DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objection of claim 20 filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has repeated arguments of 2/12/2025 on page 6 of the response and further asserts “The recitation of "the at least portion of shared spectrum" encompasses either the entire share section or one or more portions thereof”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s assertion is not commensurate with claim language (“The recitation of "the at least portion of shared spectrum" encompasses either the entire share section or one or more portions thereof” [emphasis added]) since a single portion is being claimed, and the single portion may encompass the entire spectrum or encompass a fraction thereof (“at least a portion of shared spectrum”). Thus, as applicant’s intent is clearly not commensurate with the claim language, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
The examiner respectfully recommends amendments, commensurate with the disclosure, to capture the limitation as intended (e.g. similar to -shared spectrum or one or more portions of the shared spectrum-).
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 21 filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Initially, applicant has amended claim language () and thus, the corresponding ambiguity has been overcome and thus, arguments on pages 6-8 are moot. Further, while applicant has not addressed the ambiguity detailed on page 14 of the OA, after reconsideration, the corresponding rejections have been withdrawn and issues are addressed in the objection below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 22, applicant’s amendments have overcome the corresponding rejection and thus the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 23, applicant’s amendments have introduced new ambiguity and thus, the corresponding rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant argues “Throughout Applicant's specification as filed, an SRC is expressly defined as a curve that constrains spectrum usage over time - i.e., a path or operating envelope by which the radio node gradually adapts use of granted spectrum between a current grant and a final grant”, “shape of the curve (linear or non-linear)”, “spectrum usage as a function of time”, “different curve shapes (linear; slowly-then-accelerate; rapidly-then-decelerate)” and points to para. [21-22, 53-54, 56-60], and contrasts with Beck (US 2022/0322367 A1) arguing “Beck is merely a deadline to cease transmission - a step-function endpoint - not a curve or any disclosure of intermediate waypoints, parameters, or a function that would let a CBSD compute or follow a rate over that interval”, “Office's own mapping cites only Beck's message to cease with an expiry time, which - even if taken as a "final time" - does not disclose how usage must be reduced prior to that time or at what rate users are migrated across the interval”, “Nothing in the cited portions of Beck teaches an SRC message that "defines a user migration rate," as required”, “"user migration rate" as cited in Claim 1 as presented herein is not a naked deadline; it is the time profile (slope/shape) of the SRC that governs how quickly users are moved during the revocation window” on pages 10-11. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) Initially, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a path or operating envelope by which the radio node gradually adapts use of granted spectrum between a current grant and a final grant”, “shape of the curve (linear or non-linear)”, “spectrum usage as a function of time”, “different curve shapes (linear; slowly-then-accelerate; rapidly-then-decelerate)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As pointed out in the OA of 6/4/2025 on page 10, applicant’s own specification describes
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
still further,
PNG
media_image2.png
218
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
thus, claim language is not limited as applicant argues. In addition, applicant’s own arguments (Beck’s “a deadline to cease transmission”, “cease with an expiry time”) supports the examiner’s stance that Beck clearly discloses the claimed “spectrum revocation curve” described as “define[s] a path … which CBSD may be adapted” [emphasis added] “spectrum usage as a function of time” in the specification and applicant’s arguments where “path” is reasonably understood as “a set of actions, especially ones that lead to a goal or result”, “a particular course of action or way of achieving something” (see definition of “path” in Cambridge, Collins English Dictionary) and a “cease with an expiry time” is still “usage as a function of time”; still further, “deadline” (e.g. “a time or day by which something must be done”) of Beck corresponds to “spectrum revocation curve” described as being a “function of time” in applicant’s specification (e.g. para. [07, 20, 51, 54-55] and Fig. 2). The examiner further notes while Figs. 3A-3C of the specification show three graphs, notably, no formulas / algorithms are provided or described which could result in the graphs shown in Figs. 3A-3C; further, the graphs show “current grant/use” as t0 and “final grant/use” as tf, thus tf is clearly a “deadline” commensurate with applicant’s arguments against Beck (“a deadline to cease transmission”, “cease with an expiry time”), and t0 and tf are the only points shown (i.e. there are no tx “intermediate waypoints” as argued).
