Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 7-8, 11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronc et. al US-20140321358-A1 (hereinafter “Tronc”) and further in view of Sevindik et al. US-20210337391-A1 (hereinafter “Sevindik”) and in further view of Furuichi et al (US 2022/0386311 A1).
As to claim 1:
Tronc discloses:
A method of mitigating interference in a 5th generation (5G) new radio (NR) environment, the method comprising:
determining a cumulative interference level margin corresponding to at least one satellite ground station and at least one base station;
“measurement, by the satellite 20 or the ground station 21, of the aggregated level of interference generated by terrestrial terminals 32 using this uplink frequency channel, called the ‘real interference level’,” [0185] Tronc
determining whether the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to a maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station;
“As illustrated by FIG. 12, … determining whether the real interference level PINTF(Fxu) measured in the uplink frequency channel Fxu in the beam associated with the pilot signal Sx is greater than a first predefined threshold value V1” [0188] Tronc
“When the real interference level is equal to or less than the threshold value V1 (reference 570b)” [0190] Tronc
Tronc does not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determining at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configuring the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
However, Sevindik teaches:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determining at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
“the wireless base station apparatus to: determine an available electrical power level; and based at least in part on the determined power level; determine an appropriate EIRP level for the subsequent activation of one or more of the plurality of sectors.” [0041] Sevindik
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configuring the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
“utilizing the obtained data relating to the at least one electrical power supply capability to configure the causing selective activation of at least one of the plurality of sectors according to either a first power level or a second power level comprises using data indicative of sufficient electrical power to support CBRS Category B CBSD (Citizens Broadband Service Radio Device) operation to cause activation according to the second power level, the second power at or below a CBRS Category B EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power) limit, but above a CBRS Category A EIRP limit.” [0041] Sevindik
This method of using EIRP taught in Sevindik “to cause activation according to the second power level” [0039] Sevindik, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
FURUICHI teaches, “wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.” -Fig. 16-18; Paragraph [0114, 0290-0300] ([0290] recites, “ In the example in FIG. 16, the communication system 1 (primary system) includes a reception antenna as the radio apparatus 10.sub.2. The radio apparatus 10.sub.2 is, for example, a reception antenna of a satellite ground station. The communication control device 60 of the communication system 2 sets the position of the reception antenna as the protection point, and controls the transmission power of the plurality of base station devices 40 so that the aggregate interference at that point does not exceed the interference margin.” [0299] recites, “FIG. 18 illustrates the interference level given to a predetermined protection point of the communication system 1 by the plurality of base station devices 40 (base station devices 40.sub.7 to 40.sub.11) under the control of the two communication control devices 60. The interference level obtained by subtracting the interference level of the base station device 40 from the total interference level (acceptable interference level as marked accept in Fig. 18) of each of the two communication control devices 60 is the surplus interference margin. In the following description, a surplus interference level is referred to as a surplus interference margin. The surplus interference margin can be rephrased as a surplus interference level.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tronc, Sevindik and FURUICHI before him or her, to modify the invention of Tronc, Sevindik to incorporate the teaching of Furuichi. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve in efficient spectrum use by radio systems (¶ 0107).
As to claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal tilt for the at least one base station comprises:
obtaining a current tilt of the at least one base station;
obtaining a maximum tilt of the at least one base station, and
based on the current tilt of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum tilt of the at least one base station, determining to increase the current tilt of the at least one base station by a predetermined tilt step value. [ NOTE : these limitations further limit the unselected option of an alternative limitation ]
As to claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein configuring the at least one base station comprises increasing the current tilt of the at least one base station, and
wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a current NR reference signal received power (RSRP) of the at least one base station; and
based on the current NR RSRP of the at least one base station being greater than or equal to an allowed RSRP, reverting the increase of the current tilt of the at least one base station. [ NOTE : these limitations further limit the unselected option of an alternative limitation ]
As to claim 11:
Tronc discloses:
A system for mitigating interference in a 5h generation (5G) new radio (NR) environment, the system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
“the correspondence … must be previously stored in a nonvolatile memory of the terrestrial component (for example in the base station 30)” [0145] Tronc
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
“the terrestrial terminal 32, in which case the latter, which already performs the measurement of the real reception level, can determine its own transmission power directly.” [0162] Tronc indicates that a base station may determine on its own.
determine a cumulative interference level margin corresponding to at least one satellite ground station and at least one base station;
“measurement, by the satellite 20 or the ground station 21, of the aggregated level of interference generated by terrestrial terminals 32 using this uplink frequency channel, called the ‘real interference level’,” [0185] Tronc
determine whether the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to a maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station;
“As illustrated by FIG. 12, … determining whether the real interference level PINTF(Fxu) measured in the uplink frequency channel Fxu in the beam associated with the pilot signal Sx is greater than a first predefined threshold value V1” [0188] Tronc
“When the real interference level is equal to or less than the threshold value V1 (reference 570b)” [0190] Tronc
Tronc does not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determine at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configure the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
However, Sevindik teaches:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determine at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
“the wireless base station apparatus to: determine an available electrical power level; and based at least in part on the determined power level; determine an appropriate EIRP level for the subsequent activation of one or more of the plurality of sectors.” [0041] Sevindik
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configure the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
“utilizing the obtained data relating to the at least one electrical power supply capability to configure the causing selective activation of at least one of the plurality of sectors according to either a first power level or a second power level comprises using data indicative of sufficient electrical power to support CBRS Category B CBSD (Citizens Broadband Service Radio Device) operation to cause activation according to the second power level, the second power at or below a CBRS Category B EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power) limit, but above a CBRS Category A EIRP limit.” [0041] Sevindik
This method of using EIRP taught in Sevindik “to cause activation according to the second power level” [0039] Sevindik, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
FURUICHI teaches, “wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.” -Fig. 16-18; Paragraph [0114, 0290-0300] ([0290] recites, “ In the example in FIG. 16, the communication system 1 (primary system) includes a reception antenna as the radio apparatus 10.sub.2. The radio apparatus 10.sub.2 is, for example, a reception antenna of a satellite ground station. The communication control device 60 of the communication system 2 sets the position of the reception antenna as the protection point, and controls the transmission power of the plurality of base station devices 40 so that the aggregate interference at that point does not exceed the interference margin.” [0299] recites, “FIG. 18 illustrates the interference level given to a predetermined protection point of the communication system 1 by the plurality of base station devices 40 (base station devices 40.sub.7 to 40.sub.11) under the control of the two communication control devices 60. The interference level obtained by subtracting the interference level of the base station device 40 from the total interference level (acceptable interference level as marked accept in Fig. 18) of each of the two communication control devices 60 is the surplus interference margin. In the following description, a surplus interference level is referred to as a surplus interference margin. The surplus interference margin can be rephrased as a surplus interference level.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tronc, Sevindik and FURUICHI before him or her, to modify the invention of Tronc, Sevindik to incorporate the teaching of Furuichi. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve in efficient spectrum use by radio systems (¶ 0107).
As to claim 17:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the optimal tilt for the at least one base station by:
obtaining a current tilt of the at least one base station;
obtaining a maximum tilt of the at least one base station, and
based on the current tilt of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum tilt of the at least one base station, determining to increase the current tilt of the at least one base station by a predetermined tilt step value. [ NOTE : these limitations further limit the unselected option of an alternative limitation ]
As to claim 18:
The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to configure the at least one base station by increasing the current tilt of the at least one base station, and wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain a current NR reference signal received power (RSRP) of the at least one base station; and
based on the current NR RSRP of the at least one base station being greater than or equal to an allowed RSRP, revert the increase of the current tilt of the at least one base station. [ NOTE : these limitations further limit the unselected option of an alternative limitation ]
As to claim 20:
Tronc discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine a cumulative interference level margin corresponding to at least one satellite ground station and at least one base station;
“measurement, by the satellite 20 or the ground station 21, of the aggregated level of interference generated by terrestrial terminals 32 using this uplink frequency channel, called the ‘real interference level’,” [0185] Tronc
determine whether the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to a maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station;
“As illustrated by FIG. 12, … determining whether the real interference level PINTF(Fxu) measured in the uplink frequency channel Fxu in the beam associated with the pilot signal Sx is greater than a first predefined threshold value V1” [0188] Tronc
“When the real interference level is equal to or less than the threshold value V1 (reference 570b)” [0190] Tronc
Tronc does not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determine at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configure the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
However, Sevindik teaches:
based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determine at least one of:
an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and
“the wireless base station apparatus to: determine an available electrical power level; and based at least in part on the determined power level; determine an appropriate EIRP level for the subsequent activation of one or more of the plurality of sectors.” [0041] Sevindik
an optimal tilt for the at least one base station; and
configure the at least one base station based on at least one of the optimal EIRP and the optimal tilt configuration.
“utilizing the obtained data relating to the at least one electrical power supply capability to configure the causing selective activation of at least one of the plurality of sectors according to either a first power level or a second power level comprises using data indicative of sufficient electrical power to support CBRS Category B CBSD (Citizens Broadband Service Radio Device) operation to cause activation according to the second power level, the second power at or below a CBRS Category B EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power) limit, but above a CBRS Category A EIRP limit.” [0041] Sevindik
This method of using EIRP taught in Sevindik “to cause activation according to the second power level” [0039] Sevindik, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.
FURUICHI teaches, “wherein the cumulative interference level margin comprises a difference between the maximum allowed interference margin for the at least one satellite ground station and a cumulative interference of the at least one base station.” -Fig. 16-18; Paragraph [0114, 0290-0300] ([0290] recites, “ In the example in FIG. 16, the communication system 1 (primary system) includes a reception antenna as the radio apparatus 10.sub.2. The radio apparatus 10.sub.2 is, for example, a reception antenna of a satellite ground station. The communication control device 60 of the communication system 2 sets the position of the reception antenna as the protection point, and controls the transmission power of the plurality of base station devices 40 so that the aggregate interference at that point does not exceed the interference margin.” [0299] recites, “FIG. 18 illustrates the interference level given to a predetermined protection point of the communication system 1 by the plurality of base station devices 40 (base station devices 40.sub.7 to 40.sub.11) under the control of the two communication control devices 60. The interference level obtained by subtracting the interference level of the base station device 40 from the total interference level (acceptable interference level as marked accept in Fig. 18) of each of the two communication control devices 60 is the surplus interference margin. In the following description, a surplus interference level is referred to as a surplus interference margin. The surplus interference margin can be rephrased as a surplus interference level.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Tronc, Sevindik and FURUICHI before him or her, to modify the invention of Tronc, Sevindik to incorporate the teaching of Furuichi. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve in efficient spectrum use by radio systems (¶ 0107).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronc et. al US-20140321358-A1 (hereinafter “Tronc”) and Sevindik et al. US-20210337391-A1 (hereinafter “Sevindik”), Furuichi et al (US 2022/0386311 A1) and further in view of FURUICHI et al. US-20190261282-A1 (hereinafter “FURUICHI”)
As to claim 3:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to determining the cumulative interference level margin:
determining whether a number of satellite ground stations within a sector is greater than or equal to 1; and
based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations within the sector is greater than or equal to 1, identifying that the sector is an interference source, wherein
the sector corresponds to a coverage area of the at least one base station.
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to determining the cumulative interference level margin:
determining whether a number of satellite ground stations within a sector is greater than or equal to 1; and
“the communication control device 100 uses the number of finally recognized slave WSDs for the transmission power control performed in consideration of the aggregate interference.” [0094] FURUICHI
based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations within the sector is greater than or equal to 1, identifying that the sector is an interference source, wherein
“in the method of comparing the heights of the two spots of the reference point and the WSD, the WSD for which there is a considerably small possibility of being actually an interference source may be considered for the transmission power control.” [0102] FURUICHI which indicates identifying the interference source
the sector corresponds to a coverage area of the at least one base station.
“in the method of comparing the heights of the two spots of the reference point and the WSD, the WSD for which there is a considerably small possibility of being actually an interference source may be considered for the transmission power control.” [0102] FURUICHI which indicates there is at least one base station
This method of using difference taught in FURUICHI “to decide maximum allowable transmission power of the second wireless system so that an aggregate interference level due to communication of an interference source that can occur at the reference point satisfies an allowable interference level of the first wireless system” [0121] FURUICHI, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the decision as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 13:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, prior to determining the cumulative interference level margin:
determine whether a number of satellite ground stations within a sector is greater than or equal to 1; and
based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations within the sector is greater than or equal to 1, identify that the sector is an interference source, wherein
the sector corresponds to a coverage area of the at least one base station.
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, prior to determining the cumulative interference level margin:
determine whether a number of satellite ground stations within a sector is greater than or equal to 1; and
“the communication control device 100 uses the number of finally recognized slave WSDs for the transmission power control performed in consideration of the aggregate interference.” [0094] FURUICHI
based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations within the sector is greater than or equal to 1, identify that the sector is an interference source, wherein
“in the method of comparing the heights of the two spots of the reference point and the WSD, the WSD for which there is a considerably small possibility of being actually an interference source may be considered for the transmission power control.” [0102] FURUICHI which indicates identifying the interference source
the sector corresponds to a coverage area of the at least one base station.
“in the method of comparing the heights of the two spots of the reference point and the WSD, the WSD for which there is a considerably small possibility of being actually an interference source may be considered for the transmission power control.” [0102] FURUICHI which indicates there is at least one base station
This method of using difference taught in FURUICHI “to decide maximum allowable transmission power of the second wireless system so that an aggregate interference level due to communication of an interference source that can occur at the reference point satisfies an allowable interference level of the first wireless system” [0121] FURUICHI, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the decision as mentioned in this application.
Claims 4-5, 6, 14-15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronc et. al US-20140321358-A1 (hereinafter “Tronc”), Sevindik et al. US-20210337391-A1 (hereinafter “Sevindik”), Furuichi et al (US 2022/0386311 A1), and FURUICHI et al. US-20190261282-A1 (hereinafter “FURUICHI”), and further in view of NIU et al. US-20220312482-A1 (hereinafter “NIU”)
As to claim 4:
Tronc discloses:
The combination of Tronc, Sevindik, and FURUICHI does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 3, further comprising, based on identifying that the sector is an interference source, setting an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined minimum EIRP value.
However, NIU teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising, based on identifying that the sector is an interference source, setting an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined minimum EIRP value.
“The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 5:
Tronc discloses:
The combination of Tronc, Sevindik, and FURUICHI does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 3, further comprising, based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations is less than 1, setting an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined maximum EIRP value.
However, NIU teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising, based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations is less than 1, setting an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined maximum EIRP value.
“The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 6:
Tronc does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
obtaining a currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station;
However, Sevindik teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
obtaining a currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station;
“the wireless base station apparatus to: determine an available electrical power level; and based at least in part on the determined power level; determine an appropriate EIRP level for the subsequent activation of one or more of the plurality of sectors.” [0041] Sevindik
This method of using EIRP taught in Sevindik “to cause activation according to the second power level” [0039] Sevindik, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
obtaining a maximum EIRP of the at least one base station; and
based on the currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum EIRP of the at least one base station, determining to increase the currently configured EIRP by a predetermined EIRP step value.
However, NIU teaches:
obtaining a maximum EIRP of the at least one base station; and
“The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
based on the currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum EIRP of the at least one base station, determining to increase the currently configured EIRP by a predetermined EIRP step value.
“As such, active or passive interference mitigation per step 848 may be used … such as … increase of transmit power” [0209] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 14:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on identifying that the sector is an interference source, set an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined minimum EIRP value.
However, NIU teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on identifying that the sector is an interference source, set an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined minimum EIRP value.
“The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 15:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations is less than 1, set an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined maximum EIRP value.
However, NIU teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, based on determining that the number of satellite ground stations is less than 1, set an EIRP of the sector to a predetermined maximum EIRP value.
“The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 16:
Tronc does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station by:
obtaining a currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station;
However, Sevindik teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station by:
obtaining a currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station;
“the wireless base station apparatus to: determine an available electrical power level; and based at least in part on the determined power level; determine an appropriate EIRP level for the subsequent activation of one or more of the plurality of sectors.” [0041] Sevindik
This method of using EIRP taught in Sevindik “to cause activation according to the second power level” [0039] Sevindik, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
obtaining a maximum EIRP of the at least one base station; and
based on the currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum EIRP of the at least one base station, determining to increase the currently configured EIRP by a predetermined EIRP step value.
However, NIU teaches:
obtaining a maximum EIRP of the at least one base station; and
The device may use one or more formulas to determine the CCA power threshold that should be used during a CCA. These formulas may incorporate and/or use values that are predetermined. For example, these formulas may use values that are set by an interoperability standard. This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU
based on the currently configured EIRP of the at least one base station being less than or equal to the maximum EIRP of the at least one base station, determining to increase the currently configured EIRP by a predetermined EIRP step value.
“As such, active or passive interference mitigation per step 848 may be used … such as … increase of transmit power” [0209] NIU
This method of identifying an interference source taught in NIU because “This may help ensure compatibility/appropriate thresholding within the environment defined by the standard.” [0030] NIU, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure appropriate thresholding as mentioned in this application.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronc et. al US-20140321358-A1 (hereinafter “Tronc”), Sevindik et al. US-20210337391-A1 (hereinafter “Sevindik”), and further in view of MACKENZIE et al. US-20190223024-A1 (hereinafter “MACKENZIE”)
As to claim 9:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one base station comprises a first base station producing a first sector corresponding to a first coverage area of the first base station; and
wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
determining whether the first base station is a non-critical base station; and
based on determining that the first base station is a non-critical base station, determining to reduce a current EIRP of the first base station by a first predetermined EIRP step value.
However, MACKENZIE teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one base station comprises a first base station producing a first sector corresponding to a first coverage area of the first base station; and
wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
determining whether the first base station is a non-critical base station; and
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
based on determining that the first base station is a non-critical base station, determining to reduce a current EIRP of the first base station by a first predetermined EIRP step value.
“the base station taken as the cluster head may update the resource allocation information according to the priority of the other base stations, such as … lowering transmission power of the base stations of relatively low priorities.” [0062] MACKENZIE
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
This method of determining based on priorities taught in MACKENZIE “as the cluster head may update the resource allocation information according to the priority of the other base stations,” [0062] MACKENZIE, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the appropriate base station is selected as mentioned in this application.
As to claim 10:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one base station comprises a second base station producing a second sector corresponding to a second coverage area of the second base station; and
wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
determining whether the second base station is a critical base station; and
based on determining that the second base station is a critical base station, determining to increase a current EIRP of the second base station by a second predetermined step value.
However, MACKENZIE teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one base station comprises a second base station producing a second sector corresponding to a second coverage area of the second base station; and
wherein determining the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station comprises:
determining whether the second base station is a critical base station; and
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
based on determining that the second base station is a critical base station, determining to increase a current EIRP of the second base station by a second predetermined step value.
“as SBS2 has a higher priority, the base station taken as the cluster head … allocates an extra resource for SBS2” [0065] MACKENZIE
This method of determining based on priorities taught in MACKENZIE “as the cluster head may update the resource allocation information according to the priority of the other base stations,” [0062] MACKENZIE, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the appropriate base station is selected as mentioned in this application.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronc et. al US-20140321358-A1 (hereinafter “Tronc”), Sevindik et al. US-20210337391-A1 (hereinafter “Sevindik”), and FURUICHI et al. US-20190261282-A1 (hereinafter “FURUICHI”), and further in view of MACKENZIE et al. US-20190223024-A1 (hereinafter “MACKENZIE”)
As to claim 19:
The combination of Tronc and Sevindik does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one base station comprises:
a first base station producing a first sector corresponding to a first coverage area of the first base station; and
a second base station producing a second sector corresponding to a second coverage area of the second base station, wherein
However, FURUICHI teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the at least one base station comprises:
a first base station producing a first sector corresponding to a first coverage area of the first base station; and
a second base station producing a second sector corresponding to a second coverage area of the second base station, wherein
“the communication control device 100 uses the number of finally recognized slave WSDs for the transmission power control performed in consideration of the aggregate interference.” [0094] FURUICHI
a second base station producing a second sector corresponding to a second coverage area of the second base station, wherein
“in the method of comparing the heights of the two spots of the reference point and the WSD, the WSD for which there is a considerably small possibility of being actually an interference source may be considered for the transmission power control.” [0102] FURUICHI
This method of using difference taught in FURUICHI “to decide maximum allowable transmission power of the second wireless system so that an aggregate interference level due to communication of an interference source that can occur at the reference point satisfies an allowable interference level of the first wireless system” [0121] FURUICHI, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the decision as mentioned in this application.
The combination of Tronc, Sevindik, and FURUICHI does not explicitly teach:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station by:
determining whether the first base station is a non-critical base station;
based on determining that the first base station is a non-critical base station, determining to reduce a current EIRP of the first base station by a first predetermined EIRP step value,
determining whether the second base station is a critical base station; and
based on determining that the second base station is a critical base station, determining to increase a current EIRP of the second base station by a second predetermined step value.
However, MACKENZIE teaches:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the optimal EIRP for the at least one base station by:
determining whether the first base station is a non-critical base station;
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
based on determining that the first base station is a non-critical base station, determining to reduce a current EIRP of the first base station by a first predetermined EIRP step value,
“the base station taken as the cluster head may update the resource allocation information according to the priority of the other base stations, such as … lowering transmission power of the base stations of relatively low priorities.” [0062] MACKENZIE
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
determining whether the second base station is a critical base station; and
“the priorities of the base stations are determined according to a policy of an operator.” [0063] MACKENZIE
based on determining that the second base station is a critical base station, determining to increase a current EIRP of the second base station by a second predetermined step value.
“as SBS2 has a higher priority, the base station taken as the cluster head … allocates an extra resource for SBS2” [0065] MACKENZIE
This method of determining based on priorities taught in MACKENZIE “as the cluster head may update the resource allocation information according to the priority of the other base stations,” [0062] MACKENZIE, which is an improvement on the method taught in Tronc as mentioned above. This appears to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious combination, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the appropriate base station is selected as mentioned in this application.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Also, arguments submitted are moot in view of the new ground rejection. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The applicant argues that the Office Action has misidentified the following feature of the independent claims as alternative conditions:
...based on determining that the cumulative interference level margin is
less than or equal to the maximum allowed interference margin, determining at least one of: an optimal equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) for the at least one base station; and an optimal tilt for the at least one base station. The applicant argued that the Examiner has not examined the optimal tilt feature. Specifically, Examiner has not examined claims 7 and 8 because the Examiner alleges that these correspond to alternative limitations. Claims 7 and 8 modify the condition of "an optimal tilt for the at least one base station," while the Office Action only identifies the EIRP metric in claim 1 to reject claim 1. While the Examiner may select either the optimal EIRP (metric A) or the optimal tilt (metric B) to reject claim 1 since claim 1 recites "at least one" of these metrics, claim 1 is not in alternative format. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite determining "metric A" or "metric B". Claim 1 recites determining at least one of "metric A" and "metric B."11 If claim 7 modifies metric B, metric B must be examined because determining metric A is not mutually exclusive to determining metric B in claim 1
In response. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. First, claim 1, specifically the feature argued above, contain the phrase at least one of : . With that being said, The phrase “at least one of: [A] and [B]” in claim 1 is interpreted according to established USPTO policy and case law (see MPEP 2111.03; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) to mean “A, B, or both A and B.” Thus, the examiner needs to map only of A, or B, or both A and B. Therefore, with regards to the limitation argued above, the examiner needs to map only one of the features: (A) (EIRP) or (B) optimal tilt, Or both (A and B) EIRP and optimal tilt. In the previous action, the action selected to reject and map the EIRP feature. Since Claims 7 and 8 further limits only the optimal tilt feature that was not selected for examination, The dependent claim does not further limit the subject matter actually rejected, so the rejection of the independent claim is sufficient to reject the dependent claim as well. .
All the other arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejection
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 KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights