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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/24/2023.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-13, 18-24 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalle Ahmavaara (US 20230388808 A1).
For Claim 1, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0020, lines 1-3, a method of requesting access to a plurality of radio frequency ranges shared by a plurality of RANs) comprising:
a receiving unit that receives a request for radio wave use pertaining to a first wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0022, lines 3-5, receiving a request for access to the plurality of frequency ranges from the plurality of RANs);
a transmitting unit that, when the request is received, transmits an obtainment request for communication status information indicating a communication status of a second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0020, lines 8-11, transmitting an intolerability declaration to a server in response to the determined potential interference indicating intolerable interference); and
a control unit that receives the communication status information of the second wireless communication device after the obtainment request has been transmitted (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0059, lines 1-6, the radio condition indicating potential interference detected by the radio node 506(1)-506(P) and/or the RAN 500 may include an estimated pathloss of transmitted radio signals and/or a reference signal received power estimate caused by a neighboring radio node, which may be within a neighboring RAN), and determines a condition of the radio wave use by the first wireless communication device based on the communication status information of the second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0022, lines 6-9, receiving one or more intolerability declarations, each intolerability declaration indicating an intolerable interference between a respective first RAN and a respective second RAN of the plurality of RANs).
Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0068, that the coexistence status includes an intolerability determination, in which a network entity (e.g., a first radio node, such as 506(A2), or a domain proxy 508) determines that the first radio node (e.g., 506(A2)) does not tolerate operating over shared RF frequencies with a second radio node (e.g., 506(B1)). The intolerability determination may be based on an actual, estimated, or assumed inability for the first radio node (e.g., 506(A2)) to tolerate operating over shared RF frequencies
For Claim 2, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the first wireless communication device belongs to a first group of a plurality of wireless communication devices, and the second wireless communication device is at least one wireless communication device, among the plurality of wireless communication devices belonging to the first group, that is different from the first wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0045, that The mobile telecommunications environment 300 [in FIG. 3] includes the enterprise environment 306 in which the small cell RAN 304 is implemented. The small cell RAN 304 includes a plurality of small cell radio nodes 312(1)-312(C). Each small cell radio node 312(1)-312(C) has a radio coverage area (graphically depicted in the drawings as a hexagonal shape) that is commonly termed a “small cell.”)
For Claim 3, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein an operator of the first wireless communication device is different from an operator of the second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 15-23, that The macrocell RANs 302(1)-302(M) and/or the small cell RAN 304 include at least one CBSD configured to detect radio conditions (such as potential interference) which can indicate coexistence with neighboring radio nodes (not shown) which are not part of the same access network (e.g., radio nodes which do not service mobile communications to the same MNO 310), or which otherwise are not mutually capable of operating within the same frequency ranges).
For Claim 4, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the receiving unit receives the request for radio wave use from a management device that manages radio wave use (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0056, lines 13-18, that Through the spectrum server 504, the radio nodes 506(1)-506(P) request access to the arbitrated spectrum, such as the CBRS frequency band. The spectrum server 504, in turn, grants access to portions of the CBRS frequency band based on priority and coexistence status determinations), the transmitting unit transmits the obtainment request to a network device that manages the communication status of the second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0020, lines 8-11, transmitting an intolerability declaration to a server in response to the determined potential interference indicating intolerable interference), and the control unit receives the communication status information of the second wireless communication device from the network device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0080, lines 7-16, receiving from a network entity (e.g., 800(1)) an indication of a coexistence status between a first radio node (e.g., 506(A2)) associated with the network entity (e.g., 800(1)) and a second radio node (e.g., 506(B1)) (block 1004). In some cases, receiving the indication of the coexistence status can include receiving one or more intolerability declarations 704(1)-704(4), each intolerability declaration 704(1)-704(4) indicating an intolerable interference between a respective first RAN and a respective second RAN of the RANs 500(A)-500(C)).
For Claim 5, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the transmitting unit transmits an obtainment request for communication status information indicating a communication status of the first wireless communication device to another network device that manages the communication status of the first wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0056, lines 13-18, that Through the spectrum server 504, the radio nodes 506(1)-506(P) request access to the arbitrated spectrum, such as the CBRS frequency band. The spectrum server 504, in turn, grants access to portions of the CBRS frequency band based on priority and coexistence status determinations), and the control unit receives the communication status information of the first wireless communication device from the other network device, and determines a condition of the radio wave use by the first wireless communication device based on the communication status information of the first wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0080, lines 7-16, receiving from a network entity (e.g., 800(1)) an indication of a coexistence status between a first radio node (e.g., 506(A2)) associated with the network entity (e.g., 800(1)) and a second radio node (e.g., 506(B1)) (block 1004). In some cases, receiving the indication of the coexistence status can include receiving one or more intolerability declarations 704(1)-704(4), each intolerability declaration 704(1)-704(4) indicating an intolerable interference between a respective first RAN and a respective second RAN of the RANs 500(A)-500(C)).
For Claim 6, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the control unit determines a parameter of radio wave use that satisfies the condition of the radio wave use (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0017, lines 14-20, detected radio interference from the neighboring radio node may be minimal and/or limited to an outer limit of the radio node's coverage area, and the coexistence status indicates that the neighboring radio node is tolerable), and transmits a response including the parameter (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0079, lines 3-6, the process can also comprise receiving an allocation of a first radio frequency range of a plurality of radio frequency ranges in response to the transmitted intolerability declaration 704(1)-704(4) (block 908)).
For Claim 9, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the communication status information of the second wireless communication device is information pertaining to a position of a communication device that communicates with the second wireless communication device within coverage of the second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0070, lines 1-8, that the processing circuitry of a radio node 506(A1)-506(C2) and/or processing circuitry in another network entity can determine a coexistence status (e.g., whether the potential interference is intolerable interference) based on measurements made by the radio node 506(A1)-506(C2), based on input from sensors (e.g., a positioning sensor, an environmental sensor, or a radio frequency sensor), or based on measurements made by a user mobile communications device connected to the radio node 506(A1)-506(C2)).
For Claim 10, Ahmavaara discloses a communication control device, wherein the control unit determines a frequency that can be used by the first wireless communication device as the condition for radio wave use (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0057, lines 13-17, that The spectrum server 504 can allocate, or reallocate, available frequency ranges to the radio nodes 506(1)-506(P) and neighboring radio nodes in order to reduce or avoid intolerable cross-interference and/or enable tolerable cross-interference).
For Claim 18, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 21, Ahmavaara discloses a network device, wherein the communication status information includes information pertaining to a position of a terminal that communicates with the second wireless communication device within coverage of the second wireless communication device (Ahmavaara teaches, in ¶ 0070, lines 1-8, that the processing circuitry of a radio node 506(A1)-506(C2) and/or processing circuitry in another network entity can determine a coexistence status (e.g., whether the potential interference is intolerable interference) based on measurements made by the radio node 506(A1)-506(C2), based on input from sensors (e.g., a positioning sensor, an environmental sensor, or a radio frequency sensor), or based on measurements made by a user mobile communications device connected to the radio node 506(A1)-506(C2)).
For Claims 22-24, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 11-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalle Ahmavaara (US 20230388808 A1) in view of Jung Sun Um et al (US 20210360420 A1).
For Claims 7, 19, Ahmavaara discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the communication status information of the second wireless communication device includes information pertaining to a number of terminals that communicate with the second wireless communication device within coverage of the second wireless communication device.
However, Um, in the analogous art, discloses that the communication status information of the second wireless communication device includes information pertaining to a number of terminals that communicate with the second wireless communication device within coverage of the second wireless communication device (Um teaches, in ¶ 0146, lines 1-5, that the operating condition determining apparatus 101 may calculate an operating condition parameter based on a number of unlicensed radio devices 103 registered by a sharing system or spectrum measurement information and may provide the corresponding information to the unlicensed radio devices 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Ahmavaara with the calculated operating-condition parameter taught in Um. The motivation is for different unlicensed radio devices to share a frequency resource in a certain area [Um: ¶ 0008].
For Claim 11, Ahmavaara discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining a transmission power that can be permitted for the first wireless communication device as the condition for the radio wave use.
However, Um, in the analogous art, discloses determining a transmission power that can be permitted for the first wireless communication device as the condition for the radio wave use (Um teaches, in ¶ 0098, lines 1-3, that Referring to FIG. 5, an operating condition determining apparatus may calculate an available channel or available (allowable) power level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Ahmavaara with the calculated operating-condition parameter taught in Um. The motivation is for different unlicensed radio devices to share a frequency resource in a certain area [Um: ¶ 0008].
For Claim 12, Ahmavaara discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining the transmission power for each of a plurality of antennas in the second wireless communication device in accordance with a position of a terminal that communicates with the first wireless communication device within coverage of the first wireless communication device.
However, Um, in the analogous art, discloses determining the transmission power for each of a plurality of antennas in the second wireless communication device in accordance with a position of a terminal that communicates with the first wireless communication device within coverage of the first wireless communication device (Um teaches, in ¶ 0053, that determine the optimal sharing operating condition using the dynamic information in real time …The information provided from the DR may include a position (e.g., indoor or outdoor, latitude/longitude, height, and antenna height) of the DR, a desired operating frequency range or bandwidth, and a DR service type. Um teaches, in ¶ 0098, lines 1-3, that Referring to FIG. 5, an operating condition determining apparatus may calculate an available channel or available (allowable) power level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Ahmavaara with the calculated operating-condition parameter taught in Um. The motivation is for different unlicensed radio devices to share a frequency resource in a certain area [Um: ¶ 0008].
Claims 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalle Ahmavaara (US 20230388808 A1) in view of Mostafa Khoshnevisan et al (US 20170295578 A1).
For Claims 8, 20, Ahmavaara discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the communication status information of the second wireless communication device includes information pertaining to an amount of communication data of the second wireless communication device.
However, Khoshnevisan, in the analogous art, discloses that the communication status information of the second wireless communication device includes information pertaining to an amount of communication data of the second wireless communication device (Khoshnevisan teaches, in ¶ 0099, lines 3-9, that the loading information may include, for example, resource block (RB) utilization at the base station, an amount of buffered data at the base station, an average queueing time for packets at the base station, and so on. To determine when a base station can expand or shrink bandwidth, resource utilization may be compared to a threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Ahmavaara with the resource utilization taught in Khoshnevisan. The motivation is to allow the base station to expand its operational bandwidth to one or more secondary channels that are available for use by the base station [Khoshnevisan: ¶ 0099, lines 12-15].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalle Ahmavaara (US 20230388808 A1) in view of William S. Burchill et al (US 20130331137 A1).
For Claim 13, Ahmavaara discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of transmitting a request to change a parameter pertaining to the radio wave use by the second wireless communication device to a value that satisfies the condition determined.
However, Burchill, in the analogous art, discloses transmitting a request to change a parameter pertaining to the radio wave use by the second wireless communication device to a value that satisfies the condition determined (Burchill teaches, in ¶ 0025, lines 21-30, that When a link quality of a first wireless subsystem fails a set of link quality conditions, the host processor can provide one or more requests to a second wireless subsystem to adjust settings to mitigate interference into the first wireless subsystem. Representative settings to adjust can include transmit power levels, transmit data rates, time periods for transmission, transmit frequencies, data requirements for one or more applications, real time encoding and/or streaming data rates, frequency hopping masks, operating modes, transmission timing, radio resource requests, channel quality indicator reporting values, and/or buffer status report values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Ahmavaara with the request to adjust representative settings taught in Burchill. The motivation is to mitigate interference among multiple wireless subsystems in a wireless communication device [Burchill: ¶ 0025, lines 1-2].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 14, and 17 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“wherein the control unit receives location information of a first terminal that communicates with the first wireless communication device within coverage of the first wireless communication device, the control unit receives location information of a second terminal that communicates with the second wireless communication device within coverage of the second wireless communication device, and the control unit determines a state of interference between (i) communication between the first terminal and the first wireless communication device and (ii) communication between the second terminal and the first wireless communication device based on position information of the first terminal and position information of the second terminal, and determines the condition for the radio wave use according to the state of interference,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited in dependent claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: CIMPU (US 20190373615 A1) is pertinent to a method in a controlling node for controlling resources in a shared channel is provided. The method comprises: receiving from a network node, a request for resources in the shared channel; in response to the request, determining a utility function representing a performance metric for the network node based on transmissions from other network nodes using the shared channel; and in response to determining that the utility function satisfies a threshold, granting the resources in the shared channel to the network node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412