MULTI-RADIO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY ANTENNA MANAGEMENT

DETAILED ACTION This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on August 31, 2026. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: MULTI-RADIO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY ANTENNA PANEL SELECTION BASED ON TRAFFIC AND ISOLATION LEVELS. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-5, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HomChaudhuri et al. (US 20170265205 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200328785 A1) and further in view of Evans et al. (US 6774864 B2). Consider claim 1, HomChaudhuri et al. disclose a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Figure 10, the memory 1010); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (see Figure 10, the processor 1020. “The memory 1010 may store computer-readable, computer-executable software including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions described herein” (see paragraph 0168)): tune a first antenna panel to a first frequency band associated with a first radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may be communicating on the radio frequency spectrum band in a first RAT (e.g., a WAN RAT) using multiple antennas)” (see paragraph 0065)); tune a second antenna panel to a second frequency band associated with a second radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may reconfigure one antenna to a second RAT (e.g., a WLAN RAT) and perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0065)); monitor a traffic level of communications via the first frequency band associated with the first radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may determine a demand requirement for the first RAT communications, e.g., whether the throughput requirement for each link is exceeded for the first RAT communications, based on the link signal strength/quality, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the first RAT communications, etc.” (see paragraph 0068)); and select an antenna for communications via the second frequency band based at least in part on the traffic level of active antennas (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0024)). HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose that the first and second RATs occupy the same or adjacent radio frequency spectrum and that co-existence between the RATs must be managed to reduce inter-RAT interference (see paragraphs 0004 and 0005: “When using the same radio frequency spectrum band … suitable co-existence schemes may be helpful in reducing interference. … a WWAN RAT may not be able to communicate, or may communicate with an excessive amount of interference caused by the WLAN communications.”). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a UE wherein a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. such that a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels as taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load among available antenna panels. However, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. fail to disclose wherein the antenna panel is selected based at least in part on an inter-radio access technology (RAT) isolation level between the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel. In the same field of endeavor, Evans et al. disclose a UE wherein an antenna combination is selected based on isolation levels between antennas (“By selecting a subset of two transmit antennas and two receive antennas, it is likely that a combination of transmit and receive antennas can be chosen such that good isolation can be obtained at the receivers between the individual transmitter signals” (see Col. 4, lines 14-18). See also the channel matrix at Col. 4 lines 14-48, in which antenna combinations are selected on the basis of relative isolation between concurrently-occupied signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. and modified by Lee et al. such that the third antenna panel is selected based at least in part on an inter-RAT isolation level between the first antenna panel (associated with the first RAT) and the second antenna panel (associated with the second RAT), as taught by Evans et al. The motivation to combine arises directly from HomChaudhuri et al.’s own stated problem. HomChaudhuri et al. expressly seeks to mitigate interference between co-existing RATs operating on the same or adjacent radio frequency spectrum (paragraphs 0004 and 0005). Evans et al. teach that antenna isolation is a known, measurable metric for selecting the antenna combination that minimizes cross-interference between two signals concurrently occupying the medium (Col. 4, lines 14–18). Because HomChaudhuri et al.’s first antenna panel is associated with the first RAT and its second antenna panel is associated with the second RAT, applying Evans et al.’s isolation-based antenna-selection technique to HomChaudhuri et al.’s two-RAT antenna arrangement necessarily results in selecting a panel based on the isolation between the RATs’ respective panels (i.e., an inter-RAT isolation level). The physical principle underlying Evans et al. (greater antenna isolation yields reduced cross-coupling/interference between concurrent signals) is identical whether the two interfering signals belong to two MIMO substreams or to two different RATs; its transfer to the inter-RAT context is therefore the predictable application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see MPEP § 2143(A), ©, and (D)). A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to select the more-isolated antenna panel for the lower-priority RAT so as to reduce the inter-RAT interference that HomChaudhuri et al. identify as the problem to be solved, with a reasonable expectation of success. Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., further disclose a UE wherein, to monitor the traffic level, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: monitor the traffic level of communications via the first frequency band based at least in part on the first frequency band overlapping with, being adjacent to, being a harmonic order to, or being an intermodulation order to the second frequency band (“the UE 115 may perform a scan (or perform communications) on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT during the time period. In some examples, a scan of the second RAT during the time period may include an active scan where the UE 115 transmits on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT…The transmission may be scheduled to overlap communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of the first RAT” (see paragraph 0067)). Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a UE wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: select an antenna for communications via the second frequency band based at least in part on the traffic level satisfying a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0024)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a UE wherein a third antenna panel is selected (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that a third antenna panel is selected as further taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load. Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a UE wherein, to select an antenna, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: select an antenna based at least in part on the traffic level exceeding a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT… In some examples of the method, apparatus, or non-transitory computer-readable medium described above, the demand requirement indicates that the communications are associated with a channel condition parameter above a threshold value.” (see paragraph 0024, 0027)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a UE wherein a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel as further taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load. Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. disclose wherein separate antenna are associated with the first radio access technology and an antenna panel associated with the second radio access technology (“The UE 115 may be communicating on the radio frequency spectrum band in a first RAT (e.g., a WAN RAT) using multiple antennas)…[and] may reconfigure one antenna to a second RAT (e.g., a WLAN RAT) and perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0065)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein the antenna are specifically antenna panels, nor wherein the antenna panels are arranged in pairs. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a UE where in the antenna are specifically antenna panels, and wherein the antenna are paired (“the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. such that the antenna are both paired and specifically antenna panels as taught by Lee et al. in order to take advantage of the directionality of panel antennae for long-distance transmission. However, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. fail to disclose wherein inter-RAT isolation level measurements are performed for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels. In the same field of endeavor, Evans et al. disclose a UE wherein isolation level measurements are performed for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels, (“By selecting a subset of two transmit antennas and two receive antennas, it is likely that a combination of transmit and receive antennas can be chosen such that good isolation can be obtained at the receivers between the individual transmitter signals” (see Col. 4, lines 14-18). See also the channel matrix compiling relative signal/isolation values across antenna pairs at Col. 4 lines 14-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. to perform inter-RAT isolation level measurements for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels as disclosed by Evans et al. in order to consider potential signal interference when selecting antenna pairs for transmission. HomChaudhuri et al. seek to mitigate inter-RAT interference (paragraphs 0004 and 0005), and Evans et al. teach measuring inter-antenna isolation across candidate pairs as the predictable, known means of identifying the combination that minimizes that interference (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143(A), (D)). Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a UE wherein, to select an antenna, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: select any antenna from a set of antennae associated with the second radio access technology based at least in part on the traffic level being below a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0024)) However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein the antennae are panel antennae. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose wherein the antennae are panel antennae (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that the antennae are specifically panel antennae as further taught by Lee et al. in order to take advantage of the directionality of panel antennae for long-distance transmission. Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., further disclose wherein the first radio access technology is associated with a higher priority than the second radio access technology (the UE “may include means for identifying a priority metric for communications during a time period on a radio frequency spectrum band of a first radio access technology (RAT), means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the priority metric, at least one antenna of a set of antennas to perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0018). Said priority metric “may indicate whether the first RAT communications are a high or low priority” (see paragraph 0067)). Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose wherein the first radio access technology comprises one of wireless local area network, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, Ultra-wideband, and the second radio access technology comprises wireless wide area network (Referring to Figure 4, “the WLAN 405 may illustrate aspects of a wireless communication system that supports communications on a radio frequency spectrum band of a first RAT” (see paragraph 0099). Similarly, “the WAN 410 may illustrate aspects of a wireless communication system that supports communications on a radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0099)). Consider claim 13, HomChaudhuri et al. disclose a method comprising: tuning a first antenna panel to a first frequency band associated with a first radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may be communicating on the radio frequency spectrum band in a first RAT (e.g., a WAN RAT) using multiple antennas)” (see paragraph 0065)); tuning a second antenna panel to a second frequency band associated with a second radio access technology (“The UE 115 may reconfigure one antenna to a second RAT (e.g., a WLAN RAT) and perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0065)); monitoring a traffic level of communications via the first frequency band associated with the first radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may determine a demand requirement for the first RAT communications, e.g., whether the throughput requirement for each link is exceeded for the first RAT communications, based on the link signal strength/quality, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the first RAT communications, etc.” (see paragraph 0068)); and select an antenna for communications via the second frequency band based at least in part on the traffic level of active antennas (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0024)). HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose managing co-existence between RATs occupying the same or adjacent spectrum to reduce inter-RAT interference (see paragraphs 0004 and 0005). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. such that a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels as taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load among available antenna panels. However, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. fail to disclose selecting the antenna panel based at least in part on an inter-RAT isolation level between the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel. In the same field of endeavor, Evans et al. disclose a wherein antenna are selected based on isolation levels (“By selecting a subset of two transmit antennas and two receive antennas, it is likely that a combination of transmit and receive antennas can be chosen such that good isolation can be obtained at the receivers between the individual transmitter signals” (see Col. 4, lines 14-18)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. and modified by Lee et al. to select the third antenna panel based on an inter-RAT isolation level between the first antenna panel (first RAT) and the second antenna panel (second RAT) as disclosed by Evans et al., for the reasons set forth in the updated motivational statement for claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference (HomChaudhuri et al. [0004]–[0005]; Evans et al. Col. 4, lines 14–18; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; MPEP § 2143(A), (D)). Consider claim 14, and as applied to claim 13 above, HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., further disclose wherein monitoring the traffic level comprises: monitoring the traffic level of communications via the first frequency band based at least in part on the first frequency band overlapping with, being adjacent to, being a harmonic order to, or being an intermodulation order to the second frequency band (“the UE 115 may perform a scan (or perform communications) on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT during the time period. In some examples, a scan of the second RAT during the time period may include an active scan where the UE 115 transmits on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT…The transmission may be scheduled to overlap communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of the first RAT” (see paragraph 0067)). Consider claim 15, and as applied to claim 13 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a method wherein selecting the antenna comprises: selecting an antenna for communications via the second frequency band based at least in part on the traffic level exceeding a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT… In some examples of the method, apparatus, or non-transitory computer-readable medium described above, the demand requirement indicates that the communications are associated with a channel condition parameter above a threshold value.” (see paragraph 0024, 0027)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a method wherein a third antenna panel is selected (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that a third antenna panel is selected as further taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load. Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 13 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a method wherein selecting an antenna comprises: selecting an antenna based at least in part on the traffic level exceeding a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT… In some examples of the method, apparatus, or non-transitory computer-readable medium described above, the demand requirement indicates that the communications are associated with a channel condition parameter above a threshold value.” (see paragraph 0024, 0027)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a method wherein a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that a third antenna panel is selected different from the second antenna panel as further taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load. Consider claim 17, and as applied to claim 13 above, HomChaudhuri et al. disclose a method further comprising: wherein separate antenna are associated with the first radio access technology and an antenna panel associated with the second radio access technology (“The UE 115 may be communicating on the radio frequency spectrum band in a first RAT (e.g., a WAN RAT) using multiple antennas)…[and] may reconfigure one antenna to a second RAT (e.g., a WLAN RAT) and perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0065)). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein the antenna are specifically antenna panels, nor wherein the antenna are paired. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a method where in the antenna are specifically antenna panels, and wherein the antenna are paired (“the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. such that the antenna are both paired and specifically antenna panels as taught by Lee et al. in order to take advantage of the directionality of panel antennae for long-distance transmission. However, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. fail to disclose wherein inter-RAT isolation level measurements are performed for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels. In the same field of endeavor, Evans et al. disclose a method wherein isolation level measurements are performed for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels, (“By selecting a subset of two transmit antennas and two receive antennas, it is likely that a combination of transmit and receive antennas can be chosen such that good isolation can be obtained at the receivers between the individual transmitter signals” (see Col. 4, lines 14-18)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. and modified by Lee et al. to perform isolation level measurements for antenna panels of different pairs of antenna panels as disclosed by Evans et al. in order to consider potential signal interference when selecting antenna pairs for transmission. Consider claim 18, and as applied to claim 13 above, HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose a method wherein selecting the antenna comprises: selecting any antenna from a set of antennae associated with the second radio access technology based at least in part on the traffic level being below a threshold traffic level (“determining, for at least one antenna of the set of antennas, that a demand requirement associated with the communications is below a threshold level and means for reconfiguring, based at least in part on the demand requirement, the at least one antenna of the set of antennas to perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of a second RAT” (see paragraph 0024)) However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein the antennae are panel antennae. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose wherein the antennae are panel antennae (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the method disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., such that the antennae are specifically panel antennae as further taught by Lee et al. in order to take advantage of the directionality of panel antennae for long-distance transmission. Consider claim 19, HomChaudhuri et al. discloses a user equipment for wireless communication comprising: means for tuning a first antenna panel to a first frequency band associated with a first radio access technology (see Figure 10, the processor 1020 is configured such that it may be equated to the communications manager 720, further comprising the tuning component 725, traffic component 730, and selection component 735. “The memory 1010 may store computer-readable, computer-executable software including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions described herein” (see paragraph 0168). The processor 1020 is part of the UE 115-f. In the broader 115 configuration, “The UE 115 may be communicating on the radio frequency spectrum band in a first RAT (e.g., a WAN RAT) using multiple antennas)” (see Figure 1, paragraph 0065)); means for tuning a second antenna panel to a second frequency band associated with a second radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may reconfigure one antenna to a second RAT (e.g., a WLAN RAT) and perform a scan on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0065)); means for monitoring a traffic level of communications via the first frequency band associated with the first radio access technology (see Figure 1, “The UE 115 may determine a demand requirement for the first RAT communications, e.g., whether the throughput requirement for each link is exceeded for the first RAT communications, based on the link signal strength/quality, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the first RAT communications, etc.” (see paragraph 0068)); and means for selecting an antenna for communications via the second frequency band based at least in part on the traffic level of active antennas (see Figure 4, at block 425 “the UE 115-c may reconfigure the first antenna to support communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT. The UE 115-c may reconfigure the first antenna based on the demand requirement being below the threshold level. At 430, the UE 115-c may perform communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT” (see paragraph 0105)). HomChaudhuri et al. further disclose managing co-existence between RATs occupying the same or adjacent radio frequency spectrum to reduce inter-RAT interference (see paragraphs 0004 and 0005: “When using the same radio frequency spectrum band … suitable co-existence schemes may be helpful in reducing interference”). However, HomChaudhuri et al. fail to disclose wherein a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. disclose a means for selecting a third antenna panel separate from the first and second antenna panels (“the electronic device 120 may select panel antennas remaining by excluding panel antennas of which a power consumption value exceeds the threshold power value from the plurality of panel antennas…the electronic device 120 may perform beamforming according to the third panel antenna 310-3, the fourth panel antenna 310-4, and a combination thereof by excluding the first panel antenna 310-1 to the second panel antenna 310-2” (see Figure 4, paragraph 0084)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the means disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. such that a third antenna panel is selected separate from the first and second antenna panels as taught by Lee et al. in order to effectively distribute excess traffic load among available antenna panels. However, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. fail to disclose wherein antenna are selected based on inter-RAT isolation levels. In the same field of endeavor, Evans et al. disclose wherein antenna are selected based on isolation levels (“By selecting a subset of two transmit antennas and two receive antennas, it is likely that a combination of transmit and receive antennas can be chosen such that good isolation can be obtained at the receivers between the individual transmitter signals” (see Col. 4, lines 14-18). See also the channel matrix compiling relative isolation values across antenna pairs at Col. 4, lines 18-40)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the means disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. and modified by Lee et al. such that the third antenna panel is selected based at least in part on an inter-RAT isolation level between the first antenna panel (associated with the first RAT) and the second antenna panel (associated with the second RAT) as disclosed by Evans et al., for the reasons set forth in the updated motivational statement for claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference. Specifically, HomChaudhuri et al. seek to mitigate interference between co-existing RATs on the same or adjacent spectrum (paragraphs 0004 and 0005); Evans et al. teach antenna isolation as the known, measurable metric for selecting the antenna combination that minimizes cross-interference between two concurrently-occupied signals (Col. 4, lines 14–18); and because HomChaudhuri et al.’s first and second panels are associated with the first and second RATs respectively, applying Evans et al.’s isolation-based selection to HomChaudhuri et al.’s two-RAT arrangement predictably yields selection based on an inter-RAT isolation level (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143(A), (C), (D)). Consider claim 20, and as applied to claim 19, HomChaudhuri et al., as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al., further disclose a means for monitoring the traffic level comprise: means for monitoring the traffic level of communications via the first frequency band based at least in part on the first frequency band overlapping with, being adjacent to, being a harmonic order to, or being an intermodulation order to the second frequency band (see Figure 10, the processor 1020 is configured such that it may be equated to the communications manager 820, further comprising the traffic component 830. “The memory 1010 may store computer-readable, computer-executable software including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions described herein” (see paragraph 0168). The processor 1020 is part of the UE 115-f. In the broader 115 configuration, “the UE 115 may perform a scan (or perform communications) on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT during the time period. In some examples, a scan of the second RAT during the time period may include an active scan where the UE 115 transmits on the radio frequency spectrum band of the second RAT…The transmission may be scheduled to overlap communications on the radio frequency spectrum band of the first RAT” (see paragraph 0067)). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HomChaudhuri et al. (US 20170265205 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200328785 A1) further in view of Evans et al. (US 6774864 B2) and further in view of Li (US20230080333 A1). Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al. fail to disclose a UE wherein, to select the third antenna panel, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: select the third antenna panel based at least in part on whether a form factor state of the UE comprises a first form factor state or a second form factor state, the first form factor state comprising an open state and the second form factor state comprising a closed state. In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein an antenna panel’s operability is based at least in part on whether a form factor state of the UE comprises a first form factor state or a second form factor state, the first form factor state comprising an open state and the second form factor state comprising a closed state (“after being activated, the antenna panels included in the first antenna panel set and the second antenna panel set are in a ready state. The antenna panel in the ready state may be used for sending and receiving information. If the antenna panel is not activated, the corresponding antenna panel is in a closed or dormant state, and cannot be used for sending and receiving information” (see paragraph 0038)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al. such that antenna panels are selected on the basis of their open or closed state as taught by Li in order to preclude attempts to transmit from closed and therefore nonfunctional antennae. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HomChaudhuri et al. (US 20170265205 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20200328785 A1) further in view of Evans et al. (US 6774864 B2) and further in view of Ogasahara (US 20080219166 A1). Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al. fail to disclose wherein, to monitor the traffic level, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: monitor a quantity of packets communicated via the first frequency band associated with the first radio access technology within a time window. In the same field of endeavor, Ogasahara discloses a UE wherein traffic level is determined by monitoring a quantity of packets communicated via the first frequency band within a time window (see Figure 2, “traffic rate measuring units 470-1, 470-2 measure a communication band (communication rate) of a fairness controlled traffic packet transmitted from the local node which serves as the source”, as well as “communication bands (communication rates) of traffic packets other than Class A0” (see paragraph 0085), wherein “rate” implies that the measuring is done on the basis of an elapsed time window). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the UE disclosed by HomChaudhuri et al. as modified by Lee et al. and Evans et al. such that the traffic rate is determined by monitoring a quantity of packets communicated via the first frequency band within a time window as taught by Ogasahara in order to define a discrete metric by which antenna load can be measured. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 7 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. Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter were indicated on page 27 of the previous Office Action mailed on June 1, 2026. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed August 31, 2026 with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. I. The “inter-RAT” amendment does not add patentable scope. Applicant amended claims 1, 13, and 19 to recite that the isolation level is an “inter-radio access technology (RAT) isolation level between the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel.” The rejected claims already recited “an isolation level between the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel,” and already defined the first antenna panel as associated with the first RAT and the second antenna panel as associated with the second RAT. The recited isolation was therefore already, in substance, an isolation between a first-RAT panel and a second-RAT panel. The added descriptor “inter-RAT” merely makes explicit a relationship the claim already required and that was already the subject of the rejection of record. Accordingly, the amendment does not distinguish the claims over the combination of HomChaudhuri et al., Lee et al., and Evans et al. previously applied. II. Applicant’s argument constitutes an impermissible individual attack on Evans et al.. Applicant argues, on pages 9 and 10 of the remarks, that “Evans’s isolation is measured between transmit and receive antennas operating within the same MIMO communication system-not between antenna panels associated with different radio access technologies,” and concludes that Evans fails to teach the inter-RAT isolation limitation. The Examiner does not dispute that Evans et al., considered alone, describes isolation between antennas within a single MIMO system. However, the rejection does not rely on Evans et al. to supply the inter-RAT context. The rejection relies on Evans et al. only for the teaching that antenna isolation is a known metric for selecting an antenna combination that minimizes cross-interference between concurrently-occupied signals (Evans et al., Col. 4, lines 14–18). The inter-RAT antenna framework, i.e., a first antenna panel associated with a first RAT and a second antenna panel associated with a second RAT, together with the express problem of inter-RAT interference, is supplied by HomChaudhuri et al. (paragraph 0004, 0005, and 0065), and the selection of a third, separate antenna panel is supplied by Lee et al. (paragraph 0084). It is well settled that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is predicated upon the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where … the rejections are based on combinations of references”); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s argument addresses Evans et al. in isolation and does not rebut the combination of HomChaudhuri et al., Lee et al., and Evans et al. as actually set forth in the rejection. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. III. The combination yields the disputed limitation as a predictable result, with motivation flowing from HomChaudhuri et al. itself. The physical principle on which Evans et al. relies (i.e., that greater antenna isolation results in reduced cross-coupling and interference between two signals concurrently occupying the medium) applies without regard to whether the two interfering signals belong to two MIMO substreams (as in Evans et al.) or to two different RATs (as in HomChaudhuri et al.). HomChaudhuri et al. expressly identifies inter-RAT interference on shared or adjacent spectrum as the problem to be solved (paragraphs 0004 and 0005). A person of ordinary skill in the art addressing that problem would have been motivated to select the antenna panel exhibiting acceptable isolation from the interfering RAT’s panel, that is, an inter-RAT isolation level, using the very isolation-based selection technique Evans et al. teaches. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143(A), (C), (D). The combination therefore reads on the amended limitation. IV. Applicant has not separately rebutted HomChaudhuri et al. or Lee et al.. Applicant asserts, on page 10 of the remarks, only that “Lee, Li, and Ogasahara do not overcome the deficiencies of HomChaudhuri and Evans” without identifying any specific deficiency in the HomChaudhuri et al. (inter-RAT antenna framework and interference motivation) or Lee et al. (third-panel selection) teachings as combined. Attorney’s argument unsupported by a limitation-specific showing cannot rebut a properly established prima facie case of obviousness. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, and of dependent claims 2–5, 8, 10–12, 14–18, and 20, is maintained and made FINAL by the Examiner. Dependent claim 9 remains rejected over HomChaudhuri et al., Lee et al., Evans et al., and Li, and dependent claim 10 remains rejected over HomChaudhuri et al., Lee et al., Evans et al., and Ogasahara, as previously set forth is maintained. 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 Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST. SPE 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. 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. Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez R.P.G./rpg /Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642 September 26, 2026