B) Applicant argues “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify Beck's "deadline-only" cessation scheme to implement Applicant's curve-driven, rate-controlled migration - and certainly not with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so would change Beck's basic operating principle (immediate compliance at a fixed time) to a managed, time-varying ramp-down tailored to service needs”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B) The combination of Beck and Markwart has been used, and the motivation has been provided with “Beck’s continuity of service (para. [08, 19]) along with Markwart’s spectrum sharing (para. 06) improves user experience by reducing disruption of service in a shared spectrum”. Insofar as applicant is arguing Beck “teaches away from the claims”, Beck discloses techniques for “enhancing continuity in service of a radio authorized to transmit in shared spectrum by setting a transmit expiry time based upon whether the radio must cease transmission” (abstract), “establishing a transmit expiry time for a radio authorized to transmit in a shared spectrum” (para. 09).
Applicant’s arguments are not reasonable as applicant is arguing Beck must migrate ALL devices SIMULTANEOUSLY at the timepoint indicated by the expiry time (deadline). Clearly, Beck does not require “immediate compliance at a fixed time” and the “expiry time” (deadline) is reasonably understood as “a time or day by which something must be done” (see definition of “deadline” in Cambridge, Merriam-Webster) which is clearly commensurate with Figs. 3A-3B, the specification, and claim language. As further support, Beck in cited para. 55 includes “the CBSD must cease transmitting in authorized frequency spectrum in the shared spectrum within a certain time value, e.g., within sixty seconds after the transmit expiry time”, clearly not the “basic operating principle (immediate compliance at a fixed time)” applicant is arguing. Thus, the proposed modification does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change the principle of operation of a reference.
In light of the above, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-18, and 21 Applicant’s arguments rely on the above arguments A and B and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 19 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
D) Applicant argues “the Office asserts that Mueller teaches or suggests the Claim 19 feature of "wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected based on a type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs … Applicant respectfully disagrees.”, “Applicant's specification as filed makes clear that the SRC is a time function (curve) defining a revocation path from current to final spectrum use. Different shapes (e.g., linear, slow-start/non-linear, or fast-start/non-linear) are chosen depending on the traffic profile of the CBSD. For example, if the CBSD is not busy or has not been serving a high number of user terminals, then a linear curve (FIG. 3A) may be selected; if a CBSD serves many users with delay-sensitive services, a slow-start curve (FIG. 3B) may be selected; and if rapid vacation is needed, a fast-start curve (FIG. 3C) is used”, “Beck discloses a grant-revocation message with an expiry time, but does not disclose any SRC (let alone a selectable shape) that defines a migration rate” on page 12. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding D) Arguments regarding SRC are analogous and addressed above. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “linear, slow-start/non-linear, or fast-start/non-linear”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While applicant has pointed to Figs. 3A-3C, claim language is “one or more CBSDs”, “one or more respective spectrum revocation messages”, “at least one SRC”, “at least one respective shape” and thus, applicant’s argument that the selection is among “linear curve (FIG. 3A)”, “slow-start curve (FIG. 3B)”, and “fast-start curve (FIG. 3C)” is not commensurate with claim language.
E) Applicant argues “Nowhere in the cited paragraphs of Mueller does the disclosure state that the SAS itself generates and transmits a spectrum revocation curve (SRC) with a selected linear/non-linear shape embedded in a message to a CBSD, as would be required at a minimum by Claim 19” on pages 12-13. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding E) Mueller is cited to teach “the at least one SRC message comprising at least one SRC respectively, wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected based on a type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs” on page 29 of the OA; further claim 19 indicates “based on a grant revocation condition …, transmit…”, “based on an indication …, transmit…”, “wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected” which is not commensurate with applicant’s arguments (“SAS itself generates…”). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “SAS itself generates”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, applicant’s specification on para. 52 discloses “SAS may offload some or all of the spectrum revocation curve calculations” [emphasis added] and thus, the examiner’s claim interpretation is reasonable in light of the specification.
F) Applicant argues “The Office characterizes Mueller's teaching as "adaptive spectrum operations based on service/application programs," but this is policy-based prioritization, not the definition of a time-function curve (SRC) constraining user migration rate”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding F) Regarding SRC, the limitation has been addressed above. Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the definition of a time-function curve (SRC) constraining user migration rate”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s argued feature(s) (“the definition of a time-function curve (SRC) constraining user migration rate”) are not commensurate with claim language, where the claim limitation is “wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected based on a type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs” which is taught by Mueller at least in cited para. [37-38, 80-85] and Figs. [2, 13] as shown in the OA on page 29.
G) Applicant argues “Beck's disclosure is fundamentally about binary, deadline-only revocation: CBSDs must cease use by a fixed expiry time. It provides no intermediate migration path or rate control. Introducing Applicant's spectrum revocation curve (SRC) shapes - which require managed, gradual user migration over time - would change Beck's principle of operation from an immediate cutoff at a deadline to a curve-driven, rate-controlled transition. Under the teaching away doctrine, such a modification is not a predictable substitution but a departure from Beck's core design”, “there must be an articulated rationale with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, there is none: Beck's binary model discourages the very kind of time-envelope SRC shaping that Applicant claims, and Mueller's policy discussion does not supply the missing structure”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding G) Applicant’s arguments support the examiner’s stance with “CBSDs must cease use by a fixed expiry time” (i.e. a “deadline”). Further, as noted above, there are no “intermediate migration path” show/described/claimed, indeed, Figs. 3A-3C show “current grant/use” as t0 and “final grant/use” as tf, and thus tf is clearly a “deadline”, and t0 and tf are the only points shown (i.e. there are no tx intermediate waypoints / migration path as argued). Still further, applicant’s argument regarding “rate control” appears to attribute a desired interpretation to claim language, and in a review of the specification, the closest appears to be a non-specific “controlled manner” in para. 20 and a non-specific “controllable [sic] reduce spectrum usage in a gradual manner depending on CBSD/network need”, not commensurate with claim language, nonetheless, Beck’s “dynamic protection” and Mueller’s “Adaptive spectrum” implies “controlled manner”. While applicant argues Beck teaches away from “curve-driven, rate-controlled transition”, applicant’s assertion of “immediate cutoff at a deadline” of Beck is still commensurate with applicant’s claim 19 in light of the specification, especially in light of Figs. 3A-3C and para. 62 describing “only sending data within the remaining or still granted identified granted spectrum portions up until a time tf. At the,[sic] and will move all users to PAL spectrum at the end of ‘revocation time depending on the curve’” [emphasis added] where tf is clearly a “deadline”, in a “controlled manner” and “over time” (SRC).
In light of the above, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Regarding claim 23 Arguments rely on the arguments of claim 19 and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11-12, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: . Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1: line 11 includes “an SRC”, line 13 includes “at least one respective SRC” which should be amended for consistency to obviate potential ambiguity, particularly as dependent claims 4, 11-12 and 21 include “the SRC”, and claim 8 includes “a respective SRC”. For example, the “SRC” in line 13 is “determined” and thus, subsequent recitation could be similar to -the determined SRC- which could then be further specified with, for example, -each determined SRC-, -the determined SRC corresponding to…- etc.
Regarding claim 4: line 1 includes “the SRC” which should be made consistent with parent claim 1 to obviate potential ambiguity.
Regarding claim 8: line 4 includes “a respective SRC” which should be made consistent with parent claim 1 to obviate potential ambiguity.
Regarding claim 11: line 2 includes “the SRC” which should be made consistent with parent claim 1 to obviate potential ambiguity.
Regarding claim 12: line 2 includes “the SRC” which should be made consistent with parent claim 1 to obviate potential ambiguity.
Regarding claim 20: line 19 includes “the at least portion of shared spectrum” while lines 4-5 include “at least a portion of shared spectrum”. Based on applicant’s arguments of 9/4/2025, claim language should be amended to be commensurate with applicant’s intent to obviate potential ambiguity, such as for example -shared spectrum or one or more portions of the shared spectrum- and -the shared spectrum or one or more portions of the shared spectrum- or -at least a portion of shared spectrum- and -the at least a portion of shared spectrum-.
Regarding claim 21: line 3 includes “the SRC” which should be unified with parent claim 1 to obviate potential ambiguity.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s invention is drawn to dynamically constraining wireless device or network node spectrum use.
Applicant’s independent claim 20 recites, inter alia, transmit one or more respective spectrum revocation messages toward the one or more radio nodes (para. 48 and Fig. 2 step 220), based on the transmission of the one or more respective spectrum revocation messages, receive at least one respective revoke with limit (RWL) message from at least one of the one or more radio nodes (para. 49 and Fig. 2 step 230), based on the at least one RWL message, transmit data representative of a request for operating information of the at least one of the one or more radio nodes (para. 50 and Fig. 2 step 240), based on receipt of the operating information, generate at least one respective spectrum revocation curve (SRC) for the at least one of the one or more radio nodes (para. 51 and Fig. 2 step 250), transmit, to the at least one of the one or more radio nodes, at least one respective spectrum revocation curve (SRC) message, each SRC message being configured to cause a respective radio node to migrate respective users from the at least portion of shared spectrum to a different portion of the shared spectrum in accordance with the at least one SRC, the at least one SRC indicating a rate of revocation of the at least portion of shared spectrum as a function of time (para. 51 and Fig. 2 step 250). Applicant’s independent claim 20 comprises a particular combination of elements, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, applicant’s claim 20 includes allowable subject matter for these reasons and for the reasons recited by applicant on pages 6-8 filed 8/8/2024. The examiner respectfully recommends amendments to correct informalities indicated above.
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 23 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.
Regarding claim 23: amendments in lines 2-4 include “based on a relative importance of [[that]] the type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs with respect to [[that]] a type of data traffic of other CBSDs” which is unclear as how “importance of the type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs” can be compared to a non-specific “a type of traffic of other CBSDs”. As an example, how “high importance email traffic” can be compared to “real-time streaming video” / “FTP” / “web browsing” / etc., is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption relative importance of a particular type of traffic (e.g. high importance email and low importance email), priority of data traffic (e.g. best effort FTP vs real-time video streaming), etc., is intended.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 14-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 2022/0322367 A1) hereinafter Beck, in view of Markwart et al. (US 2019/0132776 A1) in view of Markwart.
Regarding claim 1, Beck teaches a method for dynamically adapting radio node usage of encumbered spectrum (adapting citizens broadband radio service device(s) (CBSD(s)) (radio node) of spectrum having incumbent user including licensed spectrum; para. [19, 22-23, 31, 34]), comprising: in response to a grant revocation condition associated with using encumbered spectrum granted to one or more radio nodes, transmitting spectrum revocation messages toward the one or more radio nodes (determining that condition for CBSD(s) to cease transmission exists prior to transmission of message to cease transmission; para. [55, 58] and Figs. 2-6, then transmit message for CBSD(s) to cease transmission (spectrum revocation message); para. 54-55 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59-60 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66-67 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 70-74 and Fig. 6 step 660G); and in response to an indication of at least one of the one or more radio nodes being capable of dynamic grant revocation (heartbeat (indication) is received from CBSD(s) prior to transmission of revocation message; para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330E, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440D, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550F, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660F), transmitting toward the indicated at least one of the one or more radio nodes at least one respective spectrum revocation curve (SRC) message (transmission of message to cease transmission including expiry time (spectrum revocation curve) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G), the transmitting toward the at least one of the one or more radio nodes the at least one respective SRC message comprises transmitting the at least one respective SRC toward at least one respective citizens broadband radio service (CBRS) device (CBSD) (transmission of message to cease transmission including expiry time (spectrum revocation curve) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G), wherein each SRC message transmitted toward a respective CBSD of the at least one CBSD is configured to define a user migration rate for the respective CBSD (transmission of message to cease transmission including expiry time (spectrum revocation curve / rate) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G).
Beck does not explicitly disclose each SRC message being configured to cause a respective radio node to constrain use of the encumbered spectrum by migrating respective users from a revoked portion of the encumbered spectrum to an unrevoked portion of the encumbered spectrum in accordance with an SRC determined for the respective radio node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Markwart teaches each SRC message being configured to cause a respective radio node to constrain use of the encumbered spectrum by migrating respective users from a revoked portion of the encumbered spectrum to an unrevoked portion of the encumbered spectrum in accordance with an SRC determined for the respective radio node (SAS transmits CBSD message including channel grant suspension / termination (revoked) and grant of alternative channel (unrevoked) and including maximum time use of the channel before stopping (SRC); para. 124-128 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Markwart to the system of Beck, where Beck’s continuity of service (para. [08, 19]) along with Markwart’s spectrum sharing (para. 06) improves user experience by reducing disruption of service in a shared spectrum.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein dynamic grant revocation capability of a radio node is indicated by a revoke with limit (RWL) message received from the radio node (heartbeat (RWL message) received from CBSD; para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330E and para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440D and para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550F and para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660F).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein the grant revocation condition associated with using encumbered spectrum comprises a determination of interference within a portion of the encumbered spectrum exceeds a threshold level of interference (spectrum coordination for CBSDs (grant condition associated with spectrum) based on protection; para. 43-49 and descriptions of Figs. 4-6, protection based on interference threshold of spectrum; para. 26-27 and para. 35 and para. 44 and para. 65).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein the encumbered spectrum comprises citizens broadband radio service (CBRS) spectrum (CBRS system sharing spectrum (encumbered) in CBRS spectrum; para. 29), and the at least one of the one or more radio nodes comprise Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) (CBSD(s) (radio node) of spectrum having incumbent user including licensed spectrum; para. 19 and para. 22-23 and para. 31 and para. 34).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein each SRC message is configured to cause a receiving radio node to reduce usage of granted spectrum from a current usage level to a final usage level within a defined time period (transmission of message to cease transmission (reduce current usage of spectrum to final usage) including expiry time (time period) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F and para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E and para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G and para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein each SRC message is configured to cause a receiving radio node to reduce usage of a respective portion of granted spectrum from a current usage level to a final usage level within a defined time period (transmission of message to cease transmission (reduce current usage of respective portion of spectrum to final usage) including expiry time (time period) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F and para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E and para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G and para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein usage of a respective portion of granted spectrum is reduced in accordance with a respective curve shape (granted spectrum is reduced based on seconds and based on hours; para. 20 and para. 53 and para. 71-72).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more radio nodes comprises one of a base station, eNB, and gNB in a mobile network (base station CBSD; para. 27, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more radio nodes comprises a wireless access point (wireless access CBSD; para. 27).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Beck further teaches wherein the migrating comprises migrating all of the respective users of the respective radio node (mass handover of all active users to another channel; para. [111, 125, 135-136]) to a Priority Access Licenses (PAL) spectrum (CBRS use of Priority Access licensees (PAL) spectrum; para. 110-111) at an end of a time period specified by the SRC (SAS transmits CBSD message including maximum time use of the channel before stopping; para. 124-128 and Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Markwart, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2021/0385664 A1) hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Beck and Markwart does not explicitly disclose wherein the SRC for the respective radio node is determined in accordance with operating statistics of the respective radio node.
Nguyen teaches wherein the SRC for the respective radio node is determined in accordance with operating statistics of the respective radio node (each SAS calculates its own list of emitters to suspend; para. 36, move users to different channel; para. 48, methods leverages based on statistical interference; para. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Nguyen to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Nguyen’s simplified incumbent protection method (para. [36, 49]) improves flexibility by enabling independent management of emitters.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen teaches the limitation of previous claim 4.
Nguyen further teaches wherein the operating statistics of the respective radio node comprise location and current utilization level of the respective radio node (when detecting (current) incumbent signal within protection area (location), determine which transmitters to move; para. 115, each SAS calculates its own list of emitters to suspend; para. 36, move users to different channel; para. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Nguyen to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Nguyen’s simplified incumbent protection method (para. [36, 49]) improves flexibility by enabling independent management of emitters.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Markwart, further in view of Nguyen, and further in view of Sachs et al. (US 2020/0259896 A1) hereinafter Sachs.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
The combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen does not explicitly disclose wherein the operating statistics of the respective radio node further comprise a restart time of the respective radio node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sachs teaches wherein the operating statistics of the respective radio node further comprise a restart time of the respective radio node (spectrum allocation using SAS and CBSDs; para. 588-591, time domains based on local clock started at boot up; para. 767).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Sachs to the modified system of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen, where Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen’s modified system along with Sachs’s improved coexistence between networks (para. 270) improves services on industrial sites.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Markwart, further in view of Nguyen, and further in view of Kakinada et al. (US 2020/0059795 A1) hereinafter Kakinada.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen teaches the limitation of previous claim 4.
The combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen does not explicitly disclose wherein the operating statistics of the respective radio node further comprise a number of users connected to the respective radio node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kakinada teaches wherein the operating statistics of the respective radio node further comprise a number of users connected to the respective radio node (allocation takes into account number of users served by individual cell (respective radio node); para. 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kakinada to the modified system of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen, where Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen’s modified system along with Kakinada’s fair and equitable spectrum allocation (para. 22-23) improves user experience by providing services while roaming.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Markwart, and further in view of Kakinada.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Beck and Markwart does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting a request for operating statistics toward each radio node having dynamic grant revocation capability; and defining, for each radio node having known operating statistics, a respective SRC.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kakinada teaches further comprising: transmitting a request for operating statistics toward each radio node having dynamic grant revocation capability (Fair and Efficient Allocation Routine (FEAR) engine causes (transmit request) issuance of interference reports for spectrum allocation for CBSD; para. 123, FEAR implemented by SAS; para. 187); and defining, for each radio node having known operating statistics, a respective SRC (FEAR allocating spectrum for CBSD; para. 135 and para. 137 and para. 165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kakinada to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Kakinada’s fair and equitable spectrum allocation (para. 22-23) improves user experience by providing services while roaming.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Beck and Markwart does not explicitly disclose wherein for a CBSD device having a utilization level above a threshold utilization level, the SRC defines a non-linear rate of user migration as a function of time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kakinada teaches wherein for a CBSD device having a utilization level above a threshold utilization level (Fair and Efficient Allocation Routine (FEAR) allocating spectrum for CBSD; para. 135 and para. 137 and para. 165, fair and equitable allocation based on demand data (utilization level threshold to determine “fair and equitable”); para. 92), the SRC defines a non-linear rate of user migration as a function of time (spectrum allocation (user migration) takes temporal variations including time of day, day of week, into account (non-linear rate as function of time); para. 166).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kakinada to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Kakinada’s fair and equitable spectrum allocation (para. 22-23) improves user experience by providing services while roaming.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Beck, Markwart, and Nguyen does not explicitly disclose wherein for a CBSD device having a number of users above a threshold number of users, the SRC defines a non-linear rate of user migration as a function of time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kakinada teaches wherein for a CBSD device having a number of users above a threshold number of users (allocation takes into account load (threshold) in terms of number of users; para. 126), the SRC defines a non-linear rate of user migration as a function of time (spectrum allocation based on temporal variations including time of day, day of week (non-linear rate as function of time); para. 166).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kakinada to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Kakinada’s fair and equitable spectrum allocation (para. 22-23) improves user experience by providing services while roaming.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Markwart, and further in view of Sachs.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Beck and Markwart teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Beck and Markwart does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more radio nodes is configured to update its use of granted spectrum without rebooting.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sachs teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more radio nodes is configured to update its use of granted spectrum without rebooting (spectrum allocation using SAS and CBSDs; para. 588-591, single base station connected via multiple carriers; para. 1073, handover (update use of spectrum) without interruption (without reboot) from one carrier to another; para. 1078-1081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Sachs to the modified system of Beck and Markwart, where Beck and Markwart’s modified system along with Sachs’s improved coexistence between networks (para. 270) improves services on industrial sites.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Mueller (US 2023/0045596 A1) hereinafter Mueller.
Regarding claim 19, Beck teaches a spectrum access system (SAS) administering citizens broadband radio service (CBRS) spectrum to CBRS devices (CBSDs), the SAS configured for dynamically adapting CBSD usage of granted CBRS spectrum (spectrum access system (SAS) adapting citizens broadband radio service device(s) (CBSD(s)) of spectrum having incumbent user including licensed spectrum; para. [19, 22-23, 31, 34]), the SAS comprising compute and memory resources (processor and memory including software; para. 42 and Fig. 1) configured to cause the SAS to: based on a grant revocation condition associated with using CBRS spectrum granted to one or more CBSDs, transmit one or more respective spectrum revocation messages toward the one or more CBSDs (determining that condition for CBSD(s) to cease transmission exists prior to transmission of message to cease transmission; para. 55 and para. 58 and Figs. 2-6, then transmit message for CBSD(s) to cease transmission (spectrum revocation message); para. 54-55 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59-60 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66-67 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 70-74 and Fig. 6 step 660G); and based on an indication of at least one of the one or more CBSDs being capable of dynamic grant revocation (heartbeat (indication) is received from CBSD(s) prior to transmission of revocation message; para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330E, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440D, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550F, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660F), transmit, toward the indicated at least one of the one or more CBSDs, at least one respective spectrum revocation curve (SRC) message (transmission of message to cease transmission including expiry time (spectrum revocation curve) to CBSD(s); para. 54 and Fig. 3 step 330F, para. 59 and Fig. 4 step 440E, para. 66 and Fig. 5 step 550G, para. 73 and Fig. 6 step 660G).
Beck does not explicitly disclose the at least one SRC message comprising at least one SRC respectively, wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected based on a type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mueller teaches the at least one SRC message comprising at least one SRC respectively (global multisite controller 120 transmits message, requested from and verified by SAS, of dynamic spectrum allocation to decrease based on incremental steps / time; para. [37-38, 80-85] and Figs. [2, 13]), wherein at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is selected based on a type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs (adaptive spectrum operations based on service and application programs [type of data traffic]; para. [83, 85]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Mueller to the system of Beck, where Beck’s continuity of service (para. [08, 19]) along with Mueller’s dynamic spectrum allocation (para. 23) improves user experience by reducing disruption of service while dynamically allocating a shared spectrum.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Beck and Mueller teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Mueller further teaches wherein the at least one respective shape of the at least one SRC is further selected based on a relative importance of the type of data traffic of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs with respect to a type of data traffic of other CBSDs (adaptive spectrum operations for spectrum as a service [type of data traffic being paid / premium]; para. [78-83, 85, 112], adaptive spectrum operations based on factory location and CBSD per area / location [type of data traffic for CBSD compared to other CBSD]; para. [41, 54, 65, 108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Mueller to the modified system of Beck and Mueller, where Beck and Mueller’s modified system along with Mueller’s dynamic spectrum allocation (para. 23) improves user experience by reducing disruption of service while dynamically allocating a shared spectrum.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Mueller, and further in view of Markwart.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Beck and Mueller teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
The combination of Beck and Mueller does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one SRC message is configured to cause a respective CBSD of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs to migrate respective users from the CBRS spectrum to a licensed spectrum in accordance with an SRC indicated by the respective SRC message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Markwart teaches wherein each of the at least one SRC message is configured to cause a respective CBSD of the at least one of the one or more CBSDs to migrate respective users from the CBRS spectrum to a licensed spectrum in accordance with an SRC indicated by the respective SRC message (SAS transmits CBSD message including channel grant suspension / termination (revoked) and grant of alternative channel (licensed) and including maximum time use of the channel before stopping (SRC); para. 124-128 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Markwart to the modified system of Beck and Mueller, where Beck and Mueller’s modified system along with Markwart’s spectrum sharing (para. 06) improves user experience by reducing disruption of service in a shared spectrum.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mueck et al. (US 2017/0055193 A1) discloses a communication device and method for communicating using a frequency range.
Ratasuk et al. (US 2014/0162666 A1) discloses coordinated evacuation Of spectrum.
Murray et al. (US 2015/0304853 A1) discloses channel evacuation procedures for wireless networks deployed in dynamic shared spectrum.
Ojanen et al. (US 2017/0353857 A1) discloses protection mechanisms for multi-tiered spectrum access systems.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474