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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed on October 01, 2025 for the application filed November 11, 2022. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 21-22 have been newly canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-19 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueck et al. (US2022/0110132A1) in view of Erceg et al. (US2022/0295490A1), and further in view of Parikh et al. (US2019/0124584A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mueck teaches a method comprising: grouping a plurality of access points based on a proximity of the plurality of access points to each other (Paragraph [0058]: As shown in FIG. 3, the network infrastructure 300 may be associated with two census tracts 320 and 330 (e.g., census tracts “A” and “B”). The census tracts 320 and 330 may cover neighboring geographic areas that including at least one corresponding boarder, such as boarder 310. In some situations, spectrum may be allocated to two different (e.g., non-cooperating) entities associated with each census tract independently of each other. For example, entity MNO 325 may be allocated spectrum to provide to the infrastructure nodes (e.g. eNBs 1, 3 and AP 2) of census tract A 320 and entity MNO 335 may be allocated spectrum to provide to the infrastructure nodes ( e.g. APs 4, 6 and eNB 5) of census tract B 330. One issue of sharing spectrum is that MNO 325 in census tract A 320 can be negatively impacted by interference from MNO 335 in neighboring census tract B 330 and vice versa. Paragraph [0066]: For example, the neighboring infrastructure components that are considered to be relevant for interference cases are those located in a geographic proximity to the concerned infrastructure component. Paragraph [0076]: FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating another view 400 of components and communication in the network infrastructure 300 of FIG. 3. In this example, instead of deriving the interference metric between specific CBSDs/BS/eNB/AP/etc., several CBSDs/BS/eNB/AP/etc. may be grouped together. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, groups 401-406 include an eNB and two APs, although other groupings of infrastructure components are possible. The grouping of the individual components may be based on proximity of the group components to each other.)
determining, based on automated frequency coordination reports for each of the plurality of access points, a first frequency band in which a threshold number of the plurality of access points are prevented from operating or are limited to operating at a first power that is lower than a maximum allowed standard power (Paragraph [0012]: Techniques to enable Spectrum Access System (SAS) interference mitigation options are disclosed herein. The SAS may govern and manage access to radio frequency bands of electromagnetic spectrum also referred to as spectrum. Paragraph [0054]: The infrastructure components of system 200 provide the determined interference metric values to a target or aggregator node. For example, this target/aggregator node can be a SAS component, such as SAS_2 220, a master infrastructure component 229 (such as a (pre-defined) BS, eNB, AP, etc.). In some embodiments, the SAS component, such as SAS_2 220 may be comprised in a master infrastructure component 229, such as an eNB. In embodiments, the target node may use the interference metrics together with any other available information (such as geographic location of target infrastructure components, preferred/available/possible output transmission power levels (intervals), available frequency bands, available bandwidths, etc.) in order to derive an optimum parameterization of the entire LTE network. For example, the optimum parameterization may comprise the usage of suitable target (shared) frequency bands and related maximum output transmission power levels. In some situations, the hands and the output power levels are chosen over the entire network such that the level of interference on each of the components (the interference onto incumbents as well as onto SAS components themselves) is as low as possible. This is, for example, accomplished by central allocation of frequencies & maximum output power levels upon request by the concerned nodes. For this purpose, the target node may use the interference metrics to determine network bandwidth configuration settings (e.g., network bandwidth, channel allocation, maximum output power levels, etc.) in a particular frequency band to be used by each infrastructure component to access (e.g., transmit/receive) data in the LTE network upon request for access by a network node such as a SAS LTE BS. Paragraph [0072]: Once the frequencies are allocated, if any of the CBSDs report high levels of interference, mitigation schemes may be adopted that switch the frequencies and redo the map so interference metrics are maintained. For example, the SAS spectrum band allocation may be changed among the requesting Base Stations such that the frequency map indicating, for example, which Base Station has which SAS channel allocation, is modified in order to improve the interference levels observed by some/all Base Stations. In some embodiments, the SAS may also adjust the power levels of the CBSDs without changing the frequencies to maintain interference thresholds. Paragraph [0073]: In some embodiments, the SAS may initially adjust the power levels without redoing the frequency map. For example, in case that a system observes a lot of interference in one SAS hand (e.g., 3.500-3.510 GHz), then the system looks for all neighboring Base Stations which use the same frequency band. Most likely interferers are identified among those neighboring systems and corresponding maximum output power levels are reduced. If the power reduction communication is infeasible, then the SAS may switch the frequencies and redo the map. For example, the SAS spectrum band allocation may be changed among the requesting Base Stations such that the frequency map indicating, for example, which Base Station has which SAS channel allocation, is modified in order to improve the interference levels observed by some/all Base Stations. Paragraph [0074]: For example, for any specific interfered device operating in a specific frequency hand (e.g., 3.500-3.510 GHz), the SAS Controller identifies neighboring BS s operating in the same band. Then, the SAS may modify spectrum allocations and/or maximum output power levels for the BS s such that the interference level at the observed interfered nodes (and possibly (all) other nodes) is minimized.)
Mueck does not explicitly teach determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density, instructing the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, instructing a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instructing the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instructing a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band (Paragraph [0021]: In some implementations, a wireless device uses the spectrum usage data to conduct transmissions in a frequency band near a licensed band using a spectrum puncturing technique. In some such implementations, the wireless device determines a licensed entity licensed to transmit in a particular sub-band of a frequency band in an area including the location of the wireless device. The wireless device disables transmissions over the particular sub-band and conducts transmissions over portions of the frequency band proximate/adjacent to the licensed sub-band. This allows the wireless device to still utilize the overall frequency band without impermissibly interfering with the transmissions of the licensed entity on the licensed sub-band. Paragraph [0022]: In some implementations, a wireless device additionally, or alternatively, modifies a transmission power of transmissions of the wireless device in or adjacent to the licensed sub-band. The wireless device can utilize spectrum usage data from the database to estimate a transmission power that would result in interference at an intended receiver of the licensed entity of less than a threshold interference level. In some implementations, the database may specify the threshold level and/or provide transmission parameters (e.g., power levels) that wireless devices operating in the geographic area are required to use. Paragraph [0027]: In some implementations, the spectrum usage data indicates a list of incumbent services provided by the one or more licensed entities of the second communication system within an area including the location of the communication device across one or more sub-bands of frequencies within a frequency band. In some implementations, the spectrum usage data indicates transmission power associated with each of the one or more incumbent services. In some implementations, the spectrum usage data includes a positive list indicating one or more sub-bands of frequencies that can be used for transmission in the area and a negative list indicating one or more sub-bands of frequencies that cannot be used for transmission in the area, or cannot be used without taking measures to ensure that the transmissions of the licensed entities are not degraded due to an impermissible level of interference from unlicensed devices. Paragraph [0028]: For example, for a particular frequency band, the communication device may determine a first sub-band of frequencies on which the licensed entities are licensed to operate and a second sub-band of frequencies that are unlicensed, and the communication device may conduct transmissions only on part or all of the second sub-band. In some embodiments, the communication device may evaluate a spectral separation between a portion of the second sub-band adjacent to the first sub-band to determine whether the spectral separation is sufficient to avoid impermissible interference on the first sub-band if transmissions are performed on the adjacent portion of the second sub-band. Paragraph [0029]: The communication device determines a modified transmission power for transmission on the determined one or more sub-bands of frequencies to reduce interference with the one or more licensed entities of the second communication system. The communication device conducts transmission on the determined one or more sub-bands of frequencies at the modified transmission power. In some implementations, the communication device also conducts transmission on one or more sub-bands of frequencies that are adjacent to the determined sub-bands of frequencies at the modified transmission power. Paragraph [0045]: At operation 303, the wireless device receives spectrum usage data from the spectrum access system. The spectrum access system includes a database used to store the data. The received spectrum usage data is associated with wireless transmissions at an area including the location of the wireless device. The spectrum usage data indicates a licensed entity licensed within the area to communicate across a first sub-band of frequencies within the frequency band. Paragraph [0046]: At operation 305, the first set of one or more of the plurality of channels is determined by including channels that contains the first sub-band of frequencies over which the licensed entity is licensed to communicate. Paragraph [0047]: At operation 307, the second set of one or more of the plurality of channels is determined by excluding channels from the first set of one or more of the plurality of channels. The second set of one or more of the plurality of channels does not overlap with the first set of one or more of the plurality of channels and does not include the first sub-band of licensed frequencies. In some implementations, the wireless device “punctures” the frequency band by determining one or more channels below the first set channels and one or more channels above the first set of channels to include in the second set of channels over which transmissions are conducted. Paragraph [0049]: At operation 309, the wireless device conducts wireless transmissions on the second set of channels and disables wireless transmissions on the first set of channels. Paragraph [0058]: At operation 507, the wireless device determines a modified transmission power for conducting transmissions using the spectrum usage data. In some implementations, the modified transmission power is lower than a transmission power on other channels that do not include the first set of channels or is lower than a power at which the wireless device would typically transmit signals in the absence of the present interference mitigation features. The modified transmission power is determined using transmission information of the spectrum usage data, which indicates characteristics of the licensed entity transmissions, such as a source of the transmissions and/or a transmission power at which the licensed entity conducts transmission. The modified transmission power is lower than the transmission power of the licensed entity, in some implementations. The modified transmission power is determined based at least in part on a predicted or estimated level of interference caused at a receiver of the transmissions of the licensed entity due to the wireless transmission of the wireless device. Paragraph [0059]: At operation 509, the wireless device conducts wireless transmissions on the first set of channels and/or on one or more channels adjacent the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some implementations, the wireless device disables transmission on the first set of channels and conducts transmissions on one or more channels that are adjacent to the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some embodiments, the transmissions on the channels that do not include the first set of channels can be conducted at a transmission power that is higher than the modified transmission power. For example, in wireless transmission protocols that allow for communication with different receiver devices at different transmission parameters within a frequency band, communication with devices in a portion of the band adjacent the licensed sub-band can be done at the modified transmission power, and communication with devices in a portion of the band distal from the licensed sub-band can be done at a higher transmission power. Paragraph [0063]: The wireless device determines a modified transmission power for the device to conduct transmissions on the first set of channels (e.g., channels 601 and 603) and/or on the adjacent channels (channels 605 and/or 607). The modified transmission power is lower than a transmission power on other channels that do not include the first set of channels. In some implementations, the modified transmission power is determined using transmission information of the spectrum usage data, which indicates a transmission power at which the licensed entity conducts transmission. The modified transmission power is lower than the transmission power of the licensed entity.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instructing the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic ,instructing a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the wireless systems are able to coexist by sharing the spectrum, and increase the communication throughput. By conducting transmissions over a portion of the frequency band based on the spectrum usage data, or conducting transmissions in the frequency band at a lower transmission power based on estimating a transmission power that causes interference within a threshold level, the wireless device/system can share the frequency band with a second communication system without interfering with any incumbent services provided by the second communication system (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0021], [0022], [0027], [0028]).
The combination of Mueck and Erceg does not explicitly teach determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density
However, Parikh teaches determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density (Abstract: The WLAN density is managed to limit how many APs can utilize a first portion of a first frequency band in a geographical area. A limit of APs may be based on an estimated amount of interference that would be caused by the APs to an incumbent system that also uses the first portion of the frequency band. Paragraph [0045]: The WLAN density control can limit a quantity of APs that utilize the portion of the frequency band to prevent or mitigate interference caused to the incumbent system by the APs. Paragraph [0054]: As described in FIGS. 4 and 5, the first AP 110 may determine a limit of APs (coexisting in a geographical area) that can utilize a channel. Paragraph [0055]: Thus, the WLAN density control may be based on cumulative interference level or may be based on a comparison of the existing quantity of APs and the limit. Paragraph [0070]: At block 530, the first AP may manage a configuration of the first AP based on a comparison of the quantity of existing APs and the limit. For example, if the quantity of existing APs is equal to or more than the limit, the first AP may modify a power level, channel selection, or frequency band used for a first AP coverage area. Paragraph [0071]: For example, the first AP 610 may measure interference caused by neighboring APs and may determine a quantity of APs operating at different portions of the frequency band. Paragraph [0072]: In some implementations, the APs may exchange WLAN density control information. For example, the APs may share interference measurements regarding at least the first portion of the first frequency band or identification of existing APs in the geographical area. Shown at arrows 650, the first AP 610 may receive WLAN density control information from the other APs 620 and 630. Paragraph [0074]: At process 670, the first AP 610 may determine whether to perform an interference prevention or mitigation technique. For example, the first AP 610 may determine to reduce the WLAN density at the first portion of the frequency band that is being used by an incumbent system. Paragraph [0076]: In some implementations, the first AP may determine a medium utilization per channel based on metrics such as RSSI, quantity of active transmitters on the channel, proximity of other nearby APs utilizing the channel, or other metrics for quantifying WLAN density per channel. In some other implementations, the first AP may utilize a pre-determined set of parameters. For example, the pre-determined set of parameters may include a limit, such as a limit for a quantity of APs in the area, a limit regarding client connections per channel, a limit regarding transmit power, or any combination thereof. Paragraph [0077]: At block 720, the first AP may refrain from establishing the first AP coverage area utilizing the first portion of the first frequency band.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, as taught by Parikh in the combined system of Mueck and Erceg, in order to limit how many APs can utilize a portion of a frequency band in a geographical area while mitigating interference and ensuring that if the quantity of existing APs is more than the limit, the power level can be modified accordingly (Parikh: Paragraphs [0045], [0054], [0070], [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the method of Claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1);
Mueck does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructing the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches determining a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructing the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band (Paragraph [0059]: At operation 509, the wireless device conducts wireless transmissions on the first set of channels and/or on one or more channels adjacent the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some implementations, the wireless device disables transmission on the first set of channels and conducts transmissions on one or more channels that are adjacent to the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some embodiments, the transmissions on the channels that do not include the first set of channels can be conducted at a transmission power that is higher than the modified transmission power. For example, in wireless transmission protocols that allow for communication with different receiver devices at different transmission parameters within a frequency band, communication with devices in a portion of the band adjacent the licensed sub-band can be done at the modified transmission power, and communication with devices in a portion of the band distal from the licensed sub-band can be done at a higher transmission power.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructing the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the device can conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band that is spectrally separated, and thus improve communication throughput and maintain coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the method of Claim 2 (see rejection for claim 2);
Mueck does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band (Paragraph [0022]: In some implementations, a wireless device additionally, or alternatively, modifies a transmission power of transmissions of the wireless device in or adjacent to the licensed sub-band. The wireless device can utilize spectrum usage data from the database to estimate a transmission power that would result in interference at an intended receiver of the licensed entity of less than a threshold interference level. In some implementations, the database may specify the threshold level and/or provide transmission parameters (e.g., power levels) that wireless devices operating in the geographic area are required to use. Paragraph [0056]: At operation 503, the wireless device receives spectrum usage data from the spectrum access system. The spectrum access system includes a database used to store the data. The received spectrum usage data is associated with wireless transmissions at an area including the location of the wireless device. The spectrum usage data indicates a licensed entity licensed within the area to communicate across a first sub-band of frequencies within the frequency band. Paragraph [0058]: At operation 507, the wireless device determines a modified transmission power for conducting transmissions using the spectrum usage data. In some implementations, the modified transmission power is lower than a transmission power on other channels that do not include the first set of channels or is lower than a power at which the wireless device would typically transmit signals in the absence of the present interference mitigation features. The modified transmission power is determined using transmission information of the spectrum usage data, which indicates characteristics of the licensed entity transmissions, such as a source of the transmissions and/or a transmission power at which the licensed entity conducts transmission. The modified transmission power is lower than the transmission power of the licensed entity, in some implementations. The modified transmission power is determined based at least in part on a predicted or estimated level of interference caused at a receiver of the transmissions of the licensed entity due to the wireless transmission of the wireless device. In some implementations, the predicted or estimated level of interference may be calculated using one or more mathematical models and may be based on parameters such as the relative geographic locations of the wireless device in relation to the source and/or receiver of the transmissions, a power spectral density over distance of the licensed entity transmissions, a directionality of the licensed transmissions, a channelization of the licensed transmissions, and antenna gain of the licensed transmitting devices, etc. Paragraph [0059]: At operation 509, the wireless device conducts wireless transmissions on the first set of channels and/or on one or more channels adjacent the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some implementations, the wireless device disables transmission on the first set of channels and conducts transmissions on one or more channels that are adjacent to the first set of channels at the modified transmission power. In some embodiments, the transmissions on the channels that do not include the first set of channels can be conducted at a transmission power that is higher than the modified transmission power. For example, in wireless transmission protocols that allow for communication with different receiver devices at different transmission parameters within a frequency band, communication with devices in a portion of the band adjacent the licensed sub-band can be done at the modified transmission power, and communication with devices in a portion of the band distal from the licensed sub-band can be done at a higher transmission power.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck so that the transmission power level determined from channel usage and interference levels, can be used to conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band, and thus improve communication throughput while maintaining spectral coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0058], [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the method of Claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1);
Mueck does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors.
However, Erceg teaches wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors (Paragraph [0080]: In some implementations, a device may request update of allowed channels after a defined period or when it believes it is no longer in an allowed zone, but this is insufficient for cases where transmissions are allowed indoors only (e.g. to ensure additional mitigation from indoor/outdoor penetration loss to other systems that are outdoors). Paragraph [0081]: In some implementations, the SAS 100 includes information indicating an exact indoor/outdoor boundary (e.g., boundary coordinates of a building). In some implementations, the corresponding coordinates are provided to a dependent device as part of an enablement response. In some implementations, the dependent device is obliged to measure its location at a cadence and accuracy which are also defined in the enablement response. For example, when the dependent device measures its location to be outside of an indoor boundary, and/or with insufficient accuracy, it stops transmitting on the corresponding spectrum until it confirms its location is within the boundary again.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that additional mitigation due to penetration loss to outdoor systems can be reduced (Erceg: Paragraphs [0080], [0081]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the method of Claim 1 further comprising (see rejection for claim 1);
Mueck further teaches instructing a second subset of the plurality of access points to refrain from operating in the first frequency band if the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be dynamic (Paragraph [0075]: If the SAS is aware of the exact transmitting powers of all the CBSDs, then the SAS may reduce the power levels of the ones with the highest Tx powers that are close to the impacted area. If the SAS is unaware of the exact power levels that the CBSDs are using, then, the SAS may move x CBSDs to a different channel where x is a percentage of existing CBSDs that is proportional to the percentage of power level reduction needed, and cut the power levels of CBSDs proportional to the percentage of reduction in interference power levels and inversely proportional to the distance squared (or to the power of the path loss coefficient) from the impacted area. In addition, the infrastructure nodes may also track the duration that interference is above a given threshold (say Ith) and the reduction in power levels can be done proportional to Time (Ith)/(Time(Ith)+Time(<Ith))).
Regarding claim 9, Mueck teaches an apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: (Abstract: Various embodiments to enable Spectrum Access System (SAS) interference mitigation options are disclosed herein. In one embodiment, an apparatus is provided. The apparatus includes a memory to store a data sequence, and one or more processing devices coupled to the memory.)
group a plurality of access points based on a proximity of the plurality of access points to each other; determine, based on automated frequency coordination reports for each of the plurality of access points, a first frequency band in which a threshold number of the plurality of access points are prevented from operating or are limited to operating at a first power that is lower than a maximum allowed standard power (see rejection for claim 1);
Mueck does not explicitly teach to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the wireless systems are able to coexist by sharing the spectrum, and increase the communication throughput. By conducting transmissions over a portion of the frequency band based on the spectrum usage data, or conducting transmissions in the frequency band at a lower transmission power based on estimating a transmission power that causes interference within a threshold level, the wireless device/system can share the frequency band with a second communication system without interfering with any incumbent services provided by the second communication system (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0021], [0022], 0027], [0028]).
The combination of Mueck and Erceg does not explicitly teach to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density.
However, Parikh teaches to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, as taught by Parikh in the combined system of Mueck and Erceg, in order to limit how many APs can utilize a portion of a frequency band in a geographical area while mitigating interference and ensuring that if the quantity of existing APs is more than the limit, the power level can be modified accordingly (Parikh: Paragraphs [0045], [0054], [0070], [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh the apparatus of Claim 9 wherein the processor is further configured to (see rejection for claim 9);
Mueck does not explicitly teach to determine a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instruct the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches to determine a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instruct the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band (see rejection for claim 2);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a second frequency band in which the plurality of access points are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instruct the plurality of access points to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the device can conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band that is spectrally separated, and thus improve communication throughput and maintain coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the apparatus of Claim 10 (see rejection for claim 10);
Mueck does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band (see rejection for claim 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein determining whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck so that the transmission power level determined from channel usage and interference levels, can be used to conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band, and thus improve communication throughput while maintaining spectral coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0058], [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the apparatus of Claim 9 (see rejection for claim 9);
Mueck does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors.
However, Erceg teaches wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors (see rejection for claim 7);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of access points are installed indoors, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that additional mitigation due to penetration loss to outdoor systems can be reduced (Erceg: Paragraphs [0080], [0081]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the apparatus of Claim 9, further comprising (see rejection for claim 9);
Mueck further teaches instructing a second subset of the plurality of access points to refrain from operating in the first frequency band if the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be dynamic (see rejection for claim 8).
Regarding claim 17, Mueck teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (Paragraph [0021]: The application circuitry 102 may further include memory/storage device 102 g. The memory/storage device 102 g may be used to load and store data (e.g., data sequences) and/or instructions for operations performed by the one or more application processors of the application circuitry 102. The memory/storage device 102 g may include a non-transitory machine-accessible storage medium on which is stored software implementing any one or more of the methodologies of functions described herein.);
assign a plurality of access points installed in a space to a group based on a proximity of the plurality of access points to each other in the space and based on whether the plurality of access points support multi-resource unit operation (Paragraph [0018]: FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating example components of an electronic device 100. In embodiments, the electronic device 100 may be, implement, be incorporated into, or otherwise be a part of a user equipment (UE), an evolved NodeB (eNB), an infrastructure node, an aggregation node, or one or more elements of a SAS. Paragraph [0022]: For example, in some embodiments, the baseband circuitry 104 may include a second generation (2G) baseband processor 104 a, third generation (3G) baseband processor 104 b, fourth generation (4G) baseband processor 104 c, and/or other baseband processor(s) 104 d for other existing generations, generations in development or to be developed in the future (e.g., fifth generation (5G), 6G, etc.). Also see rejection for claim 1);
determine, based on automated frequency coordination reports for each access point of the group, a first frequency band in which a threshold number of the access points of the group are prevented from operating or are limited to operating at a first power that is lower than a maximum allowed standard power (see rejection for claim 1);
Mueck does not explicitly teach to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instruct the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; and responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instruct a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the wireless systems are able to coexist by sharing the spectrum, and increase the communication throughput. By conducting transmissions over a portion of the frequency band based on the spectrum usage data, or conducting transmissions in the frequency band at a lower transmission power based on estimating a transmission power that causes interference within a threshold level, the wireless device/system can share the frequency band with a second communication system without interfering with any incumbent services provided by the second communication system (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0021], [0022], 0027], [0028]).
The combination of Mueck and Erceg does not explicitly teach to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density.
However, Parikh teaches to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density (see rejection for claim 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density; determining the power cutoff in the first frequency based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, as taught by Parikh in the combined system of Mueck and Erceg, in order to limit how many APs can utilize a portion of a frequency band in a geographical area while mitigating interference and ensuring that if the quantity of existing APs is more than the limit, the power level can be modified accordingly (Parikh: Paragraphs [0045], [0054], [0070], [0071]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the medium of Claim 17, wherein the processor further (see rejection for claim 17);
Mueck does not explicitly teach to determine a second frequency band in which the access points of the group are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructs the access points of the group to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches to determine a second frequency band in which the access points of the group are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructs the access points of the group to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band (see rejection for claim 2);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a second frequency band in which the access points of the group are allowed to operate at the maximum allowed standard power; and instructs the access points of the group to operate at the maximum allowed standard power in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck, so that the device can conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band that is spectrally separated, and thus improve communication throughput and maintain coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches the medium of Claim 18 (see rejection for claim 18);
Mueck does not explicitly teach wherein whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band.
However, Erceg teaches wherein whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band (see rejection for claim 3);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein whether the power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic is based at least in part upon an interference level or a channel usage in the second frequency band, as taught by Erceg in the system of Mueck so that the transmission power level determined from channel usage and interference levels, can be used to conduct wireless transmissions in the second frequency band, and thus improve communication throughput while maintaining spectral coexistence (Erceg: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0058], [0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 01, 2025 with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Mueck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0110132A1), in view of Erceg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0295490A1), and further in view of MacMullan (US20180242165A1) have been fully considered.
Amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite among other features, “determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static based on the spatial density of the access points beinq below a threshold spatial density, instructing the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic based on the spatial density of the access points exceeding the threshold spatial density, instructing a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band.” Erceg teaches determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be static or dynamic; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be static, instructing the plurality of access points to use a portion of the first frequency band; responsive to determining the power cutoff in the first frequency should be dynamic, instructing a first subset of the plurality of access points to operate at the first power in the first frequency band. Erceg teaches modifying a transmission power of the wireless devices in or adjacent to the licensed sub-band, by estimating a transmission power that would result in interference at an intended receiver of the licensed entity of less than a threshold interference level [Para. 0022]. The modified transmission power is lower than a transmission power on other channels that do not include the first set of channels or is lower than a power at which the wireless device would typically transmit signals [Para. 0058]. Parikh et al. (US2019/0124584A1) teaches “determining whether power cutoff in the first frequency band should be based, at least in part, upon a spatial density of the access points.” Parikh teaches that the WLAN density is managed to determine how many APs can utilize a portion of a frequency band in a geographical area, by determining a limit of APs coexisting in a geographical area [Para. 0054]. If the number of existing APs is more than the limit, the power level in the frequency band is modified [Para. 0070]. Parikh teaches that determining that the number of APs being more than a limit can be used to determine power levels in portions of the frequency bands. Thus, Parikh teaches limiting how many APs can utilize a portion of a frequency band in a geographical area while mitigating interference and ensuring that if the quantity of existing APs is more than the limit, the power level can be modified accordingly Thus, the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh teaches amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16, 18-19 are also taught by the combination of Mueck, Erceg, and Parikh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATHA CHAKRAVARTHY whose telephone number is (703)756-1172. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 AM - 5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461