a network, a request/message to said another device requesting allocation of the indicated unused part of the resources];
process, based on signals received from a first cell of the network, an identification of the unused resource as available to be used for data and control signaling with the network [See ¶ 64; configure to apply a coding to the request so as to allow allocation of the request to a specific device that sent the request]; and
generate data or control signaling [See ¶ 65; configure to decode the confirmation so as to allow allocation of the confirmation to a specific device that sent the request].
Although, Gao discloses all aspects set forth above including generate data or control signaling, but does not explicitly disclose generate, “for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier”, data or control signaling, wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource.
However, Kaur discloses generate, for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier, data or control signaling [See ¶¶ 79-81, 84; configure to cross-carrier scheduling for scheduling of the supplementary carrier operating in the license-exempt (ISM, UNII or TVWS) spectrum; For example, a semi-persistent scheduling grant is used to allocate resources on the supplementary carrier, See ¶ 101], wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource [See ¶ 79; wherein the component carriers operating in the license-exempt (ISM, UNII or TVWS) spectrum, that the unused portions of spectrum referred to as TV White Space (TVWS), See ¶ 4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “generate, “for transmission to a second cell of the network using a secondary carrier”, data or control signaling, wherein the secondary carrier comprises the unused resource”, as taught by Kaur in the system of Gao, so that it would to provide to enable users to seamlessly and opportunistically roam across various wireless access networks in the search for more throughput or cheaper bandwidth (see Kaur, ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the processor of claim 23.
Gao further discloses wherein the network is a Long Tern Evolution (LTE) network [See ¶¶ 12-18, 43; wherein the network is a Long Tern Evolution (LTE) network].
Regarding claim 29, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the processor of claim 23.
Gao does not explicitly disclose wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource.
However, Kaur discloses wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource [Fig. 11, ¶¶ 108, 110, 133; wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “wherein the unused resource comprises one of a time division duplex (TDD) resource, a frequency division duplex (FDD) resource, or a combination of the TDD resource and the FDD resource”, as taught by Kaur in the system of Gao, so that it would to provide to enable users to seamlessly and opportunistically roam across various wireless access networks in the search for more throughput or cheaper bandwidth (see Kaur, ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 30, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the processor of claim 23.
Gao further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: prior to generating the message identifying the unused resource, generate, for transmission to the second cell of the network using the secondary carrier, a second message [See Fig. 1, ¶¶ 57; control module is configured to request communication resources in the second band from another device using a first type of request (RTS) to obtain access to said resources in competition with other requests of said first type issued from other devices].
Regarding claims 31 and 37-39, the claims recite an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the processor recited as in claims 23 and 28-30 respectively; therefore, claims 31 and 37-39 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 23 and 28-30 respectively.
Regarding claim 40, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the apparatus of claim 39.
Gao further discloses further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to transmit the message to the network [See ¶ 63; transmit a request to said another device requesting allocation of the indicated unused part of the resources].
Regarding claim 41, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the apparatus of claim 39.
Gao further discloses wherein the RF circuitry is further configured to transmit the second message to the second cell prior to transmitting the message [See ¶ 76; transmit RTS, CTS, data from other stations or other LTE devices].
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites a method to perform the processor recited as in claim 23; therefore, claim 42 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 23.
Claims 24-25, 27, 32-33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2014/0328306) in view of Kaur et al. (US 2015/0131536), and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2012/0294168 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the processor of claim 23, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource.
However, Freda discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource [See ¶¶ 59, 64; sensing the unused resource to determine if another device is currently communicating on the unused resource].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource”, as taught by Freda in the combined system of Gao and Kaur, so that it would to providing the information indicative of the usage of the spectrum by other devices based on the notification transmitted to the DSM engine indicating that the change in the performance of the wireless link (See Freda, ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 25, the combined system of Gao, Kaur, and Freda discloses the processor of claim 24.
The combined system of Gao and Kaur does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor determines whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on signals received from radio frequency (RF) circuitry sensing the unused resource.
However, Freda discloses wherein the processor determines whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on signals received from radio frequency (RF) circuitry sensing the unused resource [See ¶¶ 59, 64; sensing the unused resource to determine if another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on the sensing results/reporting received from cognitive radios].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “wherein the processor determines whether another device is currently communicating on the unused resource based on signals received from radio frequency (RF) circuitry sensing the unused resource”, as taught by Freda in the combined system of Gao and Kaur, so that it would to providing the information indicative of the usage of the spectrum by other devices based on the notification transmitted to the DSM engine indicating that the change in the performance of the wireless link (See Freda, ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 27, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the method of claim 23, but does not explicitly disclose wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processor is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest; and compare the energy to a threshold.
However, Freda discloses wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processor is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest [See ¶¶ 87, 123; wherein the DSM engine averages the magnitude/energy squared of the FFT of each of the I/Q data sequences received from the CR nodes to provide a joint (or cooperative) estimate of the power spectral density/power density (e.g., an averaged periodogram)]; and compare the energy to a threshold [See ¶ 128; TVWS-SSF-S 1112 may continuously monitor the active channel sensing results by comparing them with the configured trigger threshold (1512 and 1542)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processor is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest; and compare the energy to a threshold”, as taught by Freda in the combined system of Gao and Kaur, so that it would to providing the information indicative of the usage of the spectrum by other devices based on the notification transmitted to the DSM engine indicating that the change in the performance of the wireless link (see Freda, ¶ 4).
Regarding claims 32-33 and 35, the claim recites the apparatus of claim 31 configured to perform the processor recited as in claim 26; therefore, claims 32-33 and 35 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 24-25 and 27.
Regarding claim 36, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the apparatus of claim 35, but does not explicitly disclose wherein to detect the unused resource in an unlicensed spectrum the processor is further configured to: calculate, over a period of time, an energy over a frequency band of interest; and compare the energy to a threshold.
However, Freda discloses further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to sample a radio frequency environment of the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry calculates the energy based on samples received from the RF circuitry [See ¶¶ 99; the DSM engine 210 configured to estimate power spectral density by obtained by an estimate of the signal power measured at each of the outputs of the filter bank PSD(0), PDS(f.sub.1) and PSD(F.sub.N-1)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “further comprising: radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to sample a radio frequency environment of the apparatus, wherein the processing circuitry calculates the energy based on samples received from the RF circuitry”, as taught by Freda in the combined system of Gao and Kaur, so that it would to providing the information indicative of the usage of the spectrum by other devices based on the notification transmitted to the DSM engine indicating that the change in the performance of the wireless link (see Freda, ¶ 4).
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2014/0328306) in view of Kaur et al. (US 2015/0131536), and further in view of Ruuska et al. (US 2015/0111596).
Regarding claim 26, the combined system of Gao and Kaur discloses the processor of claim 23, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: generate, for transmission to the network, an indication of termination of use of the unused resource in the unlicensed spectrum.
However, Ruuska discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: generate, for transmission to the network, an indication of termination of use of the unused resource in the unlicensed spectrum [¶¶ 5, 116; unlicensed use of the white spaces left by the termination of analog TV].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to: generate, for transmission to the network, an indication of termination of use of the unused resource in the unlicensed spectrum”, as taught by Ruuska in the combined system of Gao and Kaur, so that it would to enable wireless telecommunication equipment to communicate via license exempt bands as well as licensed bands (see Ruuska, ¶ 6).
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites the apparatus of claim 31 configured to perform the processor recited as in claim 26; therefore, claim 34 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 26.
Conclusion
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, Hassan et al. (US 2011/0237238) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 23, 31, and 42 (See Fig. 7, ¶¶ 78-81).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469