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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraph, set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant's arguments to the claims rejection are fully considered, however they are not deemed to be persuasive; for examiner response to the applicant’s arguments see “Response to Arguments” section below.
Response to Arguments
While arguing rejection of independent claim 1, and particularly with respect to Kalenahalli, on page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant states:
“Kalenahalli's exclusion zones, however, relate to reception zones of incumbent receivers for which unlicensed devices are restricted from operating within, rather than transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links, as recited in claim 1. See, e.g., FIG. 8 of Kalenahalli, which illustrates a method for constructing an exclusion zone for an incumbent antenna associated with a receiver. In Kalenahalli, there appears to be no disclosure or suggestion that the disclosed exclusion zone relates to a transmission path of a fixed terrestrial microwave link.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Applicant is correct that Kalenahalli does disclose the exclusion zone as related to the receiving antenna, when this receiving antenna is used in an active terrestrial microwave link, this also becomes a “transmission path”. Indeed, FIG 2 – 4, 6 and 7 with corresponding description disclose how this exclusion zone is calculated. Without going deeply into every detail, the Examiner will cite only those portions of Kalenahalli which are relevant for proving the Examiner’s point of view.
Paragraph 0018: the main lobe is indicated in the figures as RadialAz shown at 225.
Paragraph 0019: The signal receiving gain of an incumbent receiving antenna for a microwave operator in the 6 GHz bandwidth is highly directional and can be expected to decrease appreciably at angles off either side of the main lobe. The main beam typically extends about 2 decrees from each side of the Az of the incumbent receiver antenna 210, and its gains falls off by about 30 dB beyond the main beam.
Paragraph 0020: defining a minimum exclusion zone (MEZ) radius at a location on the path of each of the plurality of radials 222 as illustrated in FIG. 3, as the minimum distance from the incumbent receiver antenna 210 on that radial 222, within which an unlicensed devices will not be granted permission to operate on a channel licenses for use by the operator of incumbent receiver antenna 210.
Paragraph 0022: Utilizing the MEZ, the exclusion zone calculator 116 then calculates an Exclusion Zone Radius (EZR) for each of the plurality of radials 222.
Paragraphs 0027 – 0028: This is illustrated in FIG. 6 where each of the plurality of radials 222 has an associated EZR calculated by the exclusion zone calculator 116. In order to construct a continuous polygonal exclusion zone, the exclusion zone calculator 116 applies an averaging filter to the EZR. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the averaging filter may be applied to the EZR of each radial from Az−n to Az+n to produce a smooth curve 270 between the EZR of the outer radials RadialAz−n and RadialAz+n. Linear boundary lines 272 may then be extended from the terminal ends 274 of the smooth curve 270 to the origin of the radial grid 220 at the incumbent receiver antenna 210 to form the closed polygon geographically defining the exclusion zone 275 for the incumbent receiver antenna 210.
In other words, construction of EZR is started from defining the main lobe of the receiving antenna and is essentially centered around the main lobe.
At this time, the Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to US 20080088518 (Charash), which in paragraph 0002 teaches that point-to-point microwave links often communicate via directional antennas. In order to establish and maintain communication, the directional antennas should be accurately aligned. And in paragraph 0034 teaches that Wireless communication links often use directional antennas having narrow beam widths. In many cases, the ability to establish and maintain communication over the link is highly sensitive to the alignment of the antennas, i.e., to the accuracy with which the antenna at one end of the link (the transmitter or receiver) points toward the antenna at the other end. Millimeter-wave links having highly directional antennas are particularly sensitive to alignment errors.
In other words, Charash teaches that the main lobe of the receiving antenna should point toward the transmitting antenna.
Additionally, the Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to US 20020164945 (Olsen), which in paragraph 0009 teaches that High frequency, large antennas are typically designed to produce very narrow beams which must be very accurately aligned. Because of the narrow beams, both transmit and receive antennas must be precisely pointed at each other.
In other words, just like Charash, Olson also teaches that the main lobe of the receiving antenna should point toward the transmitting antenna.
The Examiner made a sketch how Kalenahalli’s exclusion zone 275 of the receiving antenna of FIG 7 would look like in an active microwave link also having a transmitter antenna pointing at each other:
PNG
media_image1.png
891
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As may be seen, when the receiver antenna is pointed directly to the transmitter antenna, the transmission path of the active microwave link aligns with the main lobe of the receiving antenna and is within the exclusion zone 275.
Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the disclosed by Kalenahalli exclusion zone of the receiving antenna also includes a transmission path of a fixed terrestrial microwave link.
The Applicant continues their argument on page 11 of the Remarks by stating the following:
“Moreover, claim 1 recites "the locations of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the LPI transmitter." On p. 11, the Final Office Action maps such a feature to the exclusion zones of Kalenahalli, however, the exclusion zones relate to restricted antenna reception areas, rather than a threshold distance to the location of an LPI transmitter (e.g., a threshold defined by a given radius around an LPI transmitter).”
In this argument, the Applicant interprets this limitation as the location of the microwave link being within a threshold defined by a given radius around an LPI transmitter, or, in other words, being within a certain distance counted from the location of the LPI transmitter. However, using broadest reasonable interpretation, this may also be interpreted as the location of the LPI transmitter being within a certain distance from the location of the microwave link, or, in other words, being within a certain distance counted from the location of the microwave link.
