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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 1/12/2026.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 17, 18, and 20-25 are now pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/7/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/7/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10-11 of the remarks, in regard to claim 23, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lo et al. US 20140226597 (hereinafter “Lo”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
Lo does not disclose "transmit data to one or more radio link transceivers in the network of radio link transceivers, the data being associated with the bandwidths and the center frequencies of at least some of the interference signals". Lo's mere disclosure of consulting with a database is not the same as transmitting the data associated with the interference signals.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), in order for the "serving base stations" to consult a database that maintains data associated with the interference signals, the data must be transmitted/received from the database. These "serving base stations" refer to this data to determine the subband or center frequency of the primary control signal which means the data is related to how the interference signals impact the subband or center frequency of the primary control signal.
On page 11-15 of the remarks, in regard to claim 1 and 25, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. WO 2013070751 (hereinafter “Das”) in view of Tellado et al. US 20140105046 (hereinafter “Tellado”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
The reference does not teach "obtain second traffic capacity information related to a desired traffic capacity of the RL transceiver". Specifically, Das does not suggest the desired traffic capacity of the RL transceiver or anything related.
The reference does not teach "determine, for at least a first interference signal, a first frequency difference, wherein the first frequency difference is the difference between i) a frequency of a band edge of a communication frequency band of the RL transceiver and ii) a frequency of the interference signal"
The reference does not teach "if the detected traffic capacity is smaller than the desired traffic capacity, adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver comprises increasing the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver based on the first frequency difference, and if the detected traffic capacity is larger than the desired traffic capacity, adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver comprises decreasing the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver based on the first frequency difference"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (2), as mentioned by Das in [0012], "determined traffic demand" is used to determine the "bandwidth scaling factor" which is used to support "at least a traffic increase or a quality of service requirement" [0007] and this is done for multiple "traffic demands" [0060]. This teaches "obtain second traffic capacity information related to a desired traffic capacity" since the bandwidth of each traffic is increased to meet a quality of service requirement to achieve desired quality. In addition, as mentioned by Das in [0136], the traffic capacity maps to bandwidth since the bandwidth is increased to support more traffic and “desired traffic capacity” maps to “bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic”. The bandwidth increase is based on the historical data which is used to predict the traffic levels at certain times to achieve desired quality.
Regarding (3), the argument is moot because the argument does not apply to the reference being used in the current rejection.
Regarding (4), As mentioned by Das in [0136], the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal (which maps to traffic capacity) is increased to support more traffic based on historical data. Historical data maps to "detected traffic capacity" since the data must show that the detected bandwidth is not enough to support traffic demands at certain times and "bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic" maps to "desired traffic capacity" since the bandwidth is increased to a desired bandwidth to accommodate a predicted increase in traffic. The bandwidth is also adapted based on interference measurements or how much the adjacent band overlaps with the flexible bandwidth - this maps to "frequency difference". In addition, the detected bandwidth is decreased if there's too much interference and the detected bandwidth isn't required based on the measured traffic level.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lo et al. US 20140226597 (hereinafter “Lo”).
As to claim 23:
Lo discloses:
A network node arranged to: maintain a database of characterized interference signals in a network of radio link transceivers, (FIG. 2 shows a network of radio link transceivers, Lo) (“A control server or a base station may consult with the database so that it can determine a center frequency or subband for transmitting a primary control signal in order to avoid strong interference from inter-system interferers.”, Lo [0069]) (“In some embodiments, the control server may determine center frequencies or assigns subband for primary control signals based on the available interference information. The interference information can be obtained using different methods. In an embodiment, mobile stations may detect and measure interference that they experience, and send the interference information (e.g., its relative or absolute strength, its location in frequency, and its bandwidth) to their serving base stations.”, Lo [0069]) where each characterized interference signal in the database is associated with a bandwidth and a center frequency, and transmit data to one or more radio link transceivers in the network of radio link transceivers, the data being associated with the bandwidths and the center frequencies of at least some of the interference signals. (“A control server or a base station may consult with the database so that it can determine a center frequency or subband for transmitting a primary control signal in order to avoid strong interference from inter-system interferers. In addition, the server may coordinate the use of center frequencies or subbands by allocating a set of center frequencies or subbands to a cell for primary control signals and a different set to its neighboring cell. Alternatively, base stations of neighboring cells exchange, via a backbone network (e.g., X2 Interface), the information on center frequencies or subbands they intend to use for their primary control signals. ”, Lo [0069]) (“In addition to exchanging aforementioned information, base stations of neighboring cells may send advertisement messages about part or all of the aforementioned information to each other, which then advertise the information regarding their neighbors to expedite mobile station handoff, thereby reducing unnecessary overhead for scanning in cell reselection.”, Lo [0069])
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.
Claim(s) 1, 17, 18, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. WO 2013070751 (hereinafter “Das”) in view of Tellado et al. US 20140105046 (hereinafter “Tellado”) and in further view of Lee et al. US 20140080501 (hereinafter “Lee”)
As to claim 1 and 25 (claim 25 is the method claim for the control unit in claim 1):
Das discloses:
A control unit for a comprises: memory; and processing circuitry, (“FIG. 13 shows a block diagram of a communications system 1300 that may be configured for utilizing flexible bandwidth for small cells in accordance with various embodiments. This system 1300 may be an example of aspects of the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1, systems 200 of FIGS. 2, system 300 of FIG. 3, and/or system 1500 of FIG. 15. The small cell 125-d may include antennas 1345, a transceiver module 1350, memory 1370, and a processor module 1365, which each may be in communication, directly or indirectly, with each other (e.g., over one or more buses). The transceiver module 1350 may be configured to communicate bi-directionally, via the antennas 1345, with the mobile device 115-d, which may be a multi-mode mobile device. The transceiver module 1350 (and/or other components of the small cell 125-d) may also be configured to communicate bi-directionally with one or more networks. In some cases, the small cell 125-d may communicate with the network 130-b and/or gateway 140-b a through network communications module 1375. Small cell 125-d may be an example of a Home eNodeB base station and/or a Home NodeB base station in some embodiments. In some embodiments, small cell 125-d may communicate with other small cells wirelessly and/or through gateway 140-b and/or network 130-b.”, Das [0151]) wherein the control unit is configured to perform a method comprising: obtaining first traffic capacity information related to detected traffic capacity of the RL transceiver; (“means for determining at least a number of users to be supported by the small cell or a traffic demand for one or more users of the small cell; and/or means for utilizing at least the determined number of users or the determined traffic demand to determine the first bandwidth scaling factor. Some embodiments include means for changing a channel number of the small cell when utilizing the flexible bandwidth carrier.”, Das [0012]) obtaining second traffic capacity information related to a desired traffic capacity of the RL transceiver; (“Some embodiments reduce the interference caused by small cell to macrocell users by having an adaptive N for small cells based on the number of users to be supported and/or their traffic demands”, Das [0060]) (“the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal may be adjusted to increase the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal to increase capacity on the carrier. Based on historical data or other information, the small cell might be able to predict hours when there would be an increase in traffic on the network so that a bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic for example.”, Das [0136]) (Examiner’s Note: traffic capacity maps to bandwidth since bandwidth is increased to support more traffic, historical data maps to “detected traffic capacity” and “desired traffic capacity” maps to “bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic”)
and adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver based on: i) the first frequency difference, (“For example, if there are indications that the flexible bandwidth carrier may be causing interference to neighboring cells, the bandwidth may be decreased to reduce the interference to other carriers; in some situations, the interference to the neighboring cells may have been significant. In scenarios where the flexible bandwidth signal might be overlapping a normal bandwidth carrier, the bandwidth can be reduced to reduce the overlap region.”, Das [0136]) (FIG. 8, Das) (Examiner’s Note: the overlapping region causing interference as shown in FIG. 8 is a frequency difference between the “normal bandwidth carrier” and “flexible bandwidth carrier”)
ii) the first traffic capacity information related to the detected traffic capacity,
and iii) the second traffic capacity information related to the desired traffic capacity, (“the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal may be adjusted to increase the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal to increase capacity on the carrier. Based on historical data or other information, the small cell might be able to predict hours when there would be an increase in traffic on the network so that a bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic for example.”, Das [0136]) (Examiner’s Note: traffic capacity maps to bandwidth since bandwidth is increased to support more traffic, historical data maps to “detected traffic capacity” and “desired traffic capacity” maps to “bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic”)
wherein if the detected traffic capacity is smaller than the desired traffic capacity, adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver comprises increasing the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver based on the first frequency difference, (“the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal may be adjusted to increase the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal to increase capacity on the carrier. Based on historical data or other information, the small cell might be able to predict hours when there would be an increase in traffic on the network so that a bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic for example.”, Das [0136]) (Examiner’s Note: traffic capacity maps to bandwidth since bandwidth is increased to support more traffic, historical data maps to “detected traffic capacity” and “desired traffic capacity” maps to “bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic”)(“Embodiments are provided for adapting the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth carrier. Some embodiments include dynamically adapting the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth carrier by changing the bandwidth scaling factor of the flexible bandwidth signal based on information such as traffic patterns, interference measurements, etc.”, Das [0135]) (“In some embodiments, increasing the bandwidth of the first flexible bandwidth carrier increases a capacity of the first flexible bandwidth carrier. In some embodiments, decreasing the bandwidth of the first flexible bandwidth carrier comprises at least reducing interference with one or more cells, reducing in-band interference, or conserving energy.”, Das [0123]) (Examiner’s Note: the bandwidth carrier is dynamically adapted based on traffic patterns and interference measurements)
and if the detected traffic capacity is larger than the desired traffic capacity, adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver comprises decreasing the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver based on the first frequency difference. (“For example, if a flexible bandwidth cell may be experiencing interference from a neighboring cell (which may be significant in some cases), it may reduce its own bandwidth in order to reduce the interference and this helps to maintain the quality of service (QoS) experienced by its own mobile devices or UEs. Decreasing the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth signal may conserve energy. For example, if the capacity on certain carriers may not be required, then the bandwidth of such carriers may be reduced and/or carriers may be powered off to reduce the power consumption on those carriers.”, Das [0136]) (Examiner’s Note: detected bandwidth is decreased if there’s too much interference and if the detected bandwidth isn’t required – this also helps conserve power)
Das as described above does not explicitly teach: a microwave radio link.
However, Tellado further teaches a microwave link in a similar application:
(“In at least some embodiments the wireless communication access traffic is communicated to a data network 140, 141, 142, through a backhaul communication technology, such as backhaul 130, 131, 132, 133, 134. The backhaul communication technology may include one or more of a fiber communication technology, a microwave link, a T1/E1, a cable or DSL communication technology or an alternative inband or out of band wireless (for example WiMAX or WiFi) communication technology.”, Tellado [0033]) (“The wireless communication access traffic (or data or data payload) associated with UE devices 121, 122, 123 may be associated with one or more data networks 140, 141, 142 (for example a carrier network, or a company network, or the internet, or a core network). The wireless communication access traffic may include downlink (originating from the data network 140, 141, 142) or uplink (originating from the UE devices 121, 122, 123) or both downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) traffic.”, Tellado [0032]) (“FIG. 12 shows a wireless system that includes characterizing of interference at a user equipment, according to an embodiment.”, Tellado [0020])
Das and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to monitoring traffic to characterize the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a system that monitors traffic to characterize interference of the network as described in Tellado into Das. By modifying the method to include a system that monitors traffic to characterize interference of the network as taught by Tellado, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136] and Tellado [0020]).
The combination of Das and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
determining, for at least a first interference signal, a first frequency difference, wherein the first frequency difference is the difference between i)_a frequency of a band edge of a communication frequency band of the RL transceiver an and ii) a frequency of the first interference signal;
However, Lee further teaches determining the frequency difference which includes:
determining, for at least a first interference signal, a first frequency difference, wherein the first frequency difference is the difference between i)_a frequency of a band edge of a communication frequency band of the RL transceiver an and ii) a frequency of the first interference signal;(“ A method of calculating a size of a guard band is explained. Since a value of out of band emission is determined according to an amount of radio resource assigned to a user equipment in frequency domain and transmit power of the corresponding user equipment, a size of a guard band can be obtained by a function of the radio resource assigned to the corresponding user equipment and the transmit power of the corresponding user equipment. In particular, the size of the guard band can be calculated by a function of an uplink resource allocation bandwidth and transmit power of the band. It is preferable to design the function on the basis of an interference level not greater than an emitted interference affecting reception of a DTV receiver, a WLAN UE, or a LTE/LTE-A UE. In other word, a radio resource allocated to a user equipment and a value of transmit power of the corresponding user equipment can draw an amount of interference affecting a reception channel of an adjacent band using the function. And, a size of a guard band can be calculated using the amount of interference affecting a reception channel of an adjacent band.”, Lee [0225]) (FIG. 20, Lee) (Examiner’s Note: FIG. 20 shows that the guard band is calculated from one band edge to another band edge and when there is no guard band, the two bands overlap and cause interference)
Das, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the frequency difference as described in Lee into Das as modified by Tellado. By modifying the method to include determining the frequency difference as taught by Lee, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
As to claim 17:
Das discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the desired traffic capacity of the RL transceiver is a function of a detected traffic load and/or an average buffer fill level of the RL transceiver. (“Embodiments are provided for adapting the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth carrier. Some embodiments include dynamically adapting the bandwidth of a flexible bandwidth carrier by changing the bandwidth scaling factor of the flexible bandwidth signal based on information such as traffic patterns, interference measurements, etc”, Das [0135]) (“The first flexible bandwidth carrier may include a first uplink-flexible bandwidth carrier, and the second bandwidth scaling factor and third bandwidth scaling factor are determined based on one or more traffic patterns for at least the first uplink-flexible bandwidth carrier or the first downlink-flexible bandwidth carrier.”, Das [0121]) (“The flexible bandwidth processor 1540 may dynamically adjust one or more bandwidth scaling factors of the flexible bandwidth signal associated with transmissions between small cell 125-e and mobile device 115-f. These adjustments may be made based on information such as traffic patterns, interference measurements, etc.”, Das [0168])
As to claim 18:
Das discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the desired traffic capacity of the RL transceiver comprises a predicted future traffic pattern of the RL transceiver. (“Based on historical data or other information, the small cell might be able to predict hours when there would be an increase in traffic on the network so that a bandwidth increase can be scheduled to accommodate such traffic for example.”, Das [0136])
As to claim 22:
Das discloses:
A radio link transceiver comprising the control unit of claim 1. (“The flexible bandwidth small cells 125 may utilize different flexible bandwidths for uplink and downlink.”, Das [0080]) (“The small cell 125-d may include antennas 1345, a transceiver module 1350, memory 1370, and a processor module 1365, which each may be in communication, directly or indirectly, with each other (e.g., over one or more buses).”, Das [0151])
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyer et al. US 20220070867 (hereinafter “Boyer”)
As to claim 2:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprise detecting a center frequency and a frequency bandwidth associated with the interference signal in a received signal of the RL transceiver and/or an adjacent frequency band edge associated with the interference signal.
However, Boyer further teaches characterizing the interference signal which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprise detecting a center frequency and a frequency bandwidth associated with the interference signal in a received signal of the RL transceiver and/or an adjacent frequency band edge associated with the interference signal.(“wherein the backhaul radio is capable of determining a measure of interference associated with each of a plurality of combinations of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings; wherein the backhaul radio is capable of determining or estimating one or more performance metrics associated with each combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings”, Boyer [0035])
Das, Boyer, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include characterizing the interference signal as described in Boyer into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include characterizing the interference signal as taught by Boyer, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Boyer [0035], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
As to claim 4:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprises receiving data from a remote server, the data being associated with a bandwidth and a center frequency of the interference signal.
However, Boyer further teaches characterizing the interference signal which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprises receiving data from a remote server, the data being associated with a bandwidth and a center frequency of the interference signal. (“According to an aspect of the invention, a backhaul radio is disclosed that includes a plurality of receive radio frequency (RF) chains, wherein each receive RF chain is capable of converting from one of a plurality of receive RF signals to a respective one of a plurality of receive chain output signals, and wherein each said receive RF signal is characterized by at least a channel center frequency and a channel bandwidth amongst either of a multitude of possible channel center frequencies or a multitude of possible channel bandwidths, respectively; a plurality of directive gain antenna elements; and one or more selectable RF connections for selectively coupling certain of the plurality of directive gain antenna elements to certain of the plurality of receive RF chains according to a set of selective coupling settings; wherein the backhaul radio is capable of determining a measure of interference associated with each of a plurality of combinations of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings; wherein the backhaul radio is capable of determining or estimating one or more performance metrics associated with each combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings, said determining or estimating of the one or more performance metrics being based at least upon the measure of interference; and wherein the backhaul radio is capable of changing from a first combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings to a second combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings, said changing being based at least upon an opportunity to improve at least one of the one or more performance metrics.”, Boyer [0035]) (“The backhaul radio may further include a backhaul management system agent that is capable of setting or causing to be set certain policies relevant to the radio resource controller, wherein the backhaul management system agent is capable of exchanging information with other backhaul management system agents within other backhaul radios or with one or more backhaul management system servers.”, Boyer [0037]) (“The information that can be exchanged with said backhaul management system agent can be used at least to set or cause to be set at least one of a channel center frequency, a specific selective coupling between at least one of the certain of the plurality of directive gain antenna elements and at least one of the certain of the plurality of receive RF chains, or a channel bandwidth.”, Boyer [0038])
Das, Boyer, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include characterizing the interference signal as described in Boyer into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include characterizing the interference signal as taught by Boyer, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], Boyer [0035], and Tellado [0020]).
As to claim 5:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver by changing a center frequency of the communication frequency band in addition to the bandwidth of the communication frequency band.
However, Boyer further teaches characterizing the interference signal which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises adjusting the communication frequency band of the RL transceiver by changing a center frequency of the communication frequency band in addition to the bandwidth of the communication frequency band. (“said determining or estimating of the one or more performance metrics being based at least upon the measure of interference; and wherein the backhaul radio is capable of changing from a first combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings to a second combination of channel center frequency, channel bandwidth, and set of selective coupling settings, said changing being based at least upon an opportunity to improve at least one of the one or more performance metrics.”, Boyer [0035])
Das, Boyer, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include characterizing the interference signal as described in Boyer into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include characterizing the interference signal as taught by Boyer, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Boyer [0035], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 20220046440 (hereinafter “Chen”)
As to claim 3:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprises receiving data associated with the first interference signal from a far end RL transceiver connected via radio link to the RL transceiver.
However, Chen further teaches characterizing the interference signal which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, determining the first frequency difference comprises receiving data associated with the first interference signal from a far end RL transceiver connected via radio link to the RL transceiver. (“an embodiment of the present application provides a system for circumventing far-end interference, including: an interfered station and an interfering station, and the interfered station determines that there is far-end interference preliminarily according to far-end interference features and sends a first dedicated reference signal sequence to the interfering station;”, Chen [0036]) (“adjusting the GP length by adjusting a time slot format configuration according to distance information of a detected far-end interference source when a reference signal sequence is continuously detected within first preset time; and the distance information of the far-end interference source is determined according to a detection result of the far-end interference source within the first preset time.”, Chen [0041])
Das, Chen, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include characterizing the interference signal as described in Chen into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include characterizing the interference signal as taught by Chen, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Chen [0041], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sethi US 20190208522 (hereinafter “Sethi”)
As to claim 6:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band only in case a frequency difference to an adjacent interference signal meets difference acceptance criterion.
However, Sethi further teaches increasing the bandwidth if an adjacent interference signal meets a distance requirement which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band only in case a frequency difference to an adjacent interference signal meets difference acceptance criterion.(“In this example, there is another wireless communication channel (Channel 2) adjacent to Channel 1. If the frequency bandwidth of Channel 1 was increased without either increasing the center frequency (f.sub.c1) of Channel 1 or shifting Channel 2 to a lower frequency band (e.g., to the left), the lower frequencies of Channel 1 would overlap with Channel 2 and cause interference between Channel 1 and Channel 2. Thus, in this example, the frequency bandwidth of Channel 1 is gradually increased and the center frequency of Channel 1 is gradually increased to prevent the overlap and prevent the interference.”, Sethi [0083])
Das, Sethi, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing the bandwidth if an adjacent interference signal meets a distance requirement as described in Sethi into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include increasing the bandwidth if an adjacent interference signal meets a distance requirement as taught by Sethi, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], Sethi [0083], and Tellado [0020]).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samardzija et al. US 8923386 (hereinafter “Samardