DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 7/13/2026. Claims 2, 4 and 8-10 have been
cancelled. Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended. New claims 21-25 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 11-25 remain pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e),
was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 10-18), filed on 7/13/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of
claims 1, 14, and 18 have been fully considered but are moot because new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (KHOSHNEVISAN et al.) are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 16-18, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in lines 10-11, “the second set of signals” should be replaced by “a second set of signals”.
Claim 1, in line 14, “a second set of signals” should be replaced by “the second set of signals”.
Claim 3, in line 3, “a third set of signals” should be replaced by “a third set of signals”.
Claim 11, in line 2, “at least in part on a report” should be replaced by “at least in part on the report”.
Claim 11, in line 3, “from a UE” should be replaced by “from the UE”.
Claim 11, in line 5, “a predetermined threshold” should be replaced by “the predetermined threshold”.
Claim 13, in line 2, “at least in part on a report” should be replaced by “at least in part on the report”.
Claim 13, in line 3, “from a UE” should be replaced by “from the UE”.
Claim 16, in line 3, “key performance indicators (KPIs)” should be replaced by “KPIs”.
Claim 16, in line 3, “a predetermined threshold” should be replaced by “the predetermined threshold”.
Claim 16, in line 4, “a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)” should be replaced by “the RSRQ”.
Claim 16, in lines 4-5, “a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)” should be replaced by “the SINR”.
Claim 17, in line 3, “key performance indicators (KPIs)” should be replaced by “KPIs”.
Claim 17, in line 5, “a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)” should be replaced by “the RSRQ”.
Claim 17, in line 6, “a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)” should be replaced by “the SINR”.
Claim 18, in line 9, “the satellite RAN” should be replaced by “a satellite radio access network (RAN)”.
Claim 18, in line 10, “the terrestrial RAN” should be replaced by “a terrestrial RAN”.
Claim 21, in line 1, “the degradation” should be replaced by “a degradation”.
Claim 22, in line 1, “an RSRQ” should be replaced by “a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
(or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12-15, 18-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
SINGH (US 2021/0167820 Al, hereinafter “Singh”), in view of KHOSHNEVISAN et al. (US 2016/0337047 Al, hereinafter “Khoshnesan”) , in view of Sohi et al. (US 2024/0204863 Al, hereinafter “Sohi”), and in further view of Aman Khan (Dynamic Fencing for Interference Mitigation in Integrated Satellite-Terrestrial Networks", 2022 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED NETWORKS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS (ANTS), IEEE, 18 December 2022 (2022-12-18), pages 435-440, hereinafter “Aman”).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses:
A system for mitigating co-channel interference of a satellite link, the system comprising (The first terrestrial frequency may be used as a first satellite uplink frequency. mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0010], [0041]):
a base station of a terrestrial radio access network (RAN) configured to wirelessly communicate a first set of signals to a first coverage area using a first frequency band (The first transmissions in the first base station subsector may be assigned to a first terrestrial frequency. first base station subsector associated with a first terrestrial BWA base station that may be in a first geographical area, Singh: [0010]); and
one or more computer processing components configured to perform operations comprising (computer readable program code therein that when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform operations, Singh: [0016]):
wherein the satellite is configured to wirelessly communicate a second set of signals to a second coverage area using the first frequency band (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. the first geographical area may include a first plurality of terrestrial BWA base stations including the first terrestrial BWA base station. The MSS user equipment may be located inside a geographical area serviced by satellite. base station controller associated with BWA base station may assign MSS uplink shared spectrum to the most down tilted base station sub sector. A group of BWA base stations in a cluster such as in a geographic area may transmit signals to BWA UEs using one or more frequencies shared with the MSS system's satellite uplink, Singh: [0027], [0032], [0038]),
wherein the first set of signals and the second set of signals are within a predetermined threshold frequency range of each other (a frequency band for which the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite may be below a threshold, Singh: [0009], [0038]-[0040]);
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with a satellite based at least in part on a report from a user equipment (UE) wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the second set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold,
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR),
determining that the satellite is communicating the second set of signals to the second coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the second coverage area during a second time period; and
based on said determinations, instructing the base station to: not communicate the first set of signals during the first time period; and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period,
wherein the instructing the base station is performed based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnesan teaches:
determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with a satellite based at least in part on a report from a user equipment (UE) wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the second set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold (A strong LTE signal may interfere with a satellite-based positioning system signal in a nearby frequency band, especially when the LTE device is in relatively close physical proximity (e.g., less than 10 meters). Co-existence interference may refer to interference caused by LTE or other wireless signals on a nearby satellite-based positioning system ( e.g., GNSS) device. The apparatus may further include means for performing transmission power management of the small cell based on the signal strength of the satellite based positioning system signal, Khoshnesan: Fig. 4, [0024]-[0028], [0038], [0088]),
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (determining the strength of the received signal (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI)), an interference estimation component that determines whether a transmission satisfying the threshold transmission power is likely to affect a second device. The interference estimation module may include the interference estimation component. The interference estimation module may receive the satellite signal strength from the reception module and a threshold power from the threshold module, Khoshnesan: [0038], [0080]),
PNG
media_image1.png
371
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh in view of Khoshnesan in order to further modify determining the base station is causing co-channel interference with a satellite based at least in part on a report from a user equipment (UE) wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the second set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold and the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)from the teachings of Khoshnesan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because an LTE device may mitigate coexistence interference by controlling the transmission properties of the LTE device (Khoshnesan: [0024]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesan do not explicitly disclose:
determining that the satellite is communicating the second set of signals to the second coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the second coverage area during a second time period; and
based on said determinations, instructing the base station to: not communicate the first set of signals during the first time period; and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period,
wherein the instructing the base station is performed based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sohi teaches:
determining that the satellite is communicating the second set of signals to the second coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the second coverage area during a second time period (separate geographic regions may be served by separate satellites, that a single satellite may serve multiple geographic regions, and/or that multiple satellites may serve a single geographic region (e.g., where the satellites are not geosynchronous, so they serve a region at different times). The regions and/or assignment of bands may be static over a time period, continuously, or may be dynamically assigned or reassigned periodically, continuously, etc. the scheduler 108 may determine one or more spectrum blanking ranges for wireless client devices 106 communicatively coupled with a ground node(s) 116 (e.g., a cell tower(s), cellular antenna(s)) for a cell. For instance, the spectrum blanking range(s) may restrict wireless frequencies, bands, or channels in the one or more spectrum blanking ranges from being assigned to a wireless client device 106, for example, by a ground node(s) 116, Sohi: Fig. 9, [0031], [0106], [0119]-[0140]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and Khoshnesan in view of Sohi in order to further modify determining that the satellite is communicating the second set of signals to the second coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the second coverage area during a second time period, and instructing the base station to communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period from the teachings of Sohi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may improve network quality for one or both of the terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks while allowing their coexistence and maximizing spectrum efficiency (Sohi: [0007]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesan and Sohi do not explicitly disclose:
based on said determinations, instructing the base station to: not communicate the first set of signals during the first time period; and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period,
wherein the instructing the base station is performed based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aman teaches:
not communicate the first set of signals during the first time period (To overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users and vice versa, this paper introduces a Dynamic Fencing mechanism. The mechanism consists of a repetition interval which is further divided into 3 sub-intervals, Aman: Sec. IV); and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period (the satellite is muted for the entire duration of the subinterval while the terrestrial base station serves its users, Aman: Sec. IV),
wherein the instructing the base station is performed based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station (the satellite UEs outside the dynamic fence will be served while the satellite UEs within the dynamic fence are victims. when the radius is varied and the fairness is calculated, the fraction of satellite UEs getting served decreases with an increase in radius as there will be lesser satellile UEs outside a larger radius. Aman: Sec. IV.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi in view of Aman in order to further modify not communicating the first set of signals during the first time period, and communicating a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period, and the instructing the base station is performed based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station from the teachings of Aman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users (Aman: Sec. IV).
Regarding claim 3, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the one or more co-channel interference mitigation procedures comprises (mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0041])
communicating an instruction to the base station to communicate a third set of signals to the first coverage area using a second frequency band, the second frequency band being different than the first frequency band (adjusting terrestrial BWA communication on a satellite uplink frequency that corresponds to the satellite downlink frequency, Singh: [0015], [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the one or more co-channel interference mitigation procedures comprises (mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0041])
reducing an amount of power used by the base station to transmit the first set of signals from a first transmission power to a second transmission power (reducing transmit power in the first base station sub sector from the first terrestrial BWA base station to first BWA UEs below a satellite interference threshold power, Singh: [0037]),
the second transmission power being less than the first transmission power, and wherein transmitting the first set of signals using the second transmission power reduces a size of the first coverage area (Reducing transmit power in the first base station subsector may include reducing an aggregated transmit power in the first base station subsector of the first plurality of terrestrial BWA base stations below a satellite interference threshold power, Singh: [0005], [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with the satellite is based at least in part on determining an overlapping coverage area created by the first coverage area and the second coverage area (sharing the same radio spectrum for BWA and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations. MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. the first geographical area may include a first plurality of terrestrial BWA base stations including the first terrestrial BWA base station. A group of BWA base stations in a cluster such as in a geographic area may transmit signals to BWA UEs using one or more frequencies shared with the MSS system's satellite uplink, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with the satellite is based at least in part on a report from a UE that it is wirelessly connected to the satellite and that the UE is observing the base station as a neighboring base station (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Singh discloses:
A method for mitigating co-channel interference between multi-domain components of one or more radio access networks comprising (method of mitigating interference to a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) satellite from terrestrial Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) base stations is provided, Singh: [0008]):
determining, based on reporting from a UE, that the UE is wirelessly connected to a satellite (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs). Some of the operations of FIGS. 3 to 9 may be performed by MSS system elements such as the MSS control station, a MSS satellite, MSS UEs, Singh: [0027], [0039]),
wherein the satellite is configured to wirelessly communicate a first set of signals with the UE using a first frequency band (Terrestrial BWA uplink/downlink spectrum allocation may match with the spectrum allocation of MSS uplink/downlink. base station controller associated with BWA base station may assign MSS uplink shared spectrum, Singh: [0026], [0032]);
that a terrestrial base station is causing co-channel interference by communicating a second set of signals using the first frequency band (monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite, and identifying a satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations being below a threshold interference for use for MSS communication, Singh: [0006], [0008], [0012]-[0014]),
wherein the first set of signals and the second set of signals are within a predetermined threshold frequency range of each other (a frequency band for which the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite may be below a threshold, Singh: [0009], [0038]-[0040]):
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
determining, based on a threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals, indicated by a report from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded beyond a predetermined threshold,
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR),
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals with the UE during a first time period and is not communicating with the UE during a second time period: and
implementing one or more co-channel mitigation procedures at the terrestrial base station, wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises instructing the terrestrial base station to:
wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnesan teaches:
determining, based on a threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals, indicated by a report from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded beyond a predetermined threshold (A strong LTE signal may interfere with a satellite-based positioning system signal in a nearby frequency band, especially when the LTE device is in relatively close physical proximity (e.g., less than 10 meters). Co-existence interference may refer to interference caused by LTE or other wireless signals on a nearby satellite-based positioning system ( e.g., GNSS) device. The apparatus may further include means for performing transmission power management of the small cell based on the signal strength of the satellite based positioning system signal, Khoshnesan: Fig. 4, [0024]-[0028], [0038], [0088]),
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (determining the strength of the received signal (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI)), an interference estimation component that determines whether a transmission satisfying the threshold transmission power is likely to affect a second device. The interference estimation module may include the interference estimation component. The interference estimation module may receive the satellite signal strength from the reception module and a threshold power from the threshold module, Khoshnesan: [0038], [0080]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh in view of Khoshnesan in order to further modify determining, based on a threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals, indicated by a report from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded beyond a predetermined threshold and the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)from the teachings of Khoshnesan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because an LTE device may mitigate coexistence interference by controlling the transmission properties of the LTE device (Khoshnesan: [0024]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesan do not explicitly disclose:
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals with the UE during a first time period and is not communicating with the UE during a second time period: and
implementing one or more co-channel mitigation procedures at the terrestrial base station, wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises instructing the terrestrial base station to:
wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sohi teaches:
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals with the UE during a first time period and is not communicating with the UE during a second time period: and implementing one or more co-channel mitigation procedures at the terrestrial base station (separate geographic regions may be served by separate satellites, that a single satellite may serve multiple geographic regions, and/or that multiple satellites may serve a single geographic region (e.g., where the satellites are not geosynchronous, so they serve a region at different times). The regions and/or assignment of bands may be static over a time period, continuously, or may be dynamically assigned or reassigned periodically, continuously, etc. the scheduler 108 may determine one or more spectrum blanking ranges for wireless client devices 106 communicatively coupled with a ground node(s) 116 (e.g., a cell tower(s), cellular antenna(s)) for a cell. For instance, the spectrum blanking range(s) may restrict wireless frequencies, bands, or channels in the one or more spectrum blanking ranges from being assigned to a wireless client device 106, for example, by a ground node(s) 116, Sohi: Fig. 9, [0031], [0106], [0119]-[0140]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and Khoshnesan in view of Sohi in order to further modify determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals with the UE during a first time period and is not communicating with the UE during a second time period and implementing one or more co-channel mitigation procedures at the terrestrial base station from the teachings of Sohi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may improve network quality for one or both of the terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks while allowing their coexistence and maximizing spectrum efficiency (Sohi: [0007]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesan and Sohi do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aman teaches:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period (To overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users and vice versa, this paper introduces a Dynamic Fencing mechanism. The mechanism consists of a repetition interval which is further divided into 3 sub-intervals, Aman: Sec. IV); and
communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period (the satellite is muted for the entire duration of the subinterval while the terrestrial base station serves its users, Aman: Sec. IV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi in view of Aman in order to further modify not communicating the second set of signals during the first time period, and communicating a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second time period from the teachings of Aman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users (Aman: Sec. IV).
Regarding claim 15, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the one or more co-channel mitigation procedures comprises (method of mitigating interference to a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) satellite from terrestrial Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) base stations is provided, Singh: [0008])
instructing the terrestrial base station to communicate the second set of signals using a second frequency band, the first frequency band being different than the second frequency band (adjusting terrestrial BWA communication on a satellite uplink frequency that corresponds to the satellite downlink frequency, Singh: [0015], [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, Singh discloses:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media that, when executed by one or more computer processing components, cause the one or more computer processing components to perform a method for mitigating co-channel interference between a terrestrial base station and a satellite comprising (computer readable program code therein that when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform operations. mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0016], [0041]):
identifying an overlapping coverage area of a satellite coverage area and a terrestrial base station coverage area, wherein the satellite communicates a first set of signals to the satellite coverage area and the terrestrial base station communicates a second set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area (The first transmissions in the first base station subsector may be assigned to a first terrestrial frequency. The first terrestrial frequency may be used as a first satellite uplink frequency. first base station subsector associated with a first terrestrial BWA base station that may be in a first geographical area, Singh: [0010]);
determining that the satellite RAN is communicating the first set of signals on a first frequency band to the overlapping coverage area and the terrestrial RAN is communicating the second set of signals on the first frequency band to the overlapping coverage area (monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base station. the first geographical area may include a first plurality of terrestrial BWA base stations including the first terrestrial BWA base station. A group of BWA base stations in a cluster such as in a geographic area may transmit signals to BWA UEs using one or more frequencies shared with the MSS system's satellite uplink, Singh: [0038]),
wherein the first set of signals and the second set of signals are within a predetermined threshold frequency range of each other (a frequency band for which the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite may be below a threshold, Singh: [0009], [0038]-[0040]):
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the determining that the satellite RAN is communicating the first set of signals on the first frequency band to the overlapping coverage area is based at least in part on a report from a UE wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the first set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold,
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRO) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR);
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals to the overlapping coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the overlapping coverage area during a second time period: and
based on a determination that zero UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the terrestrial base station,
instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnesan teaches:
wherein the determining that the satellite RAN is communicating the first set of signals on the first frequency band to the overlapping coverage area is based at least in part on a report from a UE wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the first set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold (A strong LTE signal may interfere with a satellite-based positioning system signal in a nearby frequency band, especially when the LTE device is in relatively close physical proximity (e.g., less than 10 meters). Co-existence interference may refer to interference caused by LTE or other wireless signals on a nearby satellite-based positioning system ( e.g., GNSS) device. The apparatus may further include means for performing transmission power management of the small cell based on the signal strength of the satellite based positioning system signal, Khoshnesan: Fig. 4, [0024]-[0028], [0038], [0088]),
the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRO) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (determining the strength of the received signal (e.g., received signal strength indicator (RSSI)), an interference estimation component that determines whether a transmission satisfying the threshold transmission power is likely to affect a second device. The interference estimation module may include the interference estimation component. The interference estimation module may receive the satellite signal strength from the reception module and a threshold power from the threshold module, Khoshnesan: [0038], [0080]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh in view of Khoshnesan in order to further modify he determining that the satellite RAN is communicating the first set of signals on the first frequency band to the overlapping coverage area is based at least in part on a report from a UE wirelessly connected to the satellite that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the first set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold and the one or more KPIs comprising at least one of a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR)from the teachings of Khoshnesan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because an LTE device may mitigate coexistence interference by controlling the transmission properties of the LTE device (Khoshnesan: [0024]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesan do not explicitly disclose:
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals to the overlapping coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the overlapping coverage area during a second time period: and
based on a determination that zero UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the terrestrial base station,
instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sohi teaches:
determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals to the overlapping coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the overlapping coverage area during a second time period; based on a determination that zero UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the terrestrial base station (separate geographic regions may be served by separate satellites, that a single satellite may serve multiple geographic regions, and/or that multiple satellites may serve a single geographic region (e.g., where the satellites are not geosynchronous, so they serve a region at different times). The regions and/or assignment of bands may be static over a time period, continuously, or may be dynamically assigned or reassigned periodically, continuously, etc. the scheduler 108 may determine one or more spectrum blanking ranges for wireless client devices 106 communicatively coupled with a ground node(s) 116 (e.g., a cell tower(s), cellular antenna(s)) for a cell. For instance, the spectrum blanking range(s) may restrict wireless frequencies, bands, or channels in the one or more spectrum blanking ranges from being assigned to a wireless client device 106, for example, by a ground node(s) 116, Sohi: Fig. 9, [0031], [0106], [0119]-[0140]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and Khoshnesan in view of Sohi in order to further modify determining that the satellite is communicating the first set of signals to the overlapping coverage area during a first time period and is not communicating to the overlapping coverage area during a second time period and based on a determination that zero UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the terrestrial base station from the teachings of Sohi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may improve network quality for one or both of the terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks while allowing their coexistence and maximizing spectrum efficiency (Sohi: [0007]).
Yet, Singh and Khoshnesanand Sohi do not explicitly disclose:
instructing the terrestrial base station to:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period: and
communicate a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aman teaches:
not communicate the second set of signals during the first time period (To overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users and vice versa, this paper introduces a Dynamic Fencing mechanism. The mechanism consists of a repetition interval which is further divided into 3 sub-intervals, Aman: Sec. IV); and
communicate a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second time period (the satellite is muted for the entire duration of the subinterval while the terrestrial base station serves its users, Aman: Sec. IV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh and Khoshnesan and Sohi in view of Aman in order to further modify not communicating the second set of signals during the first time period, and communicating a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second time period from the teachings of Aman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users (Aman: Sec. IV).
Regarding claim 19, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the predetermined range comprises a portion of the satellite coverage area that extends beyond the overlapping coverage area (sharing the same radio spectrum for BWA and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations. MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. the first geographical area may include a first plurality of terrestrial BWA base stations including the first terrestrial BWA base station. A group of BWA base stations in a cluster such as in a geographic area may transmit signals to BWA UEs using one or more frequencies shared with the MSS system's satellite uplink, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises
communicating, based on a determination that a greater than predetermined threshold number of UEs are wirelessly connected to the satellite within the predetermined range of the terrestrial base station, the third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area from the terrestrial base station (a MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs). The MSS user equipment may be located inside a geographical area serviced by satellite. Terrestrial BWA uplink/downlink spectrum allocation may match with the spectrum allocation of MSS uplink/downlink. In the case of Advanced Wireless Services 40 MHz Spectrum (AWS4) in the U.S.A. In the case of AWS4, spectrum assignment for the BWA is made for the downlink by including the spectrum which is used for the MSS uplink. BWA base station may receive, from a MSS controller, a frequency band for which the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite is below a threshold, Singh: [0026]-[0027], [0041]).
Regarding claim 21, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the degradation beyond the predetermined threshold comprises a decrease in the one or more KPIs by at least 3 dB.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khoshnesan teaches:
wherein the degradation beyond the predetermined threshold comprises a decrease in the one or more KPIs by at least 3 dB (the LTE device may determine a probability or likelihood that reception of the satellite-based positioning system signal by a second device is likely to be affected by a transmission from the device at a transmission power that satisfies the threshold transmission power. Interference to reception of the satellitebased positioning system signal may be considered likely when the probability satisfies a threshold value, Khoshnesan: [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Sohi-Aman in view of Khoshnesan in order to further modify the degradation beyond the predetermined threshold comprises a decrease in the one or more KPIs by at least 3 dB from the teachings of Khoshnesan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because an LTE device may mitigate coexistence interference by controlling the transmission properties of the LTE device (Khoshnesan: [0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the report from the UE further indicates that the UE is wirelessly connected to the satellite as a serving cell and that the UE is observing the base station as a neighboring base station (interference from BWA base stations 120 at satellite 110 may be treated differently from the interference from BWA base stations 130, Singh: Fig. 1, [0030]).
Regarding claim 24, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the predetermined threshold number of UEs is zero (nulling first transmissions in the first base station sector, at block 310, may include refraining from assigning resource blocks that use the first terrestrial frequency in the first base station subsector to first BWA UEs 125 serviced by the first terrestrial BWA base station 120, Singh: [0035]).
Regarding claim 25, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined range of the base station comprises a portion of a satellite coverage area associated with the satellite that extends beyond an overlapping coverage area between the first coverage area and the satellite coverage area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aman teaches:
wherein the predetermined range of the base station comprises a portion of a satellite coverage area associated with the satellite that extends beyond an overlapping coverage area between the first coverage area and the satellite coverage area (Fig. 2. System model in which both terrestriul and satellite networks serving their respective users inside the coverage range of terrestriul gNB, Aman : Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi in view of Aman in order to further modify the predetermined range of the base station which comprises a portion of a satellite coverage area associated with the satellite that extends beyond an overlapping coverage area between the first coverage area and the satellite coverage area from the teachings of Aman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may overcome the problem of severe interference caused by terrestrial network to satellite users (Aman: Sec. IV).
Claims 6-7, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh-
Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of TOKGOZ et al. (US 2022/0286262 Al, hereinafter “Tokgoz”).
Regarding claim 6, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the one or more co-channel interference mitigation procedures comprises (mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0041])
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
communicating the first set of signals to the first coverage area with a first spread spectrum code.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
communicating the first set of signals to the first coverage area with a first spread spectrum code (Each modulator may process a respective output symbol stream (e.g., for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and/or the like) to obtain an output sample stream, Tokgoz: [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify communicating the first set of signals to the first coverage area with a first spread spectrum code from the teachings of Tokgoz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may improve spectral efficiency, lowering costs, improving services, making use of new spectrum, and better integrating with other open standards using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (Tokgoz: [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman-Tokgoz teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the one or more co-channel interference mitigation procedures comprises (mitigating of interference to a MSS satellite may include coordination between the MSS system and BWA system, Singh: [0041])
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
communicating an instruction to the satellite to communicate the second set of signals to the second coverage area with a second spread spectrum code, the first spread spectrum code being orthogonal to the second spread spectrum code.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
communicating an instruction to the satellite to communicate the second set of signals to the second coverage area with a second spread spectrum code, the first spread spectrum code being orthogonal to the second spread spectrum code (Each modulator may process a respective output symbol stream (e.g., for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and/or the like) to obtain an output sample stream, Tokgoz: [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify communicating an instruction to the satellite to communicate the second set of signals to the second coverage area with a second spread spectrum code, the first spread spectrum code being orthogonal to the second spread spectrum code from the teachings of Tokgoz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may improve spectral efficiency, lowering costs, improving services, making use of new spectrum, and better integrating with other open standards using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (Tokgoz: [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with the satellite is based at least in part on a report from a UE in the second coverage area (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040])
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
that one or more KPIs of the second set of signals has degraded from a first value to a second value, wherein a difference between the first value and the second value exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
that one or more KPIs of the second set of signals has degraded from a first value to a second value, wherein a difference between the first value and the second value exceeds a predetermined threshold (the serving cell may identify a subset of the served UEs in which a negative impact potentially caused by the inter-cell downlink interference exceeds a predetermined UE interference threshold, Tokgoz: [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify that one or more KPIs of the second set of signals has degraded from a first value to a second value, wherein a difference between the first value and the second value exceeds a predetermined threshold from the teachings of Tokgoz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the serving cell may predict for served UEs the downlink interference experienced from the different potential downlink transmit beams of neighbor cells (Tokgoz: [0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals comprises (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040])
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
an indication from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
an indication from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (the serving cell may identify a subset of the served UEs in which a negative impact potentially caused by the inter-cell downlink interference exceeds a predetermined UE interference threshold. determine a reference signal received power (RSRP), received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), channel quality indicator (CQI), and/or the like. the signal strength measurement report may be based on a CSI report, including for example, SINR information or reference signal receive power (RSRP) information, Tokgoz: [0033], [0053]-[0054], [0085], [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify an indication from the UE that one or more KPIs have degraded below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) from the teachings of Tokgoz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the serving cell may predict for served UEs the downlink interference experienced from the different potential downlink transmit beams of neighbor cells (Tokgoz: [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Singh further discloses:
wherein the threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals comprises (MSS satellite may be communicating with MSS user equipments (UEs) in a geographical area. monitoring a plurality of satellite frequencies for interference caused by one or more of the terrestrial BWA base stations at the MSS satellite. A satellite frequency of the plurality of satellite frequencies may be identified, responsive to the interference caused by the terrestrial BWA base stations, Singh: [0002], [0027], [0038]-[0040])
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
an indication from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded from a first value to a second value, the difference between the first value and the second value being greater than a predetermined delta threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
an indication from the UE that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have degraded from a first value to a second value, the difference between the first value and the second value being greater than a predetermined delta threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (the serving cell may identify a subset of the served UEs in which a negative impact potentially caused by the inter-cell downlink interference exceeds a predetermined UE interference threshold. determine a reference signal received power (RSRP), received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ), channel quality indicator (CQI), and/or the like. the signal strength measurement report may be based on a CSI report, including for example, SINR information or reference signal receive power (RSRP) information, Tokgoz: [0033], [0053]-[0054], [0085], [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify an indication from the UE that one or more KPIs have degraded from a first value to a second value, the difference between the first value and the second value being greater than a predetermined delta threshold, and wherein the one or more KPIs comprise a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) and a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) from the teachings of Tokgoz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the serving cell may predict for served UEs the downlink interference experienced from the different potential downlink transmit beams of neighbor cells (Tokgoz: [0033]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman
in view of MACH (US 2022/0217568 Al, hereinafter “Mach”).
Regarding claim 22, Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an RSRQ value of one of -15 dB, -17 dB, -18 dB, or -20 dB.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mach teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold comprises an RSRQ value of one of -15 dB, -17 dB, -18 dB, or -20 dB (A minimum of −20 dB SINR (of the S-Synch channel) is needed to detect RSRP/RSRQ, Mach: [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh-Khoshnesan-Sohi-Aman in view of Mach in order to further modify the predetermined threshold which comprises an RSRQ value of one of -15 dB, -17 dB, -18 dB, or -20 dB from the teachings of Mach.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because RSRQ is a carrier to interference (C/I) type of measurement and it indicates the quality of the received reference signal. The RSRQ measurement provides additional information when RSRP is not sufficient to make a reliable handover or cell reselection decision (Mach: [0128]).
Conclusion
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the
specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights