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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 18 September 2025, in view of the amendments with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 18 September 2025, in view of the amendments with respect to claim 17-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 regarding the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-20, the applicant argued, “…Each of these steps is expressly tethered to the same network management entity…the rejection distributes the claimed single-entity flow across different actors and outcomes (DP and SAS), which does not meet the requirement that all steps occur ‘at a network management entity.’…only to the result that SAS registration succeeded…an SAS outcome, not an enabling action by the DP. WINNF discloses no step in which the DP itself ‘enables approval of credentials’ for SAS registration…Office Action instead cites SAS responses 9operatrionParam recommendations)…SAS-driven constraining within SAS procedures, not a configuration determination by the network…Claim 1 as presented herein is drafted around a pre-registration workflow…WINNF does not recognize the problem of constraining CPE operation irrespective of CPI capability before SAS registration or providing a management-entity action that enables approval of credentials…” on pages 6-13.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In §§5, 7-8, and 10 WINNF clearly teaches at a network management entity: in response to receiving installation parameters associated with an identified CPE, determining whether operational capability of the identified CPE exceeds an allowed CBRS operational range including an allowed CBRS bandwidth operational range (§§5, 8, and 10: DP receives InstallationParam Objects from CPI and determines whether the inquiredSpectrum parameter of the CBSD indicates a frequency range outside the CBRS band according to InstallationParam and/or whether the CBSD requested EIRP is outside the eirpCapability InstallationParam); responsive to CPE operational capability exceeding the allowed CBRS operational range, determining a CPE configuration for constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed CBRS operational range (§§8 and 10: if the CBSD requested frequency and/or EIRP is outside the respective InstallationParam (i.e., failure indicated including appropriate operationParam) DP uses (i.e., takes appropriate action) the indicated operationParam to conform the CBSD frequency and/or EIRP to the spectrum availability and/or eirpCapability); and responsive to CPE operational capability not exceeding the allowed CBRS operational range, enabling approval of credentials of the identified CPE for registration of the identified CPE with a Spectrum Access System (SAS) (§§5, 7-8, and 10: if the SBSD frequency and EIRP are within the spectrum availability and eirpCapability, DP enables registration of the CBSD with the SAS as the DP is the interface between the CBSD and SAS).
In response to the applicant’s amendment, the rejection has been updated such that the initial receiving and capability exceeding and not exceeding branches are all performed by the DP. The DP is the interface/proxy between SAS and CSBD. As such any enabling of credentials for registration between a CPE and an SAS requires the DP. Furthermore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed network management entity can make determinations based on SAS responses. While the problem identified by the applicant is appreciated, the claim is written with broad language that encompasses conventional methods disclosed in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WINNF “Signaling Protocols and Procedures for Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS): Spectrum Access System (SAS) – Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device (CBSD) Interface Technical Specification” (hereinafter referred to as “WINNF”). Note: WINNF was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 20 April 2023.
As to claim 1, WINNF teaches a method for managing customer premises equipment (CPE) access to Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum (§§5 and 7-8; figures 1-6), comprising:
at a network management entity:
in response to receiving installation parameters associated with an identified CPE, determining whether operational capability of the identified CPE exceeds an allowed CBRS operational range including an allowed CBRS bandwidth operational range (§§5, 8, and 10: DP receives InstallationParam Objects from CPI and determines whether the inquiredSpectrum parameter of the CBSD indicates a frequency range outside the CBRS band according to InstallationParam and/or whether the CBSD requested EIRP is outside the eirpCapability InstallationParam);
responsive to CPE operational capability exceeding the allowed CBRS operational range, determining a CPE configuration for constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed CBRS operational range (§§8 and 10: if the CBSD requested frequency and/or EIRP is outside the respective InstallationParam (i.e., failure indicated including appropriate operationParam) DP uses (i.e., takes appropriate action) the indicated operationParam to conform the CBSD frequency and/or EIRP to the spectrum availability and/or eirpCapability); and
responsive to CPE operational capability not exceeding the allowed CBRS operational range, enabling approval of credentials of the identified CPE for registration of the identified CPE with a Spectrum Access System (SAS) (§§5, 7-8, and 10: if the SBSD frequency and EIRP are within the spectrum availability and eirpCapability, DP enables registration of the CBSD with the SAS as the DP is the interface between the CBSD and SAS).
As to claim 2, WINNF teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the allowed CBRS bandwidth operation range comprises an allowed band of CBRS transmit frequencies (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 3, WINNF teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the allowed CBRS operation range further includes allowed CPE transmit power level at one or more CBRS transmit frequencies (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 4, WINNF teaches the method of claim 3, wherein allowed CPE transmit power level at CBRS transmit frequencies is determined with respect to CPE location and installation height (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 5, WINNF teaches the method of claim 4, wherein installation parameters associated with an identified CPE include a respective installation height detected via an altimeter associated with the identified CPE (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 6, WINNF teaches the method of claim 4, wherein installation parameters associated with an identified CPE include a respective location detected via a global position system (GPS) receiver associated with the identified CPE (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 7, WINNF teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
at the network management entity:
in response to determining that the identified CPE is authorized for communications within the wireless network, transmitting a corresponding device authentication message to the SAS; and
in response to receiving confirmation that the identified CPE is registered with the FCC, transmitting toward the identified CPE a provisioning message configured to enable CBRS communication by the identified CPE, and any determined CPE configuration for constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed CBRS operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 8, WINNF teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the installation parameters associated with an identified CPE are received from a computing device having associated with it an approving entity configured to approve the configuration of the identified CPE as constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed CBRS operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 9, WINNF teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the computing device is configured to execute thereon an application configured to determine installation parameters associated with an identified CPE (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 10, WINNF teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an approving entity is configured to enable approval of credentials of the identified CPE for registration thereof with the SAS in response to determining that identified CPE operational capabilities do not exceed an allowed CBRS operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 11, WINNF teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an approving entity is configured to enable approval of credentials of the identified CPE for registration thereof with the SAS in response to determining that identified CPE constrained operational capabilities do not exceed an allowed CBRS operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 17, WINNF teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the approving entity, in response to installed CPE having transmit power level capabilities exceeding an allowed transmit power at one or more CBRS transmit frequencies, determines a CPE configuration for constraining CPE operation to the allowed transmit power level (§§8 and 10).
As to claim 18, WINNF teaches the system of claim 12, wherein:
the approving entity, in response to determining that the identified CPE is authorized for communications within the wireless network, transmitting a corresponding device authentication message to the SAS; and
the approving entity, in response to receiving confirmation that the identified CPE is registered with the FCC, transmitting toward the identified CPE a provisioning message configured to enable CBRS communication by the identified CPE, and the determined CPE configuration for constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 19, WINNF teaches the system of claim 12, wherein:
the installation parameters associated with installation of an identified CPE are received from a computing device having associated with it an approving entity; and
the approving entity is configured to approve a CPE configuration for constraining operation of the identified CPE to the allowed operational range (§§5, 7-8, and 10).
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469