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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed March 06, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented below by introducing the new reference of Yerramalli et al (US 2023/0261814).
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 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, 4 – 7 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel et al (US 2022/0321152) in view of Yerramalli et al (US 2023/0261814) and further in view of Khayatzadeh et al (US 2025/0007549).
Re claim 1, Brunel teaches of an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (mobile device, #129, Figures 5A – 5E and Fig. 7), comprising: one or more memories (#806, Fig.7); and one or more processors (#801, Fig.7 and Paragraphs 0155 and 0159 – 0160), coupled to the one or more memories (memory coupled to baseband processor, as shown in Fig.7), individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to: communicate using a signal that is combined (Paragraphs 0014, 0114 and 0154) across the at least two frequency ranges (FR1 and FR2, Paragraph 0113 and Paragraph 0004) at either a radio frequency (RF), an intermediate frequency (IF), or a baseband (BBFR1/BBIF, TXFR1/TXIF, Fig.5D for a transmitter or RxFR1/RxIF, BBFR1/BBIF, Fig.5E for a receiver, Paragraphs 0114 and 0131 – 0135). However, Brunel does not specifically teach of transmitting a capability indication of a capability of coherent signal combining across at least two frequency ranges associated with at least two antenna panels of the UE; receiving, form a network entity, an indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently combined signal. Brunel does not specifically teach of the signal that is combined is coherently combined.
Yerramalli teaches of an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig.16), comprising: one or more memories (#1660, Fig.16); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (#1610, Fig.16), individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to: transmit a capability indication of a capability of coherent signal processing (#1510, Fi.15) across at least two frequency ranges (FR1, FR2, Paragraph 0096) associated with at least two antenna panels of the UE (Paragraph 0110, #1632, #1682, Fig.16) (Paragraphs 0102 – 0104); receive, form a network entity, an indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently processed signal (receiving a configuration from the network node, wherein receiving the first reference signal and the second reference signal is in accordance with the configuration, Paragraphs 0102, 0106 and #1520, Fig.15); and communicate using a signal that is coherently processed across the at least two frequency ranges (#1520, Fig.15).
Khayatzadeh teaches of a signal combiner (#64, Fig.3) may combine (add) the N phase-aligned (coherent) intermediate frequency signals received from each receive paths and may transmit the combined (added) intermediate frequency signal (Paragraphs 0064 – 0065 and Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE transmit a capability indication of a capability of coherent processing and receive the indication that the UE is to communicate using coherent processing in the shared RF chain for FR1 and FR2 of Brunel for optimizing network resources. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coherently added the received signals across the at least two frequency ranges to boost the total power of the wireless data and improve signal quality.
Re claim 4, Brunel teaches of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to transmit or receive the signal that is coherently combined across the at least two frequency ranges, using a common IF or baseband for the at least two frequency ranges (BBFR1, BBIF, Figures 5D – 5E).
Re claim 5, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 4 as well as Yerramalli teaches of wherein the indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently combined signal comprises a mode indication of a common data transmission mode across the at least two frequency ranges (configuration, Paragraphs 0084 and 0102 and Fig.12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have caused the UE to receive a mode indication of a common data transmission mode across the at least two frequency ranges for network optimization.
Re claim 6, Brunel teaches of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to coherently combine a first signal from a first frequency range of the at least two frequency ranges and a second signal from a second frequency range of the at least two frequency ranges by down-converting the first signal and the second signal to the common IF or baseband (#124, Fig.5E and Paragraphs 0111 and 0133 – 0134).
Re claim 7, Brunel teaches of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to: up-convert a common symbol to the common IF or baseband (#123, Fig.5D, Paragraph 0131); split the common IF or baseband into a first signal from a first frequency range of the at least two frequency ranges and a second signal from a second frequency range of the at least two frequency ranges (#242, Fig.5D); and transmit the first signal from a first antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels (#119, Fig.5A) and the second signal from a second antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels (#120, Fig.5A).
Re claim 15, Brunel teaches of an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (base station, #21, Fig.2A and Figures 3A – 3C), comprising: circuitry configured to cause the network entity to: communicate using a signal that is combined across the at least two frequency ranges (FR1 and FR2, Paragraph 0113 and Paragraph 0004) at either a radio frequency (RF), an intermediate frequency (IF), or a baseband (BBFR1/BBIF, TXFR1/TXIF, Fig.5D for a transmitter or RxFR1/RxIF, BBFR1/BBIF, Fig.5E for a receiver, Paragraphs 0114 and 0131 – 0135). However, Brunel does not specifically teach of receiving a capability indication of a capability of coherent signal combining across at least two frequency ranges associated with at least two antenna panels of a user equipment (UE); transmitting an indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently combined signal. Brunel does not specifically show of the network entity comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories. Brunel does not specifically teach of the signal that is combined is coherently combined.
Yerramalli teaches of an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (Fig.17), comprising: one or more memories (#1760, Fig.17); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (#1710, Fig.17), individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to: receive a capability indication of a capability of coherent signal processing (#1510, Fi.15) across at least two frequency ranges (FR1, FR2, Paragraph 0096) associated with at least two antenna panels of the UE (Paragraph 0110, #1632, #1682, Fig.16) (Paragraphs 0102 – 0104); transmit an indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently processed signal (receiving a configuration from the network node, wherein receiving the first reference signal and the second reference signal is in accordance with the configuration, Paragraphs 0102, 0106 and #1520, Fig.15); and communicate using a signal that is coherently processed across the at least two frequency ranges (#1520, Fig.15).
Khayatzadeh teaches of a signal combiner (#64, Fig.3) may combine (add) the N phase-aligned (coherent) intermediate frequency signals received from each receive paths and may transmit the combined (added) intermediate frequency signal (Paragraphs 0064 – 0065 and Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE transmit a capability indication of a capability of coherent processing and receive the indication that the UE is to communicate using coherent processing in the shared RF chain for FR1 and FR2 of Brunel for optimizing network resources. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the circuitry of the network node comprise a processor and a memory so as to effectively manage complex networking tasks, process massive amounts of data, and ensure reliable mobile connectivity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coherently added the received signals across the at least two frequency ranges to boost the total power of the wireless data and improve signal quality.
Re claim 16, Brunel teaches of wherein the signal uses common data symbols for the at least two frequency ranges (receiving common data symbols on FR1 and FR2, Figures 5A – 5E).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh in view of Myung et al (US 2024/0388378).
Re claim 2, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein to communicate using the signal that is coherently combined across the at least two frequency ranges, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to transmit or receive the signal that is coherently combined across the at least two frequency ranges, using common data symbols over a common modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the at least two frequency ranges.
Myung teaches of the UE to transmit or receive a signal using common data symbols over a common modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the at least two frequency ranges (#402, Fig.4A and Paragraph 0464).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have received a signal using common data symbols over a common modulation and coding scheme so as to reduce circuitry complexity and size.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Myung in view of Hakola et al (US 2023/0276283).
Re claim 3, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Myung teach all the limitations of claim 2 except of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to transmit a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams to be used across the at least two frequency ranges.
Hakola teaches of the UE to transmit a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams (Paragraphs 0034, 0052) to be used across the at least two frequency ranges (FR1, FR2, Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE transmit a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams for improved performance and reduced latency.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh in view of Raghavan et al (US 2021/0351816).
Re claim 8, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the UE comprises a first antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels for a first frequency range that is on a different part of the UE than a second antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels for a second frequency range, and wherein the capability indication is based at least in part on a design of the at least two antenna panels of the UE.
Raghavan teaches of a UE that comprises a first antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels for a first frequency range (FR4 antenna module, Fig.5B) that is on a different part of the UE than a second antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels for a second frequency range (FR2 antenna module, Fig.5B) (Paragraph 0085), and wherein the capability indication is based at least in part on a design of the at least two antenna panels of the UE (Fig.5 and Paragraphs 0083 and 0097).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE comprises a first antenna panel for a first frequency range that is on a different part of the UE than a second antenna panel of the at least two antenna panels for a second frequency range for reducing space and integration issues and have the capability indication to be based at least in part on a design of the at least two antenna panels of the UE for determining the optimal MIMO mode.
Re claim 9, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Raghavan teach all the limitations of claim 8 as well as Raghavan teaches of wherein the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel share a set of beams (“the UE may generate two beams (e.g., using polarization MIMO) from the same antenna module to transmit and/or receive signals in different frequency bands.”, Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel share a set of beams for improved reliability and enhanced spectral efficiency.
Re claim 10, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Raghavan teach all the limitations of claim 8 as well as Raghavan teaches of where the first antenna panel is co-located with the second antenna panel (Paragraph 0085 and Fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first antenna panel co-located with the second antenna panel for cost efficiency.
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Raghavan in view of Raghavan et al (US 2023/0370123) (Raghavan(2)).
Re claim 11, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Raghavan teach all the limitations of claim 10, except of where the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel are part of an L-shaped structure.
Raghavan(2) teaches of where the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel are part of an L-shaped structure (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel be part of an L-shaped structure for enhanced gain and directivity
Re claim 12, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh, Raghavan and Raghavan(2) teach all the limitations of claim 11, as well as Raghavan(2) teaches of where the first antenna panel is on an edge of the UE and the second antenna panel is on a back of the UE (as shown in Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first antenna panel be on an edge of the UE and the second antenna panel be on a back of the UE to construct the L-shaped antenna structure.
Re claim 13, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Raghavan teach all the limitations of claim 10, except of where the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel are part of a T-shaped structure.
Raghavan(2) teaches of where the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel are part of an L-shaped structure (Fig.2). Raghavan(2) does not specifically show of the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel being part of a T-shaped structure. However, Raghavan(2) further teaches any quantity of antenna array configurations (e.g., sets of antenna arrays), any quantity of antenna modules (e.g., in any shape), and any quantity of antenna arrays 210 may be considered.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel being part of a T-shaped structure for enhanced gain and directivity
Re claim 14, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh, Raghavan and Raghavan(2) teach all the limitations of claim 11, as well as Raghavan(2) teaches of where the first antenna panel is on an edge of the UE and the second antenna panel is on a back of the UE (as shown in Fig.2). Raghavan(2) does not specifically show the first antenna panel is on an edge of the UE and the second antenna panel extends from the edge of the to a back of the UE. However, Raghavan(2) further teaches any quantity of antenna array configurations (e.g., sets of antenna arrays), any quantity of antenna modules (e.g., in any shape), and any quantity of antenna arrays 210 may be considered.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the antenna structure to have the first antenna panel on an edge of the UE and the second antenna panel to extend from the edge of the to a back of the UE to construct the T-shaped antenna structure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh in view of Hakola.
Re claim 17, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 16 except of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the network entity to receive a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams across the at least two frequency ranges.
Hakola teaches of a network entity to receive a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams (Paragraphs 0034, 0052) across the at least two frequency ranges (FR1, FR2, Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE transmit to the network entity a beam indication of quasi-co-located beams for improved performance and reduced latency.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh in view of Papasakellariou et al (US 2010/0278109).
Re claim 18, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 15 as well as Brunel teaches of wherein to communicate using the signal that is coherently combined across the at least two frequency ranges, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to transmit or receive the signal that is coherently combined across the at least two frequency ranges using a common inter-frequency or baseband for the at least two frequency ranges (BBFR1, BBIF, Figures 5D – 5E). However, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh do not specifically teach of cause the network entity to transmit or receiving the signal using a common inter-frequency or baseband for the at least two frequency ranges.
Papasakellariou teaches of the Node B receiver performing the reverse (complementary) operations of the UE transmitter (Paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the network entity performing the reverse operation of the UE by transmitting or receiving the signal using a common inter-frequency or baseband for the at least two frequency ranges so as to reduce complexity of the communication system.
Re claim 19, Brunel, Yerramalli, Khayatzadeh and Papasakellariou teach all the limitations of claim 18 as well as Yerramalli teaches of wherein the indication that the UE is to communicate using coherently combined signal comprises a mode indication of a common data transmission mode across the at least two frequency ranges (configuration, Paragraphs 0084 and 0102 and Fig.12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have caused the UE to receive a mode indication of a common data transmission mode across the at least two frequency ranges for network optimization.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh in view of Raghavan et al (US 2019/0253112) (Raghavan(3)).
Re claim 20, Brunel, Yerramalli and Khayatzadeh teach all the limitations of claim 15 except of wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the network entity to: select one or more beams for co-phased transmissions across the at least two frequency ranges; and transmit a beam indication of the one or more beams.
Raghavan(3) teaches of select one or more beams for co-phased transmissions (#320-1, #320-2, Fig.3A); and transmit a beam indication of the one or more beams (Paragraphs 0100 and 0110).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one or more beams for co-phased transmissions to boost signal strength and for directional beamforming and have transmitted a beam indication to improve signal reception at the receiver.
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 ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights