DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 7-14 and 19-24 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: where it recites “withing” it should instead recite “within”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Throughout the claim(s) wherever it recites the limitation, “MAC/RLC”, the limitation is understood to mean MAC and/or RLC.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 22 recites a comparison between two values (Italicized for emphasis).
“22. The method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 2 Mbps data rate and a terminal having a Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio (G/T) greater than or equal to - 15 dB utilizes the aggregated channel. “
The first value being a terminal’s “Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio (G/T)”. The second value being “-15 dB”. However, the values compared are incompatible as the terminal’s Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio “G/T” is compared to just a Gain, “15 dB”, not another Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio. Therefore claim 22 is regarded as indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1).
In regards to claim 7, EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method
designating a plurality of ( EARNSHAW teaches designating a plurality of channels, carriers, as an aggregated channel through use of carrier aggregation “[0091] The present disclosure provides for logical channel priorities, which are used for uplink logical channel prioritization as described above, to be configured differently for each uplink carrier in a carrier aggregation scenario…[0093] However, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure, different sets of logical channel priorities could be assigned on a per carrier basis. Further, instead of on a per carrier basis, the logical channel priorities could be assigned on a per carrier group basis, where a carrier group is a subset of the total configured carriers. The assigning of the logical channel priorities may be done when multiple uplink carriers are aggregated.”);
generating, from a MAC/RLC layer, a data stream comprising packets for the aggregated channel (EARNSHAW shows generating from a MAC/RLC layer, a data stream, MAC PDU(s), comprising packets for the aggregated data channel, see at least where it recites, “[0098]…the use of a Release 8 logical channel prioritization algorithm when processing the simultaneous uplink grants sequentially may result in the UE filling half of each MAC PDU with data for each of the two logical channels. This is shown with reference to FIG. 9. As seen, the first logical channel traffic 910 fills half of the subframe for uplink carrier 920. The second logical channel traffic 912 fills the other half of the subframe for uplink carrier 920. Further, the first logical channel traffic 910 fills half of the subframe for uplink carrier 930 and similarly, logical channel traffic 912 fills the other half of the subframe for uplink carrier 930. As will be appreciated by those in the art, the splitting of the data between two carriers creates extra overhead in the header information that needs to be provided in each of the segments on each carrier...” );
splitting the data stream into sub-data streams (EARNSHAW [Fig. 9 – Fig. 12]illustrates splitting the data stream into sub-data streams by allocating the data stream, allocation the MAC PDU(s), into either of UL carrier 1 or UL carrier 2, Also see at least [Par. 93 – Par. 105] which further describe the distribution of the MAC PDU(s) between the UL carriers. ); and
transmitting each of the sub-data streams via one of the plurality of channels.
EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) differs from claim 7, in that EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) is silent on the method being for obtaining high throughput on a satellite network. Consequently, with respect to claim 7, EARNSHAW is silent on the method where the channels comprise satellite channels.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving use of carrier aggregation for wireless communication. KIM (US 20150063203 A1) teaches application of a carrier aggregation to a satellite communication for the purposes of obtaining a high throughput, maximum data rate (“[Abstract] A method of designing and communicating a beam in a communication system is provided. More particularly, a method of designing and communicating a beam in a communication system using carrier aggregation in order to increase a maximum data rate in a multiple beam mobile communication system is provided. By applying carrier aggregation, a maximum data rate can be improved.”, also see “[0020] Therefore, a maximum data rate of a multiple beam satellite communication system can be improved through a carrier aggregation-based beam design and communication method in consideration of characteristics of such a multiple beam mobile satellite communication system…[0022] An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a method in which a satellite base station and a terminal communicate using carrier aggregation…”).
Thus based upon the teachings of KIM it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier aggregation system of EARNSHAW, by applying the carrier aggregation to a satellite communication system as suggested by KIM, to thus arrive at claim 1, to obtain a high throughput (i.e. maximum data rate) in a satellite network, as recommended by the teachings of KIM.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM suggests the method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of satellite channels are contiguous carriers ( See where KIM recites “[0041] As will be appreciated by those in the art, dependent on the deployment scenario, carrier aggregation may occur with carriers located in the same frequency band or certain carriers may be located in non-adjacent or non-contiguous frequency bands. For example, one carrier may be located in the 2 GHz frequency band and a second non-adjacent aggregated carrier may be located at the 800 MHz frequency band.”).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM suggests the method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of satellite channels are non-contiguous carriers ( See where KIM recites “[0041] As will be appreciated by those in the art, dependent on the deployment scenario, carrier aggregation may occur with carriers located in the same frequency band or certain carriers may be located in non-adjacent or non-contiguous frequency bands. For example, one carrier may be located in the 2 GHz frequency band and a second non-adjacent aggregated carrier may be located at the 800 MHz frequency band.”).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM suggests the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel is transmitted from a User Equipment (UE) (See where KIM recites, “[0001] The present disclosure relates to uplink transmissions from a User Equipment (UE) to a network element and in particular to uplink communications utilizing multiple carriers.”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of DAIMON (US 20200321929 A1)
In regards to claim 19, the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM is silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel conveys a 4G service and a 2G or "GMR-1 Voice and IP Data ETSI 2.2.z or GMR-1 Voice and IP Data ETSI 3.3)" (2.5G) service.
Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving carrier aggregation. DAIMON (US 20200321929 A1) teaches a carrier aggregation feature that conveys a 4G service and a 2G service (“[0033] The following describes, with reference to FIGS. 1 to 6, a circuit configuration of a radio-frequency module 1 according to Embodiment 1 and a circuit configuration of a communication device 400 including the radio-frequency module 1. The radio-frequency module 1 according to Embodiment 1 includes a radio-frequency front-end circuit 250, which is to be included in, for example, a mobile communication device (e.g., a mobile phone) having multi-band features and supporting simultaneous use of two frequency bands (e.g., carrier aggregation). The radio-frequency module 1 supports, for example, carrier aggregation for the midband specified by the second-generation mobile communication (2G) standard and the low band specified by the fourth-generation mobile communication (4G) standard….”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of DAIMON it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier aggregation feature suggested by the combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM, by conveying a 4G service and 2G service in the aggregated channel as similarly seen in DAIMON, to thus arrive at claim 19, in order to take advantage of benefits yielded by 4G and 2G services.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of LJUNG (US 20190021081 A1).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM is silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel is a narrowband (NB) channel. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving carrier aggregation.
LJUNG (US 20190021081 A1) teaches a carrier aggregation feature where an aggregated channel is a narrowband channel (“[0043] In a first example, communication can be implemented on a plurality of narrowband carriers. The communication on the plurality of narrowband carriers may be implemented in some scenarios by means of narrowband carrier aggregation (CA). CA can correspond to implementing separated or largely separated lower edges of physical layers of respective communication protocol stacks of the first RAT for each one of the plurality of narrowband carriers and bonding the communication protocol stacks at a point above the lower edge physical layer, e.g., at a Medium Access Layer or at an upper sublayer of the physical layer. CA corresponds to communicating to a single terminal via a plurality of carriers. By using a plurality of narrowband carriers, the amount of resources available in the first spectrum is increased; thereby, the data rate for communication according to the first RAT can be increased, as well.”).
Thus, based upon the teachings of DAIMON it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier aggregation feature suggested by the combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM, by providing narrowband channels as an aggregated channel as similarly seen in LJUNG, to thus arrive at claim 23, in order to take advantage of benefits yielded by use of narrowband channels.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of PELLETIER (US 20120140743 A1).
In regards to claim 12, the combined teachings of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) are silent on the method of claim 7, further comprising managing the plurality of satellite channels in the aggregated channel. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving an aggregated channel.
PELLETIER (US 20120140743 A1) teaches a feature where a medium access control layer, LTE aggregated MAC-ehs, manages a plurality of channels in an aggregated channel in order to provide services, such as scheduling/priority handling and multiplexing (“[0274] As an example implementation, a LTE aggregated MAC-ehs in a Node B may not perform the following functionalities: (1) TSN numbering; (2) segmentation; and/or (3) queue distribution. The functionality or operation of the LTE aggregated MAC-ehs may include one or more of the following: (1) a scheduling/priority handling functionality or operation, which may manage HS-DSCH resources between HARQ entities and data flows according to the priority of logical channels; (2) TFRC selection, which may perform selection of an appropriate transport format and resource for the data to be transmitted on HS-DSCH; and/or (3) priority handling and multiplexing of data from different logical channels. When data is multiplexed and the MAC PDU is created for the UTRA HS-DSCH, the eNB may use the UTRA MAC-ehs header format.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of PELLETIER, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the channel aggregation feature involving the satellite channels and aggregated channel of the combination EARNSHAW in view of KIM, by managing via the MAC layer, the plurality of satellite channels in the aggregated channel, as similarly seen in PELLETIER, to thus arrive at claim 12, in order to provide a benefit of services such as multiplexing, scheduling, and priority, to the satellite channels.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of HOLMA (US 20130201892 A1)
In regards to claim 13, the combination of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) is silent on the method of claim 7, further comprising receiving each of the sub-data streams; and combining the sub-data streams into an output data stream. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving communication using sub-data streams/multiple data streams.
HOLMA (US 20130201892 A1) teaches a feature for communication multiple data streams, that involves receiving each of the multiple data streams and combining the multiple data streams into an output data stream (“[0048] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary arrangement of protocol stacks in the access node 12 and the UE 10 of FIG. 3 enabling simultaneous transmission of data over both LTE and HSDPA radios. Layer 3 data 402 for transmission on the DL to the UE 10 passes through the access node's 12 LTE PDCP layer 404, LTE RLC layer 406 and LTE MAC layer 408 in order, where the data is split into two streams 421, 422. The LTE stream 421 passes through the LTE layer 1 410b and is then transmitted on the LTE radio DL 302. The HSPA stream 422 passes through the HSDPA MAC layer 412a and HSDPA layer 1 412b in order after which the user data is transmitted on the HSDPA radio DL 304. For the case in which there are two cooperating access nodes as noted above, the LTE DL 302 is sent from a LTE access node which has the LTE layer 1 410b, and the HSDPA transmission 304 is sent from a cooperating HSPA access node which has the HDPA MAC layer 412a and the HSDPA layer 1 412b. [0049] The UE 10 receives and processes these two streams as follows. The LTE DL transmission 302 is received and passes through a LTE layer 1 410c, a LTE MAC layer 414, a LTE RLC layer 416 and a LTE PDCP layer 418 in order, and the data is subsequently output as layer 3 user data 420. The HSDPA transmission 304 is received and passes through a HSDPA layer 1 412c, and a HSDPA MAC layer 412d in order, followed by the LTE MAC layer 414, the LTE RLC layer 416 and the LTE PDCP layer 418 in order. That HSDPA data is also subsequently output as layer 3 user data 420. The two received data streams are combined in the MAC layer 414 so that the output layer 3 user data 420 is re-combined to match the user data that was input as layer 3 data 402 prior to being split at the MAC layer 408 of the access node 12.”)
Thus based upon the teachings of HOLMA, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple data stream communication feature of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1), by adopting features for receiving each of the sub-data streams and combining the sub-data streams into an output data stream as similarly seen in HOLMA, to thus arrive at claim 13, in order to further facilitate multiple stream communication by adopting use of HOLMA’s feature for receiving multiple data streams.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of HOLMA (US 20130201892 A1) suggest the method of claim 13, wherein the combining restores an order of the transmitting in the output data stream. EARNSHAW in view of KIM is silent on wherein the combining restores an order of the transmitting in the output data stream.
However, these differences have been seen in other prior art involving communication using sub-data streams/multiple data streams.
HOLMA (US 20130201892 A1) teaches a feature for communication multiple data streams, that involves receiving each of the multiple data streams and combining the multiple data streams into an output data stream, where the combining restores an order of the transmitting in the output data stream (“[0048] FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary arrangement of protocol stacks in the access node 12 and the UE 10 of FIG. 3 enabling simultaneous transmission of data over both LTE and HSDPA radios. Layer 3 data 402 for transmission on the DL to the UE 10 passes through the access node's 12 LTE PDCP layer 404, LTE RLC layer 406 and LTE MAC layer 408 in order, where the data is split into two streams 421, 422. The LTE stream 421 passes through the LTE layer 1 410b and is then transmitted on the LTE radio DL 302. The HSPA stream 422 passes through the HSDPA MAC layer 412a and HSDPA layer 1 412b in order after which the user data is transmitted on the HSDPA radio DL 304. For the case in which there are two cooperating access nodes as noted above, the LTE DL 302 is sent from a LTE access node which has the LTE layer 1 410b, and the HSDPA transmission 304 is sent from a cooperating HSPA access node which has the HDPA MAC layer 412a and the HSDPA layer 1 412b. [0049] The UE 10 receives and processes these two streams as follows. The LTE DL transmission 302 is received and passes through a LTE layer 1 410c, a LTE MAC layer 414, a LTE RLC layer 416 and a LTE PDCP layer 418 in order, and the data is subsequently output as layer 3 user data 420. The HSDPA transmission 304 is received and passes through a HSDPA layer 1 412c, and a HSDPA MAC layer 412d in order, followed by the LTE MAC layer 414, the LTE RLC layer 416 and the LTE PDCP layer 418 in order. That HSDPA data is also subsequently output as layer 3 user data 420. The two received data streams are combined in the MAC layer 414 so that the output layer 3 user data 420 is re-combined to match the user data that was input as layer 3 data 402 prior to being split at the MAC layer 408 of the access node 12.”)
Thus based upon the teachings of HOLMA, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multiple data stream communication feature of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1), by adopting features for receiving each of the sub-data streams and combining the sub-data streams into an output data stream, such that the combining restores an order of the transmitting in the output data stream as similarly seen in HOLMA, to thus arrive at claim 14, in order to further facilitate multiple stream communication by adopting use of HOLMA’s feature for receiving multiple data streams.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of KAUKOVUORI (US 20150289215 A1).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) is silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 1.024 Mbps data rate. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving carrier aggregation.
KAUKOVUORI (US 20150289215 A1) teaches where carrier aggregation can be used to be a provide an aggregated channel that has a data rate greater than 1.024 Mbps.
(“[0003] Currently, network signalling (NS) techniques are being investigated to improve carrier aggregation (CA) operations by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in the Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network No. 4 (TSG RAN4) to support the progression of Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-Advanced or LTE-A) and beyond (LTE-B). Carrier aggregation allows an evolved Node B (eNodeB) to group several distinct carrier channels into one logical channel to provide enhanced wider transmission bandwidths over prior releases which were limited to transmission over a single 20 MHz channel. Each aggregated carrier is referred to as a component carrier (CC) which can have a bandwidth of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15 or 20 MHz. CA can support up to five 20 MHz component carriers (CCs) to achieve high-bandwidth transmission, such as peak data rates of 1 Gbps in downlink (DL) reception and 500 Mbps in uplink (UL) transmission.”)
Thus based upon the teachings of KAUKOVUORI it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier aggregation feature suggested by the combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM by providing with respect to the aggregated channel of EARNSHAW in view of KIM, a data rate greater than 1.024 Mbps as similarly seen in the channel aggregation feature of KAUKOUVUORI, to thus arrive at claim 21, in order to take advantage of the benefits yielded by carrier aggregation.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of ALAGHA (US 20200358521 A1).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) is silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the transmitting remains withing a power constraint of a satellite. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in other prior art involving satellite communication.
ALAGHA (US 20200358521 A1) teaches a satellite communication feature where a transmission remains within a power constraint of a satellite for the purpose for facilitating satellite communication (“[0013] In this disclosure, a practical signal constellation design for signal transmission as well as a detection method at the receiver is described to achieve the gain of overlay signal, particularly for satellite channel with average power as well as peak power constraints.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of ALAGHA (US 20200358521 A1) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the satellite communication feature of EARNSHAW in view of KIM, such that transmitting remains within a power constraint of a satellite, as similarly seen in the satellite communication feature of ALAGHA, in order to arrive at claim 24. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to facilitate satellite communication, by keeping a transmission within a power constraint to provide operational satellite communication.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) in view of KAUKOVUORI (US 20150289215 A1) in view of JOHNSTONE (US 5898680 A).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of EARNSHAW (US 20110170495 A1) in view of KIM (US 20150063203 A1) is silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 2 Mbps data rate and a terminal having a Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio (G/T) greater than or equal to - 15 dB utilizes the aggregated channel. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in analogous art.
KAUKOVUORI (US 20150289215 A1), similar to the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM teaches features pertaining to carrier aggregation. KAUKOVUOR more specifically teaches where carrier aggregation can be used to be a provide an aggregated channel that has a data rate greater than 2 Mbps (“[0003] Currently, network signalling (NS) techniques are being investigated to improve carrier aggregation (CA) operations by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in the Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network No. 4 (TSG RAN4) to support the progression of Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-Advanced or LTE-A) and beyond (LTE-B). Carrier aggregation allows an evolved Node B (eNodeB) to group several distinct carrier channels into one logical channel to provide enhanced wider transmission bandwidths over prior releases which were limited to transmission over a single 20 MHz channel. Each aggregated carrier is referred to as a component carrier (CC) which can have a bandwidth of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15 or 20 MHz. CA can support up to five 20 MHz component carriers (CCs) to achieve high-bandwidth transmission, such as peak data rates of 1 Gbps in downlink (DL) reception and 500 Mbps in uplink (UL) transmission.”)
Thus based upon the teachings of KAUKOVUORI it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier aggregation feature suggested by the combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM by providing with respect to the aggregated channel of EARNSHAW in view of KIM, a data rate greater than 2 Mbps as similarly seen in the channel aggregation feature of KAUKOUVUORI, to thus arrive at wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 2 Mbps data rate, in order to take advantage of the benefits yielded by carrier aggregation.
The combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM in view of KAUKOUVUORI further differ from claim 22, in that while the combined teaching suggest the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 2 Mbps data rate, the combined teachings are silent on the method of claim 7, wherein the aggregated channel has a greater than 2 Mbps data rate and a terminal having a Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio (G/T) greater than or equal to - 15 dB utilizes the aggregated channel. Despite these differences similar features have been seen in analogous art.
JOHNSTONE (US 5898680 A) like the combination of EARNSHAW in view of KIM in view of KAUKOUVUORI, teaches a satellite communication feature. JOHNSTONE teaches where a terminal has a gain to noise temperature ratio greater than or equal to -15 db/K for the purpose of facilitating satellite communication (See [Col. 4, Line 4 – Col. 4, Line 18] and [Col. 4, Line 64 – Col. 5, Line 3] “(3) A system for providing location-specific data to a user in accordance with the present invention is preferably implemented in connection with a satellite direct radio broadcast system of the type described in the aforementioned copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/569,346, filed Dec. 8, 1995. The direct radio broadcast system preferably consists of three geostationary satellites (one of which is indicated at 20 in FIG. 1), low cost radio receivers or user terminals 22, and associated ground networks. For position determination purposes, the existing constellation of Global Position System (GPS) satellites 24 is also used in the preferred embodiment of the present invention. The manner in which the GPS satellites 24 and their associated receivers operate is well known and need not be described herein…(13) Each satellite 20 is preferably equipped with three downlink spot beams, having beamwidths of about 6.degree.. Each beam covers approximately 14 million square kilometers within power distribution contours that are 4 dB down from beam center and 28 million square kilometers within contours that are 8 dB down. The beam center margin may be 14 dB based on a receiver gain-to-temperature ratio of -13 dB/K.”).
Thus based upon the teachings of JOHNSTONE it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the satellite communication with carrier aggregation suggested by the combined teachings of EARNSHAW in view of KIM in view of KAUKOUVUORI by providing a terminal having a Gain to Noise Temperature Ratio (G/T) greater than or equal to - 15 dB and utilizes the aggregated channel, as similarly seen in JOHNSTONE, to thus arrive at claim 22, in order to facilitate satellite communication for receiving terminal devices (i.e. UEs).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10, 20, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights