DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comments
Provisional application 62/882,767 filed on August 5, 2019 does not fully support all of the limitations of claims 1-19 (for example, “transceiver utilizing software-defined” in claim 1, “continuously monitor communication” in claim 3, “a processor for performing frequency scanning and responding to a beacon transmission from the gateway device” in claim 12, “a plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices, each spectrum-sharing gateway device configured to self-select an available frequency band” in claim 13).
Accordingly, the instant application does not gain the benefit of an earlier filing date of the mentioned-above provisional application. The effective filing date of the instant application is August 3, 2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Parikh (US 10,498,371), applicant asserts that:
“Inasmuch as the cited Parikh reference and the instant application were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of this application (defined as August 8, 2020), Applicant asserts that Parikh is not available for use as a prior art reference1. Applicant asserts that Das, considered alone, cannot be found to render obvious or anticipate the subject matter of the present invention.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Parikh (US 10,498,371) was published on December 3, 2019 which is earlier than the filing date of the instant application which is August 3, 2020. Therefore, Parikh (US 10,498,371) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), instead of under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as alleged by applicant.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1-6, and 8-19 are proper.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See at least independent claims 1, 12, and 13 which recite “a communication module”, “an antenna module”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 2016/0330743) in view of Parikh (US 10,498,371).
As to claim 1, Das discloses a gateway device 212 (see at least figure 2) for use in a shared spectrum environment 200 (see paragraph [0029]) to provide communication with a plurality of end-user devices 230, 232, 234 in a private wireless communication network 220 via an assigned frequency band (see paragraph [0034]), the gateway device 212 comprising a specialized transceiver (see software-defined transceiver at paragraph [0040]) configured to provide frequency shifting between baseband signals and private wireless signals operating in the assigned frequency band (see paragraph [0033]), the specialized transceiver including a communication module for receiving operating parameters from an a third-party entity 202 authorized to regulate spectrum sharing among a plurality of users, the operating parameters including at least a definition of the assigned frequency band (see paragraphs [0035], [0051]), the communication module further configured to receive baseband signals for transmission to or received from the private wireless communication network (see paragraph [0033]); an internal modem coupled to the communication module for receiving therefrom baseband signals and generating a radio frequency (RF) output signal related thereto (inherently included in “one or more transmitters and receivers” disclosed at paragraph [0033]); and an antenna module coupled to the specialized transceiver (see the antenna connected to AP 212 in figure 2), the antenna module for broadcasting a communication beacon of the operating parameters to the plurality of end-user devices 230, 232, 234 and, in response to an acknowledgement from an end-user device (see paragraph [0047] which discloses “basic signaling” between the UE and gateway device 212), transmitting the operating parameters including the assigned frequency band to the end-user device for establishing a private wireless network communication link with the gateway device 212 (see paragraph [0010] which discloses “In some disclosed embodiments, the access device may transmit a message indicating the at least one allocated frequency channel to the one or more UEs before configuring a radio to operate at the allocated frequency channel(s).”. See also paragraph [0083]).
Das fails to disclose that the specialized transceiver comprises a front-end system coupled to both the internal modem and the communication module, the front-end system receiving as a first input the RF output signal from the internal modem and receiving as a second input the operating parameters from the communication module, the front-end system including a frequency synthesizer for creating a specific local oscillator (LO) frequency required for shifting the RF output signal into the assigned frequency band and utilizing heterodyne mixing to frequency-shift transmission and reception of private wireless communications to the assigned frequency band. Parikh discloses that a specialized transceiver (see at least figures 1, 3) comprises a front-end system 22 (see figure 3) coupled to both an internal modem WM (see figure 1) and a communication module (see legends “wireless output at target frequency”, and “to attenuator 30” in figure 3), the front-end system receiving as a first input the RF output signal from the internal modem (see legends “signals to be transmitted” in figure 3) and receiving as a second input operating parameters from the communication module (see signals received at antenna in figure 5), the front-end system including a frequency synthesizer 33 (see figure 3) for creating a specific local oscillator (LO) frequency required for shifting the RF output signal into the assigned frequency band and utilizing heterodyne mixing 32 to frequency-shift transmission and reception of wireless communications to the assigned frequency band. See column 4 lines 42-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Parikh to Das, in order to allow the gateway to easily tune to an assigned frequency band.
As to claim 2, Das discloses that the received operating parameters also include one or more elements selected from a group consisting of: a maximum transmission power level permitted by the authorized entity, a defined bandwidth for the assigned frequency band (see at least paragraphs [0006], [0035], [0051]), and a defined duty cycle for transmissions between the gateway device and the plurality of end-user devices.
As to claim 3, Das does disclose that the communication module is configured to monitor communications from the authorized entity SAS 202 (see Das, figure 2) for reception of updated operating parameters (see Das, paragraphs [0070], [0083], [0089]). However, Das fails to disclose continuously monitor communications from the authorized entity SAS 202. The examiner takes Official Notice that continuously monitor communications from an authorized entity is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Das as claimed, in order to ensure that the operating parameters are updated ASAP.
As to claim 4, Das discloses that an updated operating parameter includes a change in the assigned frequency band (see Das, paragraphs [0070], [0089]), the gateway device thereafter transmitting the change in assigned frequency band to the plurality of associated end-user devices (see Das, paragraphs [0010], [0048], [0061], [0070], [0089]).
As to claim 5, Das fails to disclose the gateway device thereafter transmitting the change in allowable transmission power level to the plurality of end-user devices. The examiner takes Official Notice that transmitting a change in allowable transmission power level to a plurality of end-user devices is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Das as claimed, in order to ensure that the plurality of end-user devices operate at a desired allowable transmission power.
As to claim 6, Das discloses that an updated operating parameter includes a command to discontinue transmission on the shared spectrum (see paragraphs [0003], [0079], [0081], wherein according to paragraph [0003], the CBRS band reads on “the shared spectrum” as claimed).
As to claim 8, Das discloses that the assigned operating parameters are further based upon environment information, including interference from neighboring communication devices, used by the authorized entity in the process of selecting an assigned frequency band (see paragraphs [0005], [0031]).
As to claim 9, it is apparent that the link between the authorized entity SAS 202 in figure 2 and gateway 212 taught by Das is not easily accessed by unauthorized gateways. Accordingly, the link between the authorized entity SAS 202 in figure 2 and gateway 212 taught by Das reads on “a secure communication link” as claimed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
As to claim 11, Das fails to disclose that the gateway device 212 further comprises a GPS component, utilized to transmit location data to the authorized entity 202. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that such a GPS component is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Das as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as optimizing channel allocations based on gateway device locations.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 2016/0330743) in view of Parikh (US 10,498,371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bloom (US 2006/0141940).
As to claim 10, Das fails to disclose that the gateway device 212 further comprises an RF switch to select between operating with the internal modem and RF signals arriving from an external modem. Bloom discloses a gateway device 10 comprises an RF switch CPLD (see figure 6) to select between operating with an internal modem and RF signals arriving from an external modem DB9 (see paragraph [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Bloom to Das, in order to expand communication coverages.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 2016/0330743) in view of Parikh (US 10,498,371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheriff (US 2021/0084658).
As to claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Das fails to disclose a plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices, each spectrum-sharing gateway device configured to self-select an available frequency band from within a defined spectrum designated for sharing among different users. Sheriff discloses a plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see figure 2), each spectrum-sharing gateway device configured to self-select an available frequency band from within a defined spectrum designated for sharing among different users (paragraphs [0046], [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Sheriff to Das, in order to expand communication coverages.
As to claim 14, the combination of Das and Sheriff discloses based upon environment information received by the plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices, the environment information including interference from neighboring communication devices. See Das, paragraph [0031]; Sheriff, paragraph [0042].
As to claim 15, the combination of Das and Sheriff discloses that communication between the plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2) is provided, at least in part, through the internet (see Sheriff, paragraph [0071]).
As to claim 16, the combination of Das and Sheriff discloses that communication between the plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2) is provided, at least in part, through direct communication links established between the communication modules of the individual spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2 which shows direct communication links 234).
As to claim 17, the combination of Das and Sheriff fails to disclose the plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2) are configured as a mesh network. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that such a mesh network is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination of Das and Sheriff as claimed, in order to provide extended coverages and seamless connectivity.
As to claim 18, the combination of Das and Sheriff discloses that each spectrum-sharing gateway device 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2) is configured to perform spectrum scanning for use in self-selecting a frequency channel (see Sheriff, paragraphs [0033], [0047]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Das and Sheriff discloses that the plurality of spectrum-sharing gateway devices 104A-104D (see Sheriff, figure 2) are configured to operate over the WiFi frequency band (see Sheriff, paragraph [0071]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646