DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on December 18, 2025 and wherein claims 1, 8,11 and 18 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, 11 under 35 USC §112(b), as set forth in the previous Office Action, page 7 in Remarks filed on December 18, 2025, have been fully considered and the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, 11 under 35 USC § 112(b), as set forth in the previous Office Action, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments Beck fails to disclose "receiving, from the SAS, a grant response message for indicating channels granted by the SAS from among the plurality of channels, wherein the number of channels granted by the SAS corresponds to the number of grants requested by the CBSD”, see Remarks, Pages 8-10, filed on December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 11 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Notargia.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-12, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheriff et al. (US 20210084658 A1, hereinafter Sheriff) in view of Notargia et al. (US20210029549 A1, hereinafter Notargia) and further in view of Beck et al. (IDS provided: US20200092731 A1, hereinafter Beck).
Claim 1: Sheriff teaches a method performed by a Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) device (CBSD), the method comprising (abstract):
generating a grant request message including information on an identity of the CBSD (Fig.3, element 308, [0053], “the CBSDs 104A-D can send a Grant Request Message to the SAS 110, which includes a request for grant of parameters such as the CBRS channels, maximum EIRP, CBRS grouping”),
wherein each of the multiple operation parameters required by the CBSD in the array includes a frequency range and a maximum equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) (Fig. 3, element 308, [0053], “request for grant of parameters such as the CBRS channels, maximum EIRP, CBRS grouping”. Fig.3 disclose the request message include frequency range and max EIRP).
and sending the grant request message to a spectrum access system SAS (Fig.3, element 308, [0053], “the CBSDs 104A-D can send a Grant Request Message to the SAS 110”).
However, Sheriff does not explicitly teach information on an array of multiple operation parameters for each channel included in a plurality of channels of a CBRS band, and information on the number of grants requested by the CBSD for the plurality of channels,
and receiving, from the SAS, a grant response message for indicating channels granted by the SAS from among the plurality of channels, wherein the number of the channels granted by the SAS corresponds to the number of grants requested by the CBSD.
Notargia, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches information on an array of multiple operation parameters for each channel included in a plurality of channels of a CBRS band (Fig. 3, [0059], “This grant request may be in the form of an array, for a group request, with each individual CBSD request within the array specifically
requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it by the master supervisor module 110/210 in step 310 … Each grant request in the array may correspond to a particular CBSD, and for each channel requested for each CBSD, include which channels are being requested
under PAL authorization and which channels are being requested under GAA authorization . Each grant request in the array may include a frequency range and a corresponding desired EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) for each frequency range”),
and receiving, from the SAS, a grant response message for indicating channels granted by the SAS from among the plurality of channels, wherein the number of the channels granted by the SAS corresponds to the number of grants requested by the CBSD (Fig. 3, element 360, [0060], “each CBRS-Daemon 114A/B receives the license grants from the SAS. The license grant may include, for each CBSD, grants to PAL-reserved channels as well as channels granted under General Authorized Access (GAA)… It is understood that there is no guarantee that the SAS will grant access to each requested CBRS channel. The SAS may deny access to a given channel and may recommend an alternate channel Each CBRS-Daemon 114A/B may locally store information corresponding to CBRS grants and associated parameters for configuring its corresponding baseband processor 105A/B”, [0059], “In step 325, the processor executes instructions for the CBRS-Daemon 114A/B, acting as a proxy for its CBSDs, to transmit a grant request to the SAS. This grant request may be in the form of an array, for a group request, with each individual CBSD request within the array specifically requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it by the master supervisor module 110/210 in step 310 … each grant
request in the array may correspond to a particular CBSD, and for each channel
requested for each CBSD, include which channels are being requested under PAL authorization and which channels are being requested under GAA authorization”, [0008], “receiving a reply access grant for each request subset of shared spectrum access channels; receiving, by a first baseband processor, a grant revocation corresponding to a revoked shared spectrum access channel within one of the request subset of shared spectrum access channels”. Fig. 4, [0067], “ the SAS 182 (not shown) has granted access to CBRS channels 1 and 2 to each CBSD in step 325”).
Sheriff and Notargia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify grant request message, disclosed by Sheriff, with the feature of comprising inserting the information on the array of the multiple operation parameters in the grant request message, as taught by Notargia, for the benefit for allowing SAS better managing each CBRS channel based on required frequency and maximum EIRP for each CBSD.
Beck, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches each channel included in a plurality of channels of a CBRS band and information on the number of grants requested by the CBSD for the plurality of channels (Fig. 1, Fig, 2, [0019], “at block 206, the CBSD 106-1 selects one or more channels …from the list of channels received from the channel evaluator. At block 208, the CBSD 106-1 sends a request to SAS 104 to request access to the selected channels from the ranked list of channels”, wherein the request include list of selected channels, and each channel is associated with one grant, the number of selected channels is reading as the number of grants. Fig. 3, [0020], disclose channel evaluator identifying one or more of the channels with different bandwidth in a CBRS band).
Sheriff and Beck are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify grant request message, disclosed by Sheriff, to generating a grant request message including an array of multiple operation parameters for each channel included in a plurality of channels of a CBRS band, as taught by Beck, for the benefit for allowing CBSD to combine plurality of wanted candidate channels and using one grant request message to SAS, which reducing the traffic between CBSD and SAS.
Claim 11 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and sheriff further teach a transceiver (Fig.6, element 602), a processor (Fig.6, element 608).
Claim 2: Sheriff teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the grant request message includes information on a measurement report ([0057], reports contain channel utilization percentage, identities of neighboring CBSDs, signal strength, interference graphs for the neighboring CBSDs, etc.).
Claim 12 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 2.
Claim 5: The combination of Sheriff and Beck teaches the method of claim 1, Beck additionally teaches wherein the information on the number of grants is used to request grants corresponding to the number of grants using a single grant request (Fig. 2, [0019], “At block 208, the CBSD 106-1 sends a request to SAS 104 to request access to the selected channels from the ranked list of channels”).
The motivation for combining Sheriff and Beck regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 5.
Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 14 and claim 5.
Claim 8: The combination of Sheriff and Beck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the grant response message (Sheriff, Fig.3, element 310) indicates whether a channel grant associated with the grant request message is approved or disapproved (Sheriff, [0053], “The SAS 110 can then provide a Grant Response in step 310 indicating whether the requested parameters can be granted (success) or not (failure), based on the available resources that the SAS 110 can assign to the CBSDs 104A-D”). based on information on the number of grants in a grant request message (Notargia, Fig. 3, element 360, [0060], “each CBRS-Daemon 114A/B receives the license grants from the SAS. The license grant may include, for each CBSD, grants to PAL-reserved channels as well as channels granted under General Authorized Access (GAA)… It is understood that there is no guarantee that the SAS will grant access to each requested CBRS channel. The SAS may deny access to a given channel and may recommend an alternate channel Each CBRS-Daemon 114A/B may locally store information corresponding to CBRS grants and associated parameters for configuring its corresponding baseband processor 105A/B”, [0059], “In step 325, the processor executes instructions for the CBRS-Daemon 114A/B, acting as a proxy for its CBSDs, to transmit a grant request to the SAS. This grant
request may be in the form of an array, for a group request, with each individual
CBSD request within the array specifically requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it by the master supervisor module 110/210 in step 310 … each grant request in the array may correspond to a particular CBSD, and for each channel requested for each CBSD, include which channels are being requested under PAL authorization and which channels are being requested under GAA authorization”.).
The motivation for combining Sheriff and Notargia regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 8.
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 8.
Claim 10: Sheriff teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the CBSD is connected with the SAS via a base station ([0036], “the CBRS APs 104A-D can include an Evolved Node B (eNodeB), a CBRS base station or CBRS device (CBSD), etc”).
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 10.
Claim 6: The combination of Sheriff , Notargia and Beck teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the grant request message includes an array of grant request objects, wherein each of the grant request objects in the array represents a request for a grant from the CBSD (Beck, Fig, 2, [0019], “CBSD 106-1 requests a list of channels from channel evaluator 102 at block 202 … at block 206, the CBSD 106-1 selects one or more channels …from the list of channels received from the channel evaluator. At block 208, the CBSD 106-1 sends a request to SAS 104 to request access to the selected channels from the ranked list of channels”, wherein each channel is reading as one grant), and wherein each of the grant request objects in the array includes the information on the identity of the CBSD (Notargia, [0059], “with each individual CBSD request within the array specifically requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it … Each grant request in the array may correspond to a particular CBSD, and for each channel requested for each CBSD”), the information on the number of grants (Beck, Fig, 2, [0019], “CBSD 106-1 requests a list of channels from channel evaluator 102 at block 202 … at block 206, the CBSD 106-1 selects one or more channels …from the list of channels received from the channel evaluator. At block 208, the CBSD 106-1 sends a request to SAS 104 to request access to the selected channels from the ranked list of channels”, wherein each channel is reading as one grant.
Notargia, [0059], “In step 325, the processor executes instructions for the CBRS-Daemon 114A/B, acting as a proxy for its CBSDs, to transmit a grant request to the SAS. This grant request may be in the form of an array, for a group request, with each individual CBSD request within the array specifically requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it by the master supervisor module 110/210 in step 310 … each grant request in the array may correspond to a particular CBSD, and for each channel requested for each CBSD, include which channels are being requested under PAL authorization and which channels are being requested under GAA authorization”), and the information on the array of the multiple operation parameters (Sheriff , [0053], “request for grant of parameters such as the CBRS channels, maximum EIRP, CBRS grouping”. Fig.3 disclose the request message include frequency range and max EIRP).
The motivation for combining Sheriff, Notargia and Beck regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 6.
Sheriff and Notargia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify grant request message, disclosed by Sheriff, with the feature of adding the identity of the CBSD, as taught by Notargia, for the benefit for allowing SAS better managing the whole CBRS band for multiple CBSDs.
Claim 16 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 14 and claim 6.
Claim 7: The combination of Sheriff, Beck and Notargia teaches the method of claim 6, Notargia additionally teaches further comprising inserting the information on the array of the multiple operation parameters in the grant request message ([0059], “Each grant request in the array may include a frequency range and a corresponding desired EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) for each frequency range”).
The motivation for combining Sheriff and Notargia regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 7.
Claim 17 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 7.
Claims 3, 13, 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheriff et al. (US 20210084658 A1, hereinafter Sheriff) in view of Notargia et al.(US20210029549 A1, hereinafter Notargia) and in view of Beck et al. (IDS provided file:US20200092731 A1, hereinafter Beck), and further in view of Taneja et al. (US 20220053336 A1, hereinafter Taneja).
Claim 3: Sheriff does not explicitly the method of claim 1, further comprising preparing a list of desired channels associated with the multiple operation parameters in the array in an order of a priority based on required bandwidth and power.
Notargia, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches preparing a list of the desired channels associated with the multiple operation parameters in the array ([0059], “This grant request may be in the form of an array, for a group request, with each individual CBSD request within the array specifically requesting the CBRS channels allocated to it by the master supervisor module … Each grant request in the array may include a frequency range and a corresponding desired EIRP (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power) for each frequency range”).
The motivation for combining Sheriff and Notargia regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
Taneja, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches in an order of a priority ([0088], “ These policies can include a priority, a preemption capability index and a preemption vulnerability index assigned to specific CBSDs”) based on required bandwidth and power ([0048], disclose determining CBRS channel based on available resources and the one or more policies, which policy include priority, and determining parameter comprising frequency range, maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power EIRP).
Sheriff and Taneja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of radio resource management in a Citizens Broadband Radio Service CBRS network, disclosed by Sheriff, to use priority for traffic management for CBRDs in CBRS network, as taught by Taneja, for the benefit for better managing interference between two or more groups of CBSDs, and providing priority access licenses assigned to competitive bidding within the band (paragraph [0060]).
Claim 13 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 11 and claim 3.
Claim 9: The combination of Sheriff, Notargia and Beck teach the method of claim 8, wherein the grant response message (Sheriff, Fig.3, element 310) includes the grant by allocating at least one desired channel of desired channels associated with the multiple operation parameters in the array based on an availability (Sheriff, Fig.3, element 308, 310, [0053], “request for grant of parameters such as the CBRS channels, maximum EIRP, CBRS grouping … The SAS 110 can then provide a Grant Response in step 310 indicating whether the requested parameters can be granted (success) or not (failure), based on the available resources that the SAS 110 can assign to the CBSDs 104A-D”) and an order of a priority of the desired channels.
However, Sheriff does not explicitly teach the grant is based on an order of a priority of the desired channels.
Taneja, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the grant is based on an order of a priority of the desired channels ([0088], “These policies can include a priority, a preemption capability index and a preemption vulnerability index assigned to specific CBSDs”, [0048], disclose determining CBRS channel based on available resources and the one or more policies, which policy include priority, and determining parameter comprising frequency range, maximum transmit Effective Isotropic Radiated Power EIRP).
Sheriff and Taneja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of radio resource management in a Citizens Broadband Radio Service CBRS network, disclosed by Sheriff, to use priority for traffic management for CBRDs in CBRS network, as taught by Taneja, for the benefit for better managing interference between two or more groups of CBSDs, and providing priority access licenses assigned to competitive bidding within the band (paragraph [0060]).
Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 18 and claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472