DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 12-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raghaven et al PG PUB 2021/0226681.
Re Claim 12, Raghavan et al teaches in figure 7, a UE 115-b (an electronic device comprising a receiver) receiving configuration information (a first message) for an antenna array associated with a upper mmWbands (BWP configuration) [0065 0067 0095 0104] from a Base station 105-b (a wireless base station); figure 17, 1720 teaches transmitting a RS signal (a first RF) on a selected subset of antennas (a first transmit antenna) from the antenna array associated with the configuration information (the first message) wherein the UE selects the transmit antenna based on the link performance (first wireless performance metric) each antennas associated with the antenna array [0219] as identified in the configuration information.
Re Claims 13, 14, Raghavan et al teaches the RRC message [0095] and DCI [0138].
Re Claim 15, Raghavan et al teaches the UE identifying the best beam or transmit antenna (an antenna) having the highest signal quality (peak wireless performance metric data) associated with antenna array of the configuration (the first BWP configuration) [0098].
Re Claim 21, Raghavan et al teaches the RRC configuration includes the BWP configuration assigned to the UE (the electronic device)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELSHAFIE et al PG PUB 2024/0171249 in view of TAKAMATSU PG PUB 2014/0169318.
Re Claim 1, ELSHAFIE et al teaches in figure 4A, a UE (an electronic device) receiving, using a set of antenna, CSI-RS (a reference signal) [0066] in a frequency band [0037]; the UE receiving, from a Base station (a wireless base station) a RRC message (a message; a first BWP configuration) indicating a SRS configuration with a set of SRS resource set (a subset of frequency resources) of the frequency band [0052]; 420 teaches the UE transmitting a SRS sounding reference (a RF signal) using the SRS resource set as indicated by the RRC message wherein the SRS signal being transmitted by a transmit antenna that is selected based on the SRS resource sets as identified by the RRC message [0067].
ELSHAFIE et al fails to explicitly teach “transmitting a radio-frequency signal that carries wireless data traffic using the subset of frequency resources identified by the message”.
However, TAKAMATSU teaches eNB assigns the PDSCH resource for carrying the wireless data traffic (a radio-frequency signal) on the same frequency band (the subset of frequency resources) as the assigned uplink SRS resources [0075]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the RRC message (the message) to indicate the same frequency band to increase frequency utilization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 2, ELSHAFIE et al the SRS resource set (the subset of frequency resources) is configured within a specific/different BWP of the frequency band and the transmit antenna is selected based on the specific BWP as indicated by the RRC message [0074].
Re Claims 3, 6, ELSHAFIE et al teaches the specific BWP, a specific CC (a first and second BWPs; a first and second CCs) can be associated with different transmit antennas (a first and second antennas) [0067].
Re Claims 4, 7, 9, ELSHAFIE et al teaches the UE receiving the CSI-RS (the reference signal) using each antenna in the set of antennas, based on the CSI estimation (wireless performance metric data), the UE is enabled to perform beam selection [0040 0057], in this case, to select the transmit antennas (a first and second antennas) using the first and second BWP(s)/CC(s)/reference symbols or set of PRBs.
Re Claim 5, ELSHAFIE et al teaches the RRC message can indicate a CC (a component carrier) of the frequency band [0074] and the transmit antenna is selected based on the CC.
Re Claim 8, ELSHAFIE et al teaches one or more frequency ranges (the subset of frequency resources) comprises symbols which includes a number of PRBs of the frequency band [0059] whereby the transmit antenna is selected based on reference symbols (the set of PRBs) [0040 0060].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELSHAFIE et al PG PUB 2024/0171249 in view of TAKAMATSU PG PUB 2014/0169318 as applied to Claim 8 above and further in view of VADERNA et al PG PUB 2015/0296395.
Re Claim 10, ELSHAFIE et al teaches the UE receiving the CSI-RS (the reference signal) using each antenna in the set of antennas, based on the CSI estimation (wireless performance metric data), the UE is enabled to perform beam selection [0040 0057], in this case, to select the transmit antennas (a first and second antennas) using the first and second BWP(s)/CC(s)/reference symbols or set of PRBs.
ELSHAFIE et al in view of TAKAMATSU fails to explicitly teach "aggregating the wireless performance metric data into hierarchical bins, wherein the transmit antenna is selected based on the hierarchical bins...". However, VADERNA et al teaches based on historical data (a network scheduling history), the data are aggregated performance metrics into bins associated with prevailing parameter values [0094]. By combining the teachings, the channel matric in ELSHAFIE et al can be modified with the performance model in VADERNA et al to determining the prevailing parameter in selecting a reliable transmit antenna. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the transmit antenna based on the aggregated performance metric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavan et al PG PUB 2021/0226681 in view of Sakhnini et al PG PUB 2021/0314021.
Re Claim 16, Raghavan et al fails to explicitly teach "receiving a switch from the first BWP configuration to a second BWP configuration; generating a second wireless performance metric the second BWP configuration ; transmitting being selected from the set of antennas second wireless performance metric data.". However, Sakhnini et al teaches receiving from a base station BWP switching configuration for switching to a second BWP configuration to perform BFR procedure [0023]. By combining the teachings, the UE in Raghavan et al can be modified to receive a second message including the second BWP configuration indicating a second antenna array thereby generating a second performance metric to select another transmit antenna for the BFR procedure and transmit on the selected transmit antenna (a second transmit (the second set of antennas. different from the first set of antenna sets) based on the second performance metric for reliability. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have received the second BWP configuration to perform the BFR procedure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al PG PUB 2023/0084618 in view of Agarwal et al PG PUB 2024/0048213.
Re Claim 17, HUANG et al teaches in figure 3, a UE 350 (a electronic device) comprising one or more antennas 352 configured to receive message from a Base station 310 (a wireless base station); figure 15 teaches the UE receiving from the BS a configuration information identifying a PCC and SSS assigned to the UE [0129 also See figure 4]; the UE (includes a transmitter) configured to transmit a RF using a transmit antenna using the PCC or the SCC [0129].
HUANG et al fails to explicitly teach "generating a first and second performance metric from using the PCC and SCC;".
However, Agarwal et al teaches figure 3, 303, the UE calculating an average metric of each beam across all CCs (PSS and SCC) [0104] which can include generating a RSRP, SNR, RSRQ metrics on the respective beam (different respective first/second wireless performance metric data values) [0004]; 335 teaches selecting active beam with a maximum metric [0105]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have generated the first and second performance metric data based on the PCC and SCC to determine the maximum metric among all the CCs assigned to the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have generated the performance metric data of all CCs including PCC and SCC to select the transmit antenna with the maximum metric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 18, prior art fails to teach using the PCC when performance data is below a threshold value; and using the PCC or the SCC when the performance data is above the threshold value as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claim 12, Applicant argues that Raghaven et al fails to teach
“receiving, at a receiver, a first message from a wireless base station identifying a first BWP configuration assigned to the electronic device’”.
Examiner disagrees.
Raghaven teaches each served UE (the electronic device) may be configured for operating over portion of the BWP [0065] whereby in the control plane, the base station (a wireless base station) uses the RRC to provide the UE with a BWP configuration.
Applicant failed to argue claim 16.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights