DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments 11/10/2025 for
response of the office action mailed on 8/08/2025. Claim 4 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 8, 11-14, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in
the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 8/08/2025.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 11-15), filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to claim 4 that
incorporated into the amended independent claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (Aman Khan et al.) is applied in the current rejection.
Regarding remarks in page 13 for dependent claim 4, incorporated into the amended independent claim 1, applicant asserts that several features not taught by Sohi: (1) actively determining specific time periods when the satellite is communicating versus idle; (2) coordinating the terrestrial base station's transmission schedule based on satellite activity; and (3) implementing mutual exclusivity where the terrestrial base station refrains from transmitting during satellite active periods. Sohi's general statements about orbital mechanics and frequency band assignment do not suggest, much less teach, the claimed real-time timing coordination for co-channel interference avoidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Sohi et al. (US 2024/0204863 Al) discloses (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, [0119]-[0140]).
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, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH (US 2021/0167820 Al, hereinafter “Singh”) 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]):
determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with a satellite (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, Singh: [0002], [0038]-[0040]),
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. 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], [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 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 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
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; and 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 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 in view of Sohi does 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aman teaches:
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 (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. 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 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 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 2, Singh-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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, based on a determination that less than a predetermined threshold number of user equipments (UEs) are wirelessly connected to the satellite within a predetermined range of the base station, a third set of signals to the first coverage area using the first frequency band (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 3, Singh-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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]);
determining, based on a threshold high signal degradation of the first set of signals, 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 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:
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 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 in view of Sohi does 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; and communicate a third set of signals using the first frequency band during the second 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. 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 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Singh further discloses:
The method of claim 14, 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:
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,
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 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 in view of Sohi does 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; and communicate a third set of signals to the terrestrial coverage area using the first frequency band during the second 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. 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 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Singh further discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18, 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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Singh further discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 18, 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]).
Claims 6-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh-Sohi-Aman in view of TOKGOZ et al. (US 2022/0286262 Al, hereinafter “Tokgoz”).
Regarding claim 6, Singh-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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-Sohi-Aman 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-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-Sohi-Aman-Tokgoz teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 6, 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-Sohi-Aman 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-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 8, Singh-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein determining that the base station is causing co-channel interference with a 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-Sohi-Aman does not explicitly disclose:
that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the second set of signals has degraded beyond a predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
that one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) of the second set of signals has degraded beyond 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-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify one or more KPIs of the second set of signals has degraded beyond 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 9, Singh-Sohi-Aman-Tokgoz teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Singh-Sohi-Aman does not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more KPIs comprises a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
wherein the one or more KPIs comprises a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) (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, Tokgoz: [0053]-[0054]).
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 Tokgoz in order to further modify one or more KPIs for comprising a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) 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 10, Singh-Sohi-Aman-Tokgoz teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Singh-Sohi-Aman does not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more KPIs comprises a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokgoz teaches:
wherein the one or more KPIs comprises a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) (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: [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-Sohi-Aman in view of Tokgoz in order to further modify one or more KPIs for comprising 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 11, Singh-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Singh further discloses:
The system of claim 1, 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-Sohi-Aman 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-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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Singh further discloses:
The method of claim 15, 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-Sohi-Aman 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-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-Sohi-Aman teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Singh further discloses:
The method of claim 15, 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-Sohi-Aman 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-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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 EST.
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
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467