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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on July 28, 2023. U.S. patent applications, foreign patents, and non-patent literature documents have been considered.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-7, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka and Sugahara (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0146500), herein referred to as “Muraoka”, in view of Takano (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0269951). The Muraoka reference is the U.S.-based counterpart to the WIPO applications disclosed in the information disclosure statement dated July 28, 2023
Regarding Claim 1,
Muraoka teaches: A communication control device including: a calculator by which one or more first communication device groups for which a plurality of first time resources for communication are synchronized with each other calculate a first cumulative interference power, which is the sum of interference powers applied to a protection target system in units of the first time resources
[0066] Further, the above-described first example of the scheduling algorithm provides the procedure in which, for each subframe, terminals to which that subframe can be allocated are searched for and when there is no terminal to which that subframe can be allocated, the process moves to allocation of the next subframe. However, other procedures can also be employed. For example, an alternative procedure may include: selecting a D2D communication pair in accordance with a descending order of their PF metrics; selecting an arbitrary subframe from among subframes for which the selected D2D communication pair meets the constraint in regard to proximity relationships; and allocating the selected subframe to the selected D2D communication pair. Further, regarding the method for selecting a subframe, one of the following methods can be used: (1) selecting a subframe in which the number of D2D communication pairs to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest; (2) selecting a subframe in which the maximum value of the proximity levels of D2D communication pairs (i.e., the nearest terminal) to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest; and (3) selecting a subframe in which the level of the total interference that is expected to occur due to D2D communication pairs to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest.
Note: “The scheduling algorithm” is the calculator. The “time resources” are the “subframe.” The “sum of interference powers” is the “total interference that is expected to occur.”
Muraoka does not disclose a processor configured to determine an interference margin indicating an interference power allowable for communication devices of the one or more first communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power.
However, Takano discloses: a processor configured to determine an interference margin indicating an interference power allowable for communication devices of the one or more first communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power.
[0140] Next, the terminal apparatus 200 calculates the sum of the interference power (Step S308) and transmits an index of the sum of the interference power to the base station 100 (Step S310). Then, the base station 100 determines whether or not the interference from the neighbor base station 300 is problematic, on the basis of whether or not the sum of the interference power indicated by the index is equal to or less than the threshold value, for example (Step S312). In a case in which it is determined that the interference is problematic (in a case in which the sum exceeds the threshold value, for example), the base station 100 provides a notification of a message of an instruction for correcting the error in the estimation by using the Pc to the terminal apparatus 200 (Step S314).
Here, the “determining whether or not the interference . . . is problematic, on the bases of whether or not the sum of the interference power” is being interpreted as an “allowable” interference power based on a “cumulative interference power.”
Muraoka and Takano are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka to include the concept of determining an interference margin based on a cumulative interference power as taught by Takano so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Regarding Claim 5,
Muraoka teaches: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first communication device groups performs time division communication.
[0061] A specific example of allocation of radio resources by the PF-based scheduling in which the constraint in regard to proximity relationships among D2D communication pairs is imposed is described with reference to FIGS. 4 to 6. FIG. 4 shows an example of radio resources used for D2D transmission in the 3GPP Release 12. In the 3GPP Release 12, the scheduling period for sidelink (i.e., Sidelink Control period or PSCCH period) is set to, for example, 40 ms or longer, and meanwhile allocation of PSSCH resources for D2D data transmission is specified for every 6, 7 or 8 subframes (i.e., 6, 7 or 8 ms) by using the time resource pattern index. Accordingly, the same allocation of PSSCH resources is used for every 6, 7 or 8 subframes during one Sidelink Control period. In the case of Frequency division duplex (FDD), the period of allocation of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) is 8 subframes. Meanwhile, in the case of TDD, the period of allocation of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) is set to 6, 7 or 8 subframes depending on the TDD UL/DL configuration. FIG. 4 shows a case in which the allocation period of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) for D2D data transmission is 8 subframes. Note that FIG. 4 shows just an example, and allocation of frequency domain resources may be performed instead of or in addition to the allocation of time domain resources (e.g., subframes).
Regarding Claim 6,
Muraoka teaches: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first communication device groups performs frequency multiplex communication.
[0061] A specific example of allocation of radio resources by the PF-based scheduling in which the constraint in regard to proximity relationships among D2D communication pairs is imposed is described with reference to FIGS. 4 to 6. FIG. 4 shows an example of radio resources used for D2D transmission in the 3GPP Release 12. In the 3GPP Release 12, the scheduling period for sidelink (i.e., Sidelink Control period or PSCCH period) is set to, for example, 40 ms or longer, and meanwhile allocation of PSSCH resources for D2D data transmission is specified for every 6, 7 or 8 subframes (i.e., 6, 7 or 8 ms) by using the time resource pattern index. Accordingly, the same allocation of PSSCH resources is used for every 6, 7 or 8 subframes during one Sidelink Control period. In the case of Frequency division duplex (FDD), the period of allocation of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) is 8 subframes. Meanwhile, in the case of TDD, the period of allocation of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) is set to 6, 7 or 8 subframes depending on the TDD UL/DL configuration. FIG. 4 shows a case in which the allocation period of PSSCH resources (i.e., time resource pattern) for D2D data transmission is 8 subframes. Note that FIG. 4 shows just an example, and allocation of frequency domain resources may be performed instead of or in addition to the allocation of time domain resources (e.g., subframes).
Regarding Claim 7,
Muraoka teaches: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first communication device groups performs spatial multiplex communication.
[0056] As understood from the above explanation, when the base station 2 according to this embodiment schedules radio resources to a plurality of D2D transmissions performed by a plurality of D2D communication pairs 3, the base station 2 permits two D2D communication pairs 3 that are not in proximity to each other to share an identical radio resource, but it prohibits two D2D communication pairs 3 in proximity to each other from sharing an identical radio resource. In other words, the base station 2 determines whether to perform spatial reuse of radio resources for D2D transmissions while considering locations of a plurality of D2D communication pairs (or proximity relationships among the D2D communication pairs). In this way, while permitting spatial reuse of radio resources by some D2D communication pairs, the base station 2 can prohibit sharing of an identical radio resource by other D2D communication pairs that are in proximity to each other. Therefore, the base station 2 enables efficient spatial reuse of radio resources in a plurality of D2D transmissions performed by a plurality of D2D communication pairs.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Muraoka teaches: A communication control method including: calculating, by one or more first communication device groups for which a plurality of first time resources for communication are synchronized with each other, a first cumulative interference power which is the sum of interference powers applied to a protection target system in units of the first time resources
[0066] Further, the above-described first example of the scheduling algorithm provides the procedure in which, for each subframe, terminals to which that subframe can be allocated are searched for and when there is no terminal to which that subframe can be allocated, the process moves to allocation of the next subframe. However, other procedures can also be employed. For example, an alternative procedure may include: selecting a D2D communication pair in accordance with a descending order of their PF metrics; selecting an arbitrary subframe from among subframes for which the selected D2D communication pair meets the constraint in regard to proximity relationships; and allocating the selected subframe to the selected D2D communication pair. Further, regarding the method for selecting a subframe, one of the following methods can be used: (1) selecting a subframe in which the number of D2D communication pairs to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest; (2) selecting a subframe in which the maximum value of the proximity levels of D2D communication pairs (i.e., the nearest terminal) to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest; and (3) selecting a subframe in which the level of the total interference that is expected to occur due to D2D communication pairs to which the subframe has already been allocated is the smallest.
Note: “The scheduling algorithm” is the calculator. The “time resources” are the “subframe.” The “sum of interference powers” is the “total interference that is expected to occur.”
Muraoka does not disclose determining an interference margin indicating an interference power allowable for communication devices of the one or more first communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power.
However, Takano discloses: determining an interference margin indicating an interference power allowable for communication devices of the one or more first communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power.
[0140] Next, the terminal apparatus 200 calculates the sum of the interference power (Step S308) and transmits an index of the sum of the interference power to the base station 100 (Step S310). Then, the base station 100 determines whether or not the interference from the neighbor base station 300 is problematic, on the basis of whether or not the sum of the interference power indicated by the index is equal to or less than the threshold value, for example (Step S312). In a case in which it is determined that the interference is problematic (in a case in which the sum exceeds the threshold value, for example), the base station 100 provides a notification of a message of an instruction for correcting the error in the estimation by using the Pc to the terminal apparatus 200 (Step S314).
Here, the “determining whether or not the interference . . . is problematic, on the bases of whether or not the sum of the interference power” is being interpreted as an “allowable” interference power based on a “cumulative interference power.”
Muraoka and Takano are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka to include the concept of determining an interference margin based on a cumulative interference power as taught by Takano so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano, held further in view of Al-Mufti and Hannan (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0225109), herein referred to as “Al-Mufti”. This reference has support and claims priority to provisional application 63/135983.
Regarding Claim 2,
Muraoka in view of Takano does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 2.
However, Al-Mufti discloses: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines the interference margin as a value allowing the sum of interference powers of communication devices performing transmission using the first time resources in the one or more first communication device groups to become equal to or less than the allowable interference power of the protection target system.
[0096] Optionally, the maximum transmit power is determined based on the interference margin at selected frequency spectrum or a portion thereof. Using a propagation model selected based upon topographical morphology between the new CBSD and the protection point, a maximum transmit power is determined. The maximum transmit power is determined so that an interference level of the new CBSD at the protection point is equal to or less than a value of the interference margin. Optionally, a value lower than the interference margin, e.g., by 1 dB, may be used to determine the maximum transmit power of the new CBSD so that remaining interference margin can be utilized by one or more other new CBSDs prior to planned spectrum coordination. Optionally, the new CBSD is assigned the determined maximum transmit power.
Muraoka in view of Takano and Al-Mufti are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano to include the concept of determining an interference margin based on an amount less than the allowable interference as taught by Al-Mufti so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Regarding Claim 3,
Muraoka does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 3.
However, Takano discloses: The communication control device according to claim 2, wherein the processor detects a first time resource in which the first cumulative interference power is maximum among the plurality of first time resources, and
determines the interference margin on the basis of the first cumulative interference power in the first time resource.
[0078] Optionally, some or all fixed wireless access CBSDs use time division multiplexing. Optionally, some or all of the FWA CBSDs which use time domain duplexing (TDD) may be synchronized. For FWA CBSD that use TDD and are synchronized, transmissions from all base stations are sent during a same time slot or time period, and transmissions from all CPE are sent during a different time slot or time period. When FWA CBSDs are synchronized, the following analysis may be used to determine if an edge is formed between a new CBSD that is a fixed wireless access CBSD. Else, an alternative technique may be used for FWA CBSDs when the FWA CBSDs are not synchronized; for example, this may be accomplished by determining if interference at a base station due to another base station is in excess of a threshold power level. Optionally, some or all cellular CBSDs and user equipment use TDD; optionally, some or all cellular CBSDs are synchronized.
Note” [I]nterference power is maximum” is where the interference at a base station due to another base station are “in excess” of a threshold, which would be indicative of a maximum. According to this reference, the equipment uses TDD. The “cumulative” effect, then, would be the transmissions from all the devices which include their respective transmission power.
Muraoka and Takano are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka to include a maximum cumulative interference power that determined the margin on the basis of the overall interference power in the time domain resource as taught by Takano so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Regarding Claim 4,
Muraoka in view of Takano does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 4.
However, Al-Mufti discloses: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines a transmission power allowed for the communication devices on the basis of the interference margin.
[0019] A transmission power of each CBSD geographically located within a neighborhood of a protection point is determined, e.g., by IAP, by allocating interference margin to CBSD(s) geographically located within the neighborhood.
Muraoka in view of Takano and Al-Mufti are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano to include the concept of determining a transmission power based on an interference margin as taught by Al-Mufti so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano, held further in view of Hohne et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0256415), herein referred to as “Hohne”.
Regarding Claim 8,
Muraoka teaches: The communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the calculator is used for one or more second communication device groups asynchronously communicating with the one or more first communication device groups to calculate a second cumulative interference power, which is the sum of interference powers applied to the protection target system
[0047] FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing an example (a process 200) of a scheduling method performed by the base station 2. In block 201, the base station 2 schedules radio resources to a plurality of D2D transmissions performed by a plurality of D2D communication pairs 3 in accordance with a predetermined allocation rule. The predetermined allocation rule permits two D2D communication pairs 3 that are not in proximity to each other to share an identical radio resource, but it prohibits two D2D communication pairs 3 in proximity to each other from sharing an identical radio resource. In block 201, the base station 2 transmits, to each D2D communication pair 3 (i.e., transmitting terminal of each D2D communication pair 3), a grant for sidelink transmission on a radio resource determined in block 201 (e.g., a scheduling grant or a sidelink grant).
[0079] In some implementations, the base station 2A may use a result of detecting neighboring radio terminals reported from at least one radio terminal 1 belonging to at least one of two D2D communication pairs 3 belonging to different cells (i.e., associated with different base stations) in order to determine whether the two D2D communication pairs are in proximity to each other.
Note: Paragraph [0079] states two D2D pairs belonging to different cells/base stations, and is being used to read on “asynchronously”.
Muraoka in view of Takano does not disclose the processor determines interference margins indicating interference powers allowable for the communication devices of the first communication device groups and communication devices of the second communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power.
However, Hohne discloses the processor determines interference margins indicating interference powers allowable for the communication devices of the first communication device groups and communication devices of the second communication device groups on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power.
[0115] The permitted performance margin may be a threshold interference level or a maximum UL transmit power associated with the neighbor cell, but is not limited thereto. The threshold interference level and maximum UL transmit power are values determined by the neighbor cell and are values the neighbor cell can tolerate from a UE that is served by a particular cell other than the neighbor cell.
Note: The “permitted performance margin” can be interpreted as “interference margin”. As such, paragraph [0115] takes into account interference levels based on neighbor and other-than-neighbor cells, which would be a sum of cumulative interference powers.
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano to include the concept of determining a margin indicating interference powers available from different device groups and their respective interference powers as taught by Hohne so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne, held further in view of Qiu et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0099973), herein referred to as “Qiu”.
Regarding Claim 9,
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 9.
However, Qiu discloses: The communication control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor detects a first time resource in which the first cumulative interference power is maximum among the plurality of first time resources, and
determines the interference margins on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power in the detected first time resource.
[0041] The allocation memory 34 stores packet specifying values (referred to as "packet predetermined values") such as the number of packets and a packet rate or the number of packets and packet transmission power allocated by the base station to each time slot. The allocation memory 34 outputs the total reception power allocated to its own cell packets of the present time slot.
[0042] The neighboring cell interference calculator 33 subtracts the total reception power received from the allocation memory 34 from the reception power strength obtained from the reception strength measuring unit 32, obtains a sum of the neighboring cell interference and thermal noise, and outputs the obtained sum to the interference margin determining unit 35.
Note: “Time resource” is the time slot. The allocation memory of the device is the “maximum” (total reception power allocation to its own cell packets of the present time slot). The interference margin determining unit can that deduce margins from a neighboring cell and an “own cell” thus provided for respective cumulative interference powers (“sum of the neighboring cell interference”, which is subtracted from the allocation memory of the other device.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Qiu are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano to include the concept of determining a margin based on different cumulative interference powers as taught by Qiu so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Qiu, held further in view of Miki et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0201902), herein referred to as “Miki”.
Regarding Claim 10,
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Qiu does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
However, Miki discloses: The communication control device according to claim 9, wherein the processor determines the interference margins on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and a maximum value of the second cumulative interference power in the detected first time resource.
[0166] (2) Cell configurations include a multi-cell or isolated-cell communication environment, and an indoor environment, for example. In the multi-cell, it is desirable to make the code spreading factor large in order to suppress other-cell interference. Conversely, in the isolated cell or indoor environment where it is not necessary to take such interference into account, it is desirable to set the code spreading factor small or as 1. The cell configuration determination may be reported with some separately provided control signal, or performed based on a receive signal. In the latter case, the evaluation is performed by measuring interference power from surrounding cells. For example, when using a time-multiplexed pilot channel, the evaluation is performed by subtracting power related to the pilot channel (desired wave) from total signal power (desired wave+undesired wave) within a frame (slot). The scheme ignores thermal noise included in the calculated value as the magnitude is small. When pilot channels are code-multiplexed, interference power from surrounding cells may be simply evaluated, ignoring own-cell interference. More accurately, interference power from surrounding cells may be evaluated by pre-calculating own-cell interference amount, and subtracting the amount from total interference power. Alternatively, code-spread pilot channels may be time-multiplex transmitted to ensure that own-cell interference of the pilot channel is avoided.
Note: The pilot signal channel is time-multiplexed, which is a time resource. The cumulative effect is from measuring interference between “own-cell” and “neighboring cell” and calculating/subtracting their difference, where the total interference is the maximum across all cells without taking into account any subtraction.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, Qiu, and Miki are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Qiu to include the concept of determining a margin based a cumulative interference power and a maximum value in the time resource as taught by Miki so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne, held further in view of Tsuboi et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2022/0035043), herein referred to as “Tsuboi”.
Regarding Claim 11,
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 11.
However, Tsuboi discloses: The communication control device according to claim 8, wherein the processor calculates the second cumulative interference power at a time corresponding to the first time resource on the basis of transmission timing information of the second communication device groups, the processor detects a first time resource in which the sum of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power is maximum, and determines the interference margins on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power in the detected first time resource.
[0176] FIG. 12 is a functional block diagram illustrating the configuration of an interference power estimation device 1a according to the present embodiment. In the drawing, any part identical to that of the interference power estimation device 1 according to the first embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5 is denoted by an identical reference sign, and description thereof is omitted. The interference power estimation device 1a illustrated in the drawing is different from the interference power estimation device 1 illustrated in FIG. 5 in that a multi-satellite system determination unit 21 and a range combination unit 22 are additionally included and an estimation result calculation unit 17a is included in place of the estimation result calculation unit 17. The multi-satellite system determination unit 21 determines whether a satellite system that interferes with a ground station is a multi-satellite system. The range combination unit 22 acquires a combination of ranges, in the overhead spaces of which a plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist at the same timing among a plurality of divided ranges. The estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station by summing interference amounts calculated by the range interference calculation unit 16 for the ranges, in the overhead spaces of which the plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist. When the combination of ranges, in the overhead space of which the plurality of satellites exist is different depending on time, the estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference with the ground station for each of the different combinations of ranges and sets the maximum total amount of interference among the calculated total amounts of interference to be an estimation result of the amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station.
Note: The ground station and satellite system comprise systems that have cumulative interference powers and have respective time resource (timing in divided ranges). The “maximum” is the maximum total amount of interference among the calculated total amounts.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Tsuboi are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne to include the concept of determining a margin based on different cumulative interference powers on the basis of timing information as taught by Tsuboi so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Regarding Claim 12,
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne does not fully disclose all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Hohne discloses: The communication control device according to claim 8, wherein the second communication device groups include a plurality of communication devices performing communication according to collision-based channel access
[0157] FIG. 8 is a flow chart illustrating a method according to example embodiments. More specifically, FIG. 8 illustrates a method of selecting a target by a UE based on the aggregate condition and aggregate measurements.
[0158] At S805, the UE obtains measurements from cells of targets for the parameters of the aggregate condition. For example, the UE obtains an RSRP from cells of targets. The UE may determine an RSRQ, a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or both the RSRQ and then SINR. In some example embodiments, the UE may measure the RSRP, the RSRQ, the SINR, a subcombination thereof or a combination thereof as measurements from target cells in accordance with the aggregate condition of the CHO. In addition to or alternatively, the UE determine an LBT failure rate, a RSSI, a CO, a subcombination thereof or a combination thereof as measurements of target cells in accordance with the aggregate condition of the CHO.
Note: The specification defines LBT as “collision-based channel access” in paragraph [0018].
Hohne also discloses the processor determines the interference margins on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power for each group.
[0115] The permitted performance margin may be a threshold interference level or a maximum UL transmit power associated with the neighbor cell, but is not limited thereto. The threshold interference level and maximum UL transmit power are values determined by the neighbor cell and are values the neighbor cell can tolerate from a UE that is served by a particular cell other than the neighbor cell.
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano to include the concept of performing collision-based channel access and determining a margin indicating interference powers available from different device groups and their respective interference powers as taught by Hohne so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Tsuboi further discloses: the processor divides the plurality of communication devices into a plurality of groups in a relationship in which communication devices belonging to the same group do not detect mutual radio waves, the calculator sets the sum of interference powers applied to the protection target system by the groups as the second cumulative interference powers.
[0176] FIG. 12 is a functional block diagram illustrating the configuration of an interference power estimation device 1a according to the present embodiment. In the drawing, any part identical to that of the interference power estimation device 1 according to the first embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5 is denoted by an identical reference sign, and description thereof is omitted. The interference power estimation device 1a illustrated in the drawing is different from the interference power estimation device 1 illustrated in FIG. 5 in that a multi-satellite system determination unit 21 and a range combination unit 22 are additionally included and an estimation result calculation unit 17a is included in place of the estimation result calculation unit 17. The multi-satellite system determination unit 21 determines whether a satellite system that interferes with a ground station is a multi-satellite system. The range combination unit 22 acquires a combination of ranges, in the overhead spaces of which a plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist at the same timing among a plurality of divided ranges. The estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station by summing interference amounts calculated by the range interference calculation unit 16 for the ranges, in the overhead spaces of which the plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist. When the combination of ranges, in the overhead space of which the plurality of satellites exist is different depending on time, the estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference with the ground station for each of the different combinations of ranges and sets the maximum total amount of interference among the calculated total amounts of interference to be an estimation result of the amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station.
Note: “The overhead space of which the plurality of satellites exist is different depending on time” is indicative of not-mutual radio waves, which are “divided” in timing ranges. The “estimation result calculation unit” is the calculator as it calculates the amount of interference for the base station and combination of satellites in different combinations, which “combinations” is interpreted as “cumulative”, and the “sum” would be the “total.”
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Tsuboi are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne to include the concept of detecting non-mutual radio wave to calculate the interference margin as taught by Tsuboi so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Tsuboi, held further in view of Huang et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0382360), herein referred to as “Huang”.
Regarding Claim 13,
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Tsuboi does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 13.
However, Huang discloses: The communication control device according to claim 12, wherein the processor determines the interference margins on the basis of a maximum value of the second cumulative interference power for each group.
[0035] Referring to FIG. 5, when a receiver 501 announces an interference margin M, it defines a protected region 505 around the receiver 501 having that interference margin. If a transmitter 502 is within the region 505, the total interference may be larger than M and the transmitter 502 may not transmit in order to avoid exceeding the interference margin M. Hence, the transmitter 502 may only transmit outside the region 505 since its respective interference margin is also around M. However, for each transmitter 530-535 outside the first region 505, an associated receiver 510-515 may also create a respective region 520-525.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, Tsuboi, and Huang are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne to include the concept of determining an interference margin on the basis of a maximum value as taught by Huang so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Regarding Claim 14,
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Tsuboi does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 14.
However, Huang discloses: The communication control device according to claim 13, wherein there are a plurality of second communication device groups, and the interference margins are determined on the basis of the sum of maximum values of the second cumulative interference powers for respective second communication device groups.
[0035] Referring to FIG. 5, when a receiver 501 announces an interference margin M, it defines a protected region 505 around the receiver 501 having that interference margin. If a transmitter 502 is within the region 505, the total interference may be larger than M and the transmitter 502 may not transmit in order to avoid exceeding the interference margin M. Hence, the transmitter 502 may only transmit outside the region 505 since its respective interference margin is also around M. However, for each transmitter 530-535 outside the first region 505, an associated receiver 510-515 may also create a respective region 520-525.
[0036] The remaining potential transmitter 550 is located a relatively long distance from the first receiver 501. Since it is known that the interference from closer transmitters 530-535 contribute to the major portion of the interference to the first receiver 501, it is possible to use α*M to estimate the total interference. The value of a represents the maximum quantity of transmissions on the channel (from the transmitters 530-535) and will depend on each different scenario.
[0037] Based on the above, since M is the maximum interference allowed by a receiver for each transmission and α*M represents an estimate of the total interference for the channel, the maximum allowed interference margin for a receiver to transmitter may be represented as Max_M and the interference margin M is set as M=Max_M/α, where a represents the maximum number of transmissions on the channel.
Note: The “sum of maximum values” is the total interference.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, Tsuboi, and Huang are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne to include the concept of determining an interference margin on the basis on the sum of a maximum value as taught by Huang so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne, held further in view of Al-Mufti.
Regarding Claim 15,
Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne does not fully disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
However, Al-Mufti discloses: The communication control device according to according to claim 8, wherein the processor determines a transmission power allowed for the communication devices of the first communication device groups and the communication devices of the second communication device groups on the basis of the interference margins.
[0019] A transmission power of each CBSD geographically located within a neighborhood of a protection point is determined, e.g., by IAP, by allocating interference margin to CBSD(s) geographically located within the neighborhood.
Muraoka in view of Takano, Hohne, and Al-Mufti are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muraoka in view of Takano and Hohne to include the concept of determining a transmission power based on an interference margin as taught by Al-Mufti so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hohne in view of Tsuboi.
Regarding Claim 19,
Hohne discloses: A communication control device including a processor configured to
[0157] FIG. 8 is a flow chart illustrating a method according to example embodiments. More specifically, FIG. 8 illustrates a method of selecting a target by a UE based on the aggregate condition and aggregate measurements.
[0158] At S805, the UE obtains measurements from cells of targets for the parameters of the aggregate condition. For example, the UE obtains an RSRP from cells of targets. The UE may determine an RSRQ, a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or both the RSRQ and then SINR. In some example embodiments, the UE may measure the RSRP, the RSRQ, the SINR, a subcombination thereof or a combination thereof as measurements from target cells in accordance with the aggregate condition of the CHO. In addition to or alternatively, the UE determine an LBT failure rate, a RSSI, a CO, a subcombination thereof or a combination thereof as measurements of target cells in accordance with the aggregate condition of the CHO.
Note: The specification defines LBT as “collision-based channel access” in paragraph [0018].
Tsuboi further discloses: divides a plurality of communication devices into a plurality of groups in a relationship in which communication devices belonging to the same group do not detect mutual radio waves, the calculator sets the sum of interference powers applied to the protection target system by the groups as the second cumulative interference powers.
[0176] FIG. 12 is a functional block diagram illustrating the configuration of an interference power estimation device 1a according to the present embodiment. In the drawing, any part identical to that of the interference power estimation device 1 according to the first embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5 is denoted by an identical reference sign, and description thereof is omitted. The interference power estimation device 1a illustrated in the drawing is different from the interference power estimation device 1 illustrated in FIG. 5 in that a multi-satellite system determination unit 21 and a range combination unit 22 are additionally included and an estimation result calculation unit 17a is included in place of the estimation result calculation unit 17. The multi-satellite system determination unit 21 determines whether a satellite system that interferes with a ground station is a multi-satellite system. The range combination unit 22 acquires a combination of ranges, in the overhead spaces of which a plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist at the same timing among a plurality of divided ranges. The estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station by summing interference amounts calculated by the range interference calculation unit 16 for the ranges, in the overhead spaces of which the plurality of satellites of the multi-satellite system exist. When the combination of ranges, in the overhead space of which the plurality of satellites exist is different depending on time, the estimation result calculation unit 17a calculates the total amount of interference with the ground station for each of the different combinations of ranges and sets the maximum total amount of interference among the calculated total amounts of interference to be an estimation result of the amount of interference of the multi-satellite system with the ground station.
Note: “The overhead space of which the plurality of satellites exist is different depending on time” is indicative of not-mutual radio waves, which are “divided” in timing ranges. The “estimation result calculation unit” is the calculator as it calculates the amount of interference for the base station and combination of satellites in different combinations, which “combinations” is interpreted as “cumulative”, and the “sum” would be the “total.”
Hohne and Tsuboi are considered to be analogous because they involve the concept of wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hohne to include the concept of detecting non-mutual radio wave to calculate the interference margin as taught by Tsuboi so as to limit overall interference within the communication system.
Hohne also discloses the processor determines the interference margins on the basis of the first cumulative interference power and the second cumulative interference power for each group.
[0115] The permitted performance margin may be a threshold interference level or a maximum UL transmit power associated with the neighbor cell, but is not limited thereto. The threshold interference level and maximum UL transmit power are values determined by the neighbor cell and are values the neighbor cell can tolerate from a UE that is served by a particular cell other than the neighbor cell.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Al-Mufti.
Regarding Claim 21,
Muraoka teaches: A communication device in one or more first communication device groups for which a plurality of first time resources for communication are synchronized with each other, wherein the sum of an interference power appli