Detailed Action
This Office Action is in response to a communication received on 01/16/2026.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koskela et al. (US 2011/0287794), the prior art discloses that the devices may maintain a connection to the primary system via the licensed bands (e.g., for control information), but local user plane data may be routed via the unlicensed bands.; see ¶ 54.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4-5, and 9 of patent US 12,149,951. However, Applicant has filed, on 01/23/2026, a terminal disclaimer showing that the patent is commonly owned with the examined application. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting has been withdraw.
New Ground of Rejection
Regarding claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 01/16/2026, indicate that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1. In specific, Applicant indicates that the features reciting “ transmitting, from the network entity, an indication to the UE to communicate on the unlicensed band according to the first communication protocol and the one or more parameter values as an alternative to the UE communicating with the network entity on the licensed band so that data is communicated on the unlicensed band and control information is communicated on the licensed band” are not disclosed by the prior art. Examiner notes that the amendments fails to carried patentable weight. This interpretation is based in the amendments describing the action from the perspective of the UE, while the claim is directed to the networking entity. For proposed of compact prosecution the prior art made of record (i.e. Koskela) discloses that the devices may maintain a connection to the primary system via the licensed bands (e.g., for control information), but local user plane data may be routed via the unlicensed bands; see ¶ 54.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Etemad al. (US Publication No. 2017/0006607, hereinafter referred as Etemad).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Etemad discloses transmitting, from a network entity, control information to a user equipment (UE) via a licensed band according to a first communication protocol (The deployment scenario comprises an eNodeB is integrated with a low power extension carrier (LPEC) radio node, such as in a dual-mode base station (e.g. eNodeB) configuration; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0020. The base station establishes [control information] the PCell network and maintains an “always on” connection with UE the PCell, and wherein the LPEC radio node establishes the SCell network; see figure 1 numeral 110/118/120 & ¶ 0020. The PCell network is configured to communicate in a licensed band [first communication protocol] and the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band [second communication protocol]; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0025. It’s inherent that control information was exchanged between the base station and the UE in order to establish the PCell network and the SCell network. Examiner suggest to describe the type of control information or the type of message carrying the control information in order to distinguish from the prior art of record.);
identifying, at the network entity, an unlicensed band for one or more devices operating according to a second communication protocol, wherein the second communication protocol is different from the first communication protocol (The particular configuration [identification] deployed with the LPEC radio may be determined in connection with various RRM measurements on the SCells of the unlicensed band reported to the PCell of the licensed band; see figure 3 numeral 340. The licensed band protocol [first communication protocol] comprises a WWAN protocol such as 3GPP LTE and the unlicensed band protocol [second communication protocol] comprises a WLAN such as IEEE 802.11; see ¶ 0004.) ;
identifying, by the network entity, one or more parameter values associated with one or more characteristics of the one or more devices (Traffic flows from a PCell is offloaded via a SCell network depending [identifying] on the type of traffic [parameter value], network conditions, the particular UE involved [parameter value], and other factors; see figure 3 & ¶ 0036.); and
transmitting, from the network entity, an indication to the UE to communicate on the unlicensed band according to the first communication protocol and the one or more parameter values (The UE may be offloaded to a SCell by providing [indicating] it with an extension carrier, wherein whether a specific traffic flow is offloaded for upload or download via a SCell network may depend on the type of traffic [parameter value], network conditions, the particular UE involved [parameter value], and other factors; see figure 3 & ¶ 0036. The PCell may be used to configure multiple LPECs and activate SCells selectively per UE, wherein the SCell connections is established through radio communications in the unlicensed spectrum, even though the same or substantially the same communication protocol (e.g., LTE/LTE-A) [first communication protocol]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0023/0025.) as an alternative to the UE communicating with the network entity on the licensed band so that data is communicated on the unlicensed band and control information is communicated on the licensed band (No patentable weight was given to the limitation.).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Etemad discloses that the first communication protocol comprises a cellular communication protocol (The PCell network is configured to communicate in a licensed band and the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0025. Furthermore, the licensed protocol comprises a WWAN protocol such as 3GPP LTE [cellular protocol] and the unlicensed protocol comprises a WLAN such as IEEE 802.11; see ¶ 0004.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Etemad discloses that the cellular communication protocol comprises a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) protocol or a New Radio (NR) protocol (The PCell network is configured to communicate in a licensed band and the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0025. Furthermore, the licensed protocol comprises a WWAN protocol such as 3GPP LTE [cellular protocol] and the unlicensed protocol comprises a WLAN such as IEEE 802.11; see ¶ 0004.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Etemad discloses that the second communication protocol comprises a wireless local area network protocol (The PCell network is configured to communicate in a licensed band and the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0025. Furthermore, the licensed protocol comprises a WWAN protocol such as 3GPP LTE and the unlicensed protocol comprises a WLAN such as IEEE 802.11; see ¶ 0004.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Etemad discloses that the wireless local area network protocol comprises an IEEE 802.11 protocol (The PCell network is configured to communicate in a licensed band and the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 1 numeral 110 & ¶ 0025. Furthermore, the licensed protocol comprises a WWAN protocol such as 3GPP LTE and the unlicensed protocol comprises a WLAN such as IEEE 802.11; see ¶ 0004.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Etemad discloses that the one or more parameter values comprise at least one of: a transmit power value, a carrier aggregation value, or a channel access parameter value (The UE may be offloaded to a SCell by providing it with an extension carrier [carrier aggregation value], wherein whether a specific traffic flow is offloaded for upload or download via a SCell network may depend on the type of traffic, network conditions [channel access value], the particular UE involved, and other factors; see figure 3 & ¶ 0036.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Etemad discloses that identifying the unlicensed band comprises monitoring the unlicensed band for activity of the one or more devices (The PCell provides cross cell resource allocation to one or more SCell based by various RRM and QoE measurement [activity] on the SCell (e.g. LPEC radio), wherein the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 3 numeral 360-370 & ¶ 0025/0034. For example, if the RRM and QoE measurements are no longer favorable for the SCell, then the carrier aggregation to the SCell can be determined to be stopped; see ¶ 0034.).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Etemad discloses that monitoring the unlicensed band is performed periodically, aperiodically, or continuously (The PCell provides cross cell resource allocation to one or more SCell based by various RRM and QoE measurement on the SCell (e.g. LPEC radio), wherein the SCell network is configured to communicate in an unlicensed band; see figure 3 numeral 360-370 & ¶ 0025/0034. For example, if the RRM and QoE measurements are no longer favorable for the SCell, then the carrier aggregation to the SCell can be determined to be stopped; see ¶ 0034. Likewise, if the RRM and QoE measurements remain more favorable in the SCell network than the PCell network, then data transfers will continue to be performed in the SCell network with use of the extension carrier; see ¶ 0034. NOTE: It’s interpreted that the multiple iterations performed on step 370 of figure 3 are equivalent to monitoring the SCell continuously.).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Etemad discloses that communicating, by the network entity, with the UE on the unlicensed band according to the first communication protocol and the one or more parameter values (The UE may be offloaded to a SCell by providing [indicating] it with an extension carrier, wherein whether a specific traffic flow is offloaded for upload or download via a SCell network may depend on the type of traffic [parameter value], network conditions, the particular UE involved [parameter value], and other factors; see figure 3 & ¶ 0036.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etemad al. (US Publication No. 2017/0006607, hereinafter referred as Etemad) in view of Li et al. (Publication No. US 2013/0301438, hereinafter referred as Li).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Etemad fails to disclose measuring one or more channel conditions of a plurality of unlicensed bands; and selecting the unlicensed band for communication based on the one or more measured channel conditions. However, in analogous art, Li discloses receiving the measurements of the first and second subsets of available WiFi channels from the first and second UE; and evaluating the measurements of the first and second subsets of available WiFi channels to select a preferred WiFi channel; see ¶ 0044. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Etemad carrier aggregation mechanism with measurement mechanism of Li in order to choose the Wifi Channel that result in the best communication performance based on a distributed channel scan.
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 HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472