In view of this interpretation, this is disclosed by Kalenahalli at least in paragraphs 0020 (an MEZ radius defines the minimum distance from the incumbent receiver antenna 210 on that radial 222, within which an unlicensed devices will not be granted permission to operate on a channel licenses for use by the operator of incumbent receiver antenna 210.) and 0029 (when receiving a request to operate in a shared spectrum band from an unlicensed operator request originator 140, the AFC system 110 may utilize the exclusion zone 275 to make the authorization determination. If the request is for an unlicensed operator that is not located within the exclusion zones 275 of any incumbent operation managed by the AFC system 110, then the AFC system 110 can authorize the unlicensed operator to use any channel of the shared spectrum band without concern that the unlicensed operator will interfere with the operation of an incumbent antenna. If the request is for an unlicensed operator that is located within an exclusion zones 275 of an incumbent operation managed by the AFC system 110, then the AFC system 110 may authorize the unlicensed operator to use a channel of the shared spectrum band not used by the incumbent antenna associated with that exclusion zone 275, but prohibit use of any channel that is used by the incumbent antenna associated with that exclusion zones 275.). In other words, “the threshold distance” is disclosed as either MEZ radius, or as EZR radius from the receiving antenna.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Kalenahalli is fully applicable to the rejection, and the rejection in view of Kalenahalli is maintained.
On page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues applicability of Macmullan to the rejection by essentially raising the same arguments as with respect to Kalenahalli. Therefore, the Examiner’s responses given with respect to Kalenahalli are also equally applicable to Macmullan. As stated in paragraph 0036, the I/N contour represents an exclusion zone around each incumbent. Therefore, it is implicit that the exclusion zone surrounds the main lobe of the receiving antenna pointing toward the transmitting antenna so that the exclusion zone also represents a “transmission path” of the microwave link, as was explained above with respect to Kalenahalli. Also, just like in Kalenahalli, Macmullan’s exclusion zone represents “a threshold distance” counted from the location of the receiving antenna.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Macmullan is fully applicable to the rejection, and the rejection in view of Macmullan is maintained.
Additionally, with respect to the limitation that the plurality of fixed microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the unlicensed transmitter, regardless of whether this is disclosed by Kalenahalli or Macmullan, this is also disclosed by Hannan at least in paragraphs 0068 and 0071, as is explained in the body of the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites
“determining at least one frequency channel usable by the LPI transmitter to reduce a possibility of the LPI transmitter causing interference to the subgroup of the plurality of fixed microwave links…”
It is not clear if the italicized portion is the same as “the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”, as is recited everywhere else. For further examination, it is interpreted to mean the same thing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10 – 12 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and further in view of alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)).
Regarding claim 1, Hannan teaches “A device (shown in FIG 1A with corresponding description), comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions (implicitly present) that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, from a…” “…transmitter a request to operate within an unlicensed frequency spectrum (paragraph 0140: in block 500A, TP (transmission point - see paragraph 0023) registration information is received for each TP. Registration information may include antenna geographic location, antenna height, class or maximum transmit power level capability, requested authorization status (priority or general authorized), identification number, call sign, user contact information, air interface technology, unique manufacturers serial number, and/or sensing capabilities. Paragraph 0142: in block 500C, transmit registration information for each TP to the SAS (spectrum access system - see paragraph 0003). Paragraph 0143: in block 500D, a spectrum inquiry is received for each TP. Paragraph 0144: each received spectrum inquiry is sent to the SAS. Alternatively, paragraph 0067: In block 200A, initial data (ID) for each TP of a RN is received. The initial data comprises a frequency spectrum bandwidth for TP, a maximum transmit power for TP, geographic location for TP, neighborhood area parameter(s) (e.g., a radius of a circular neighborhood) for TP, and geographic information about the venue 111 (e.g., geographic boundary and/or a geographic center of the venue 111). Although Hannan does not explicitly state that it is an “unlicensed” frequency spectrum, he does not place any limitations on where the system may be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement Hannan’s system in an unlicensed spectrum. Doing so would have allowed to expand where the system can be used);
determining a location of the…” “…transmitter responsive to the request (implicit since the registration information received contains geographic location of the antenna of the TP);
downloading database records that include information describing a plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links…” “…wherein the information describing the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links comprises locations of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links (paragraph 0068: in block 200B, incumbent data for at least one incumbent and at least one region to be maintained free of interference is received (“downloaded” since as shown in FIG 1A and explained in paragraph 0055, the SAS is coupled to at least one external database (DB(s)) 105 which comprise a database of data about incumbents (e.g., location of protection point(s) representing incumbent, type of incumbent, and corresponding interference threshold).). The incumbent/region data includes, for each incumbent or region, an identifier of type of an incumbent or region, a geographic location (e.g., a geographic point or area location) of each incumbent or region, a, receive, frequency spectrum for each incumbent or region, a geographic location of each protection point representing each incumbent or region, neighborhood area parameter(s) (e.g., a radius of a circular neighborhood) for each incumbent or region for each type of incumbent and region. A neighborhood means a geographical area centered around (a) a TP and in which an incumbent or region may reside at least in part, or (b) an incumbent or region and in which TP(s) may reside. Underlined portions above correspond to the claimed “locations of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links” since the incumbent users include a receiver of a fixed satellite service (FSS), as stated in paragraph 0029), wherein each of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links comprises an endpoint that includes a transmitter (implicit since every microwave link includes a transmitter and a receiver);
identifying a subgroup of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links based on the location of the…” “…transmitter, the locations of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the…” “…transmitter (paragraph 0068: a neighborhood means a geographical area centered around (a) a TP and in which an incumbent or region may reside at least in part, or (b) an incumbent or region and in which external radio(s) or TP(s) may reside. Here, “a threshold distance” represents the distance between the location of the TP and the boundary of the geographical area surrounding it. Alternatively, it represents the distance between the location of the incumbent and the boundary of the geographical area surrounding it. This directly corresponds to the claimed requirement of the links “being within a threshold distance of the location of the…” “…transmitter”. Paragraph 0071: in block 200E, each protection point, representing an incumbent or a region (representing “a subgroup of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links”), in each transmission point neighborhood (representing “the location of the…” “…transmitter”) is identified. Therefore, it is “based on”. In block 200F, a protection point neighborhood is generated around each protection point identified in each TP neighborhood. In block 200G, each TP is identified within each protection point neighborhood.) …”
“…determining at least one frequency channel usable by the…” “…transmitter to reduce a possibility of the…” “…transmitter causing interference to the subgroup of the plurality of fixed microwave links, wherein the determining is based at least in part on the location of the…” “…transmitter and a subset of the information describing the fixed…” “…microwave links…” “…associated with the subgroup of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links (paragraph 0073: In block 200J, a maximum transmit power level and a frequency spectrum of each TP (“at least one frequency channel usable by the…” “…transmitter” since specific frequency spectrum means a frequency channel – see par. 0081) is determined so that aggregate interference at each protection point does not exceed an interference threshold level of a corresponding protection point, wherein the aggregate interference is from each transmission point identified in a protection point neighborhood around the corresponding protection point. Therefore, this is all “based at least in part on the location of the…” “…transmitter and a subset of the information describing the fixed…” “…microwave links associated with the subgroup of the plurality of fixed…” “…microwave links”); and
providing data identifying the at least one frequency channel usable by the…” “…transmitter to the…” “…transmitter (paragraph 0107: in block 200O, the ICG(s) and/or CCG(s) (containing information associating TP with respective transmit power level and a frequency spectrum) are transmitted to the spectrum proxy 103. FIG 4A with corresponding description disclose spectrum proxy 103 which uses the information on ICG(s) and/or CCG(s) to allocate each apportioned frequency spectrum to each baseband unit of the corresponding SAG controlling respective transmission points. Also paragraph 0144: in block 500E, each received spectrum inquiry is sent to the SAS. in block 500F, one or more available frequency spectrum of minimum bandwidth and maximum transmit power level for each of the available frequency spectrum of minimum bandwidth is identified by and received from the SAS for each TP based upon the one or more spectrum inquiries sent for each TP.).”
Hannan does not explicitly teach that the transmitter receiving allocation of spectrum is “a low power indoor (LPI)” transmitter, as well as that the fixed microwave links are “terrestrial”.
Smyth also teaches fixed microwave protection system that protects incumbent users from interference from newly installed APs operating in overlapping frequency ranges (see FIG 5, 6 and 10 with corresponding description). Therefore, Smyth in the same art.
Smyth, however, teaches FS (fixed services) authorized to operate point-to-point microwave links (“fixed terrestrial microwave links”) (see paragraph 0143) also requiring the highest levels of protection from other services (see paragraph 0151). Additionally, Smyth teaches that the APs may be located indoors and operate at low power (e.g., ≤1 W) (see paragraph 0178), thus teaching applicability of the method to “low power indoor transmitters”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to expand the method disclosed by Hannan to include disclosed by Smyth “low power indoor transmitters” as one or more of Hannan’s TPs, as well as to also apply the method to protect fixed terrestrial microwave links, as disclosed by Smyth, in addition to protection of the microwave fixed satellite services, as disclosed by Hannan. Doing so would have simply expanded the method disclosed by Hannan to include additional devices and systems, thus increasing its usefulness, applicability and universality.
Hannan does not disclose that the information from the database 105 shown in FIG 1 is accessed (“downloaded”) “at scheduled times”. Hannan teaches his method for both the design stage when new system in its entirety is deployed (with respect to the method of FIG 2), as well as when new TPs are added (with respect to the method of FIG 5).
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that over time, the information contained in the SAS 104 shown in FIG 1, once downloaded from the database 105 at the design stage, may become obsolete and no longer reflect the current condition of the incumbent users requiring protection, thus potentially causing erroneous output with regards to allocation of transmit power level and a frequency spectrum to TPs which would lead to unacceptable interference to the incumbent users.
In the previous Office Actions, the examiner took an Official Notice that it was well known in the art to periodically access a database and download most recent information required to perform a specific task. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize periodic download “at scheduled times”, as is well-known in the art, of information from the external database 105 shown in FIG 1 of Hannan, to ensure that the method of determination of the maximum transmit power level and frequency spectrum for each TP uses the most current information contained in the database, thus increasing the accuracy of the determination by taking into account any new or updated information regarding protection points or incumbent users.
Lastly, Hannan does not disclose that the identification of a subgroup of the plurality of fixed microwave links is also based on “transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links coinciding with the location of the LPI transmitter”, and that determining at least one frequency channel usable by the transmitter is also based on “the transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”.
In this respect, Kalenahalli teaches “identifying a subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links (applicability of the disclosed method to fixed terrestrial microwave links is disclosed in paragraphs 0002, 0017, 0019 and 0042) based on the location of the [secondary] transmitter (FIG 9 and 10 and paragraph 0034: a metropolitan area is shown subdivided into a grid 910 comprising a plurality of channel subdivision 912 each corresponding to an area of 500×500 meters. Each of these subdivisions represent potential location of the secondary transmitter), the locations of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the [secondary] transmitter and transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links coinciding with the location of the [secondary] transmitter (paragraph 0036: Within the geographic area covered by the grid 910 there may be one or more incumbent antennas 210 (each associated with an incumbent receiver 211 and incumbent operator 212). The channel map calculator 118 superimposes the locations of those incumbent antennas 210 (representing claimed “the locations of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”) and the shape and orientation of their associated exclusion zones 275 (representing claimed “transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links” since the main lobe of the receiving antenna is normally pointed directly to the transmitting antenna so that the transmitted signal propagates along the main lobe and within the exclusion zone 275) onto the grid 910 and determines which channel subdivisions 912 (representing potential locations of the secondary transmitters) are at least partially occupied by at least some portion of an exclusion zone 275 at least for those secondary transmitters location of which coincide with the transmission paths. With respect to FIG 10, paragraphs 0040 – 0046: generation of channel map identifying and showing exclusion zones (which correspond to “the locations of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the [secondary] transmitter and transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links” since paragraph 0020 explains that an MEZ radius defines the minimum distance from the incumbent receiver antenna 210 on that radial 222, within which an unlicensed devices will not be granted permission to operate on a channel licenses for use by the operator of incumbent receiver antenna 210, thus corresponding to “a threshold distance” counted from the location of the receiving antenna. Additionally, paragraph 0029 explains that EZR represents “a threshold distance” counted from the location of the receiving antenna.) and correlating the request location of the secondary transmitter to a channel subdivision 912 (therefore, “based on the location of the [secondary] transmitter”) and evaluating the channel use of all incumbent operators with an exclusion zone present in that channel subdivision 912. With respect to exclusion zones 1010 – 1013, they correspond to the claimed “being within a threshold distance of the location of the [secondary] transmitter” for any secondary transmitters located within the boundary of each exclusion zone. Additionally, they correspond to the claimed “coinciding with the location of the [secondary] transmitter” for any secondary transmitters located within the boundary of each exclusion zone.);
determining at least one frequency channel usable by the [secondary] transmitter to reduce a possibility of the [secondary] transmitter causing interference to the subgroup of the plurality of fixed microwave links, wherein the determining is based at least in part on the location of the [secondary] transmitter and a subset of the information describing the fixed terrestrial microwave links, including the transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links, associated with the subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links (paragraph 0037: The restricted channels for each exclusion zone 275 (“the paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”) that overlaps a channel subdivision 912 (each representing potential location of the secondary transmitter) are determined and stored as part of the regional channel map database 126 of the AFC system 110 to create the listing of shared spectrum band channel availability within the area of that channel subdivision 912. Additional considerations in determination of the available channel are given in paragraphs 0038 – 0039. With respect to FIG 10, see paragraphs 0040 – 0046 as explained above).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kalenahalli method of determination of the available channels for each particular location of the secondary transmitter based on the mapped location of the fixed terrestrial microwave links and their respective exclusion zones (representing “transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”), in the system of Hannan. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately determine channel availability for each particular location of the secondary transmitter.
Additionally or alternatively, Macmullan also teaches “identifying a subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links (applicability of the disclosed method to fixed terrestrial microwave links is disclosed at least in paragraph 0052: contour 1606 may be associated with callSign WNEX648 and may operate from 6539.75-6597.5 MHz, and contour 1604 may be associated with callSign WQJV440 and may operate from 6802.5-6807.5 MHz.) based on the location of the [secondary] transmitter (paragraph 0052: In FIG. 16, an RLAN Impact Area 1602 is illustrated by a circle. Also paragraph 0051: Upon a spectrum availability request from RLAN 1508, the AFC 108 may extract I/N contour 1506. I/N contour 1506 may be derived based on RLAN parameters matching those in the RLAN request. Accordingly, extracted I/N contour 1506 may have RLAN parameters that match the RLAN parameters specified in the request from RLAN 1508. The AFC 108 may compute the RLAN Impact Area 1510.), the locations of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links being within a threshold distance of the location of the [secondary] transmitter and transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links coinciding with the location of the [secondary] transmitter (paragraph 0052: two intersecting contours 1604 and 1606 (which also represent “transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”) are found. In other words, these two microwave links have been identified based on the location of the RLAN and its intersection with the contours 1604 and 1606 so that the location of RLAN “coinciding with the transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”. The location of RLAN is also “within a threshold distance of the location of the” fixed terrestrial microwave links, where “a threshold distance” may represent the length of the microwave link and/or simply being within the exclusion zone. Also see FIG 15 and paragraph 0051);
determining at least one frequency channel usable by the [secondary] transmitter to reduce a possibility of the [secondary] transmitter causing interference to the subgroup of the plurality of fixed microwave links, wherein the determining is based at least in part on the location of the [secondary] transmitter and a subset of the information describing the fixed terrestrial microwave links, including the transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links, associated with the subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links (paragraph 0052: the available frequencies may be 5925-6802.5, 6807.5-6593.75, and 6597.5-7125 MHz, representing “at least one frequency channel usable by the [secondary] transmitter” (in fact, these frequency ranges represent many channels) which are determined based on the relative location of the secondary transmitter and “the transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”. Also see FIG 15 and paragraph 0051.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Macmullan method of determination of the available channels for each particular location of the secondary transmitter based on the mapped location of the fixed terrestrial microwave links and their respective contours (representing “transmission paths of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links”), in the system of Hannan. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately determine channel availability for each particular location of the secondary transmitter, and particularly to determine spectrum availability for secondary users based on at least one secondary user reported location and/or other characteristics and/or incumbent information (see Macmullan, paragraph 0013).
Additional explanations with respect to both Kalenahalli and Macmullan may be found in section Response to Arguments above which are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Hannan does not explicitly teach “wherein the LPI transmitter operates using unlicensed spectrum in a 6 GHz band, and the at least one frequency channel usable by the LPI transmitter comprises a second list of frequency channels to reduce a possibility of interference to licensed operators using the 6 GHz band.”
Smyth teaches “wherein the LPI transmitter operates using unlicensed spectrum in a 6 GHz band (paragraph 0188: shared use of the Lower 6 GHz band may be further extended for future Wi-Fi, as well as other radio APs (“the LPI transmitter”) and satellite uplinks. The Lower 6 GHz band is ideally suited for such spectrum extension for Wi-Fi use. Also paragraph 0202), and the at least one frequency channel usable by the LPI transmitter comprises a second list of frequency channels (paragraph 0179: central server may communicate with a primary AP in the cluster, and the primary AP communicates with other, secondary, APs in the cluster. Paragraph 0180: central server 1004 may enable frequency planning of individual Wi-Fi APs through the assignment of different channels to avoid interference between the respective neighboring APs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that for the case when the central server communicates with a primary AP and the primary AP communicates with other, secondary, APs in the cluster, this assignment of different channels to different APs in the cluster would have been done through the primary AP so that it would receive plurality of different channels and transmit the assignment of individual channels to the secondary APs in the cluster. Doing so would have simply been implementation of the particular method disclosed by Smyth in general without providing sufficient details. The reception of plurality of different channels by the primary AP in the cluster corresponds to the recited “a second list of frequency channels”) to reduce a possibility of interference to licensed operators using the 6 GHz band (it is the purpose of Smyth’s system to reduce any interference to existing FSS and FS “licensed operators”. Specific operation in “the 6 GHz band” is covered at least in paragraph 0143: In present FS implementations, the 5.925-6.425 GHz band is heavily used. FS licensees are authorized to operate point-to-point microwave links. Also paragraphs 0136 – 0152 with respect to 6 GHz band).”
Since Hannan does not disclose any specific frequency bands that the incumbent users and transmission points TPs operate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the frequency band and the interference considerations disclosed by Smyth, in the system of Hannan. Doing so would have simply provided specific operating frequency band for the broadly disclosed Hannan’s system.
Regarding claim 10, Hannan in combination with Smyth teaches “wherein the determining the at least one frequency channel available for use by the LPI transmitter comprises determining a plurality of frequency channels available for use by the LPI transmitter (Hannan, paragraph 0035: A SAS grants the CBSDs access to the shared spectrum, including authorizing frequency spectrum (or channels) requested by CBSDs. As may be seen, the word “channels” is in plural. Plurality of frequency channels is also disclosed in paragraph 0083.
Also, Smith, paragraph 0180: central server 1004 may enable frequency planning of individual Wi-Fi APs (corresponds to claimed “the LPI transmitter”) through the assignment of different channels (corresponds to claimed “determining” “a plurality of frequency channels available for use”) to avoid interference between the respective neighboring APs.).”
Regarding claim 11, Hannan in combination with Smyth teach or fairly suggest “wherein the providing the data identifying the at least one frequency channel usable by the LPI transmitter comprises providing data identifying the plurality of frequency channels to the LPI transmitter (Hannan, paragraph 0035: A SAS grants the CBSDs access to the shared spectrum, including authorizing frequency spectrum (or channels) requested by CBSDs. As may be seen, the word “channels” is in plural. Plurality of frequency channels is also disclosed in paragraph 0083. Paragraph 0073: In block 200J, a maximum transmit power level and a frequency spectrum of each TP is determined.
Also Smyth, paragraph 0179: central server may communicate (corresponds to claimed “providing data”) with a primary AP (corresponds to claimed “the LPI transmitter”) in the cluster, and the primary AP communicates with other, secondary, APs in the cluster. Paragraph 0180: central server 1004 may enable frequency planning of individual Wi-Fi APs through the assignment of different channels to avoid interference between the respective neighboring APs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that for the case when the central server communicates with a primary AP and the primary AP communicates with other, secondary, APs in the cluster, this assignment of different channels to different APs in the cluster would have been done through the primary AP so that it would receive plurality of different channels (“providing data identifying the plurality of frequency channels to the LPI transmitter”) and transmit the assignment of individual channels to the secondary APs in the cluster. Doing so would have simply been implementation of the particular method disclosed by Smyth in general without providing sufficient details.).”
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 because they have similar limitations. Below, only the differences in claims 1 and 12 are addressed.
Instead of “downloading database records … at scheduled times”, as in claim 1, claim 12 states “accessing database records … responsive to notification of a change in the database records”.
In the previous Office Actions, the examiner took an Official Notice that it was well known in the art to update or synchronize a local information database from a remote database upon reception of “notification of a change in the database records”. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize periodic download of information from the external database 105 shown in FIG 1 of Hannan upon receiving “notification of a change in the database records”, as is well-known in the art, to ensure that the method of determination of the maximum transmit power level and frequency spectrum for each TP uses the most current information contained in the database, thus increasing the accuracy of the determination by taking into account any new or updated information regarding protection points or incumbent users.
Further, claim 12 specifically requires operation “within an unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum.” This is disclosed by Smyth as explained in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 12 requires “generating a list of frequency channels used by the subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links.”
This is disclosed by Hannan, paragraph 0068: in block 200B, incumbent data for at least one of: (a) at least one incumbent and (b) and at least one region to be maintained free of interference in the shared frequency spectrum is received. The incumbent/region data includes, for each incumbent or region, receive frequency spectrum for each incumbent or region.
This is also disclosed at least by Kalenahalli, paragraph 0037: The restricted channels for each exclusion zone 275 that overlaps a channel subdivision 912 are determined and stored as part of the regional channel map database 126 of the AFC system 110. Evaluating the use by licensed incumbent operators of channels at each of the possible channel bandwidths. Paragraph 0040: Channels marked as restricted means that at least part of the spectrum for those channels are in use by an incumbent operator and hence are unavailable for unlicensed operator use.
Claim 12 also requires determining “at least one power limit associated with a respective frequency channel among the at least one frequency channel” as well as providing “the at least one power limit to the LPI transmitter, wherein the at least one power limit corresponds to an allowable power limit for operation of the LPI transmitter within the respective frequency channel in order to minimize or reduce interference between the LPI transmitter and the subgroup of the plurality of fixed terrestrial microwave links.” This is disclosed by Hannan, paragraph 0073: In block 200J, a maximum transmit power level and a frequency spectrum of each TP is determined. Paragraph 0107: in block 200O, the ICG(s) and/or CCG(s) (containing information associating TP with respective transmit power level and a frequency spectrum) are transmitted to the spectrum proxy 103. FIG 4A with corresponding description disclose spectrum proxy 103 which uses the information on ICG(s) and/or CCG(s) to allocate each apportioned frequency spectrum to each baseband unit of the corresponding SAG controlling respective transmission points. Also paragraph 0144: in block 500E, each received spectrum inquiry is sent to the SAS. in block 500F, one or more available frequency spectrum of minimum bandwidth and maximum transmit power level for each of the available frequency spectrum of minimum bandwidth is identified by and received from the SAS for each TP based upon the one or more spectrum inquiries sent for each TP.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 because they have similar limitations. Below, only the differences in claims 1 and 17 are addressed.
Claim 17 specifically requires operation “within an unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum.” This is disclosed by Smyth as explained in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 17 requires “wherein the LPI transmitter comprises customer premises equipment” and that the location of the LPI transmitter is determined “based on a stored customer record.”
Although Hannan does not disclose these limitations, Smyth at least in paragraphs 0172 and 0191 teaches that the access point (which is equivalent to the transmission point TP of Hannan and “LPI transmitter” of instant claim) could be a Wi-Fi access point (which are known to be also called “customer premises equipment”). Additionally, Macmullan also teaches that RLAN device (which is equivalent to the transmission point TP of Hannan and “LPI transmitter” of instant claim) may refer to an access point (AP), such as a WiFi AP. Additionally or alternatively, RLAN clients may refer to clients and/or user equipment (UE). Either of these two are also known to be called “customer premises equipment”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize transmission point TP of Hannan as a WI-FI access point or user equipment. Doing so would have expanded the applications were Hannan’s teaching may be utilized.
With respect to location determination “based on a stored customer record”, Hannan in paragraph 0140 teaches that in block 500A, registration information is received for each TP, which may include, among other information, antenna geographic location, user contact information. Additionally, paragraph 0067: In block 200A, initial data (ID) for each TP of a RN is received. The initial data comprises a geographic location for TP. Therefore, in Hannan, geographic location and user contact information become part of “a stored customer record” upon registration.
Regarding claim 18, Hannan in combination with Smyth teaches “further comprising: determining, by the processing system, a power limit corresponding to the at least one frequency channel; and providing, by the processing system, the power limit to the LPI transmitter (Hannan, paragraph 0073: In block 200J, a maximum transmit power level (e.g., in EIRP) of each TP is determined so that aggregate interference at each protection point does not exceed an interference threshold level of a corresponding protection point. Paragraph 0144: in block 500F, maximum transmit power level (e.g., in EIRP) is identified by and received from the SAS for each TP. Also Smith, paragraph 0114: In step 612, central server 510 sends permission to AP 514, including the approved frequency channel, the approved maximum power. The approved frequency channel/maximum power sent by central server 510 is the same or different from the channel/power originally requested by AP 514.).”
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 because claim 20 has similar but broader limitations.
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170013441 (Manik) evidenced by US 20230131512 (Furuichi).
Regarding claim 2, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect to low power indoor transmitters does not teach “wherein the transmitter comprises a residential gateway, and wherein the request comprises an authentication request.”
Both Hannan (in paragraph 0003: A CBSD is a radio including a transmitter coupled to an antenna, e.g., an access point) and Smith (paragraph 0178: a Wi-Fi AP (e.g., AP 1016) is located indoors and operates at low power (e.g., ≤1 W)) teach that the transmission point may be implemented as an access point.
Manik teaches in paragraph 0032 that a residential gateway may provide a combined modem, router and access point functionality for the local area network(s) of the residential network. In other words, Manik teaches combination of an access point and residential gateway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Manik implementation of the access point together with residential gateway as the low power indoor TP in the system of Hannan combined with Smith simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being increased functionality of the device so that no additional separate gateway would be required in deployment. This would have also been an obvious matter since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Further, with respect to the TP being a CBSD (see Hannan, paragraph 0003), Furuichi in paragraph 0243 teaches that permission and authorization related to the radio wave utilization are performed by a SAS (just like Hannan). For the permission and authorization, a SAS examines a set of the maximum allowable equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and a frequency channel requested from a CBSD, and authenticates the requested maximum allowable EIRP and frequency channel as a grant.
Therefore, in normal operation of the system, when the TP (such as CBSD) transmits registration or spectrum inquiry, as disclosed by Hannan (see explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above) on the basis of which the SAS performs authentication, this registration or spectrum inquiry acts at least as an implicit “authentication request”, as is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Hannan combined with Smyth and Manik as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above with respect to inclusion of a gateway teach or fairly suggest “wherein the residential gateway includes a Wi-Fi access point (Hannan, paragraph 0003: A CBSD is a radio including a transmitter coupled to an antenna, e.g., an access point. Although Hannan does not explicitly state that it is a Wi-Fi access point, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply Hannan’s system, disclosed specifically for an access point, to Wi-Fi access points as well. Doing so would have expanded the usage of the system to the widely used and well known Wi-Fi systems. Smyth, the access points shown as 1016 in FIG 10 comprises Wi-Fi access points – see at least paragraphs 0172, 0175), and the device comprises a LPI transmitter configuration service (Hannan, paragraph 0046: The planner 102 is configured to receive information of each TP of the RN 101 and location of incumbents, and determines a frequency spectrum and an effective isotropic radiated power of each TP of the RN 101. Paragraph 0115: In block 400E, each apportioned frequency spectrum is sent to each baseband unit of the corresponding SAG. FIG 4A with corresponding description disclose spectrum proxy 103 which uses the information on ICG(s) and/or CCG(s) to allocate each apportioned frequency spectrum to each baseband unit of the corresponding SAG controlling respective transmission points. All this corresponds to “configuration service” since they can configure TPs with the spectrum allocation and appropriate transmission power.
Smyth, paragraph 0135: central server is configured to take one or more of the following remedial measures to mitigate interference and migrate the source of interference to a non-interfering communication status: (ii) issue commands to AP/CBSD to modify operating parameters (e.g., transmit power, operating frequency/bandwidth, antenna pointing angle or direction, etc.) of new and existing APs/CBSDs based on FCC rules, equitable resource allocation calculations, changes to RF propagation, etc. (vi) modify frequency assignments of existing APs/CBSDs in an impact area of FSS site according to changes in FSS frequency usage. At least these two measures corresponds to the recited “configuration service”).”
Regarding claim 4, Hannan combined with Smyth and Manik as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above with respect to inclusion of a gateway teaches “wherein the residential gateway includes a…” “…small cell (Hannan, paragraph 0026: each network radio is a cellular radio, e.g., a small cell radio, a pico cell radio, or a femto cell radio. Smith, paragraph 0111: new AP 514 is a small cell access point. In step 604, AP 514 submits an authorization application to central server 510, including one or more of a unique small cell identification code, location coordinates, a requested maximum power from the whole small cell, etc.).”
Although Hannan and Smyth do not explicitly state that the small cells are “5G”, Smyth’s paragraph 0205 states that the disclosed systems and methods are applicable to new and developing 5G technologies. In the previous Office Action, the examiner took an Official Notice that small cells operating on 5G standard were well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to take disclosed by Hannan or Smyth small cells and make them operating on a 5G standard. Doing so would have further expanded the usage of Hannan and Smyth’s system to the access points implemented as small cells operating on newer 5G standards, thus providing similar benefits as disclosed to the wider variety of devices and systems.
Claims 2 – 4 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170013441 (Manik) and US 20100080189 (Black).
Regarding claim 2, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect to low power indoor transmitters does not teach “wherein the LPI transmitter comprises a residential gateway, and wherein the request comprises an authentication request.”
Both Hannan (in paragraph 0003: A CBSD is a radio including a transmitter coupled to an antenna, e.g., an access point) and Smith (paragraph 0178: a Wi-Fi AP (e.g., AP 1016) is located indoors and operates at low power (e.g., ≤1 W)) teach that the transmission point may be implemented as an access point.
Manik teaches in paragraph 0032 that a residential gateway may provide a combined modem, router and access point functionality for the local area network(s) of the residential network. In other words, Manik teaches combination of an access point and residential gateway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Manik implementation of the access point together with residential gateway as the low power indoor TP in the system of Hannan combined with Smith simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being increased functionality of the device so that no additional separate gateway would be required in deployment. This would have also been an obvious matter since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Further, with respect to “authentication request”, Black in paragraphs 0036 – 0037 teaches a resource provisioning process prior to starting a service in which the local transmitter AP can request allocation of resources and specify provisioning parameters. In a next part of the provisioning process, the access network can authenticate the request. Authorization can be based on femto-cell standards and can establish the identity and privileges of the local transmitter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Black authentication of the request transmitted by the access point of Hannan and Smith. Doing so would have allowed to establish the identity and privileges of the local transmitter (see Black, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 3, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of same claim in the previous section.
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of same claim in the previous section.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of alternatively (US 20200127911 (Gilson) or US 20140273911 (Dunn)).
Regarding claim 6, Hannan does not teach “wherein the determining the location of the LPI transmitter comprises determining a home address of a broadband subscriber.”
In Smyth, the location is expressed in longitude and latitude (see paragraph 0086).
On the other side, Gilson teaches that the location may be expressed alternatively by either the geographical location in which the gateway is located, such as the longitude, latitude, and/or the street address and zip code of the gateway's location (“a home address of a broadband subscriber”). Similar information is given by Dunn in paragraph 0026 (The location information can be geographic coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude) of the access points. Alternatively, the location information can be the street address of the access point, which may be converted into latitude and longitude coordinates. For example, when an access point is initially registered with the network, the user may be required to input a street address for the location of the access point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to express the location of Hannan and Smyth’s access point as either geographical coordinates, including longitude and latitude, or alternatively as a street address, as suggested by Gilson and/or Dunn, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being that a person entering location information may not know the geographical coordinates, however, the street address of the location may be readily available and easy to enter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by US 20100080189 (Black).
Regarding claim 7, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect to low power indoor transmitters teach or fairly suggest “wherein the determining the location of the LPI transmitter comprises receiving latitude and longitude coordinates from the LPI transmitter (Hannan, paragraph 0046, 0048 and 0067: TP data includes TP geographic location, and paragraph 0070 teaches that the geographic location may be expressed in latitude and longitude. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize latitude and longitude in specifying geographic location of the TP. Doing so would have been simply a matter of design choice of what type of specific data to use while specifying geographic location.
Smyth, paragraph 0111: In step 604, AP 514 submits an authorization application to central server 510, including … location coordinates. However, as stated in paragraph 0086, central server 412 utilizes known locations (e.g., in the form of coordinates including longitude, latitude, and elevation) of both FSS site 402 and AP 408 (corresponds to the recited “low power indoor transmitter”). Therefore, transmission of authorization application from the access point includes transmission of location coordinates in the form of longitude and latitude.)…”
Hannan or Smith do not teach “wherein the request comprises a provisioning request.”
Both Hannan (in paragraph 0003: A CBSD is a radio including a transmitter coupled to an antenna, e.g., an access point) and Smith (paragraph 0178: a Wi-Fi AP (e.g., AP 1016) is located indoors and operates at low power (e.g., ≤1 W)) teach that the transmission point may be implemented as an access point (AP).
Black in paragraphs 0036 – 0037 teaches a resource provisioning process prior to starting a service in which the local transmitter AP can request allocation of resources and specify provisioning parameters. In other words, the request asking for allocation of resources prior to starting the service is at least an implicit “provisioning request”.
Therefore, in normal operation of the system, when the TP (such as CBSD/access point) transmits registration or spectrum inquiry, as disclosed by Hannan (see explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above) on the basis of which the AP gets provisioned by allocating frequency resources, this registration or spectrum inquiry acts as at least an implicit “provisioning request”, as is required by the claim.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200015043 (Patil).
Regarding claim 8, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect to terrestrial microwave links and low power indoor transmitters teaches “wherein the downloading the database records that include information describing fixed terrestrial microwave links comprises accessing database records corresponding to licensed equipment within a particular distance of the LPI transmitter (Hannan, paragraph 0068: in block 200B, incumbent data for at least one incumbent and at least one region to be maintained free of interference is received. The incumbent/region data includes a geographic location of each incumbent or region, a geographic location of each protection point representing each incumbent or region, neighborhood area parameter(s) (e.g., a radius of a circular neighborhood) for each incumbent or region. A neighborhood means a geographical area centered around a TP and in which an incumbent or region may reside at least in part. This represents “a particular distance of the LPI transmitter” (such as TP) where “a particular distance” is the distance between the TP and the boundary of the geographical area)…”
Hannan does not teach “wherein the determining the location of the LPI transmitter is based on an Internet protocol (IP) address.”
Patil in paragraph 0148 teaches determining a location of an AP based on its IP address or AP identifier, for example, by retrieving location of the AP from a database that cross-references the AP's IP address or AP identifier with the location of the AP.
Therefore, since Hannan does not disclose details of location determination of the TPs, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Patil determination of the location of the transmitter by its IP address, in the system of Hannan, simply to fill in where Hannan is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect low power indoor transmitters teaches “wherein determining the at least one frequency channel usable by the LPI transmitter comprises determining a frequency channel which will not cause harmful interference to licensed fixed microwave links (Hannan, paragraph 0035: The SAS controls the transmission of CBSDs so that the higher priority users (which include “licensed fixed microwave links”) are free of interference from CBSDs. Paragraph 0073: a maximum transmit power level and a frequency spectrum of each TP (“at least one frequency channel usable by the LBI transmitter”) is determined so that aggregate interference, in shared frequency spectrum, at each protection point does not exceed an interference threshold level of a corresponding protection point.
Also Smyth, paragraph 0114: process 600 determines that no interference occurs when central server 510 calculates the existence of a maximum power level and a frequency channel for AP 514 that will ensure both feasible and interference-free small cell communication. In step 612, central server 510 sends permission to AP 514, including the approved frequency channel, the approved maximum power.).”
Claims 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220272701 (Hannan) in view of US 20190028182 (Smyth) and alternatively (US 20220224496 (Kalenahalli) or US 20200359229 (Macmullan)) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 20170013441 (Manik).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hannan modified by Smyth with respect to low power indoor transmitters does not teach “wherein the LPI transmitter comprises a residential gateway” (as in claim 13), or “wherein the residential gateway includes a Wi-Fi access point” (as in claim 14).
Both Hannan (in paragraph 0003: A CBSD is a radio including a transmitter coupled to an antenna, e.g., an access point) and Smith (paragraph 0178: a Wi-Fi AP (e.g., AP 1016) is located indoors and operates at low power (e.g., ≤1 W)) teach that the transmission point may be implemented as an access point
Manik teaches in paragraph 0032 that a residential gateway may provide a combined modem, router and access point functionality for the local area network(s) of the residential network. In other words, Manik teaches combination of an access point and residential gateway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Manik implementation of the access point together with residential gateway as the low power indoor TP in the system of Hannan combined with Smith simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being increased functionality of the device so that no additional separate gateway would be required in deployment. This would have also been an obvious matter since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 because they have similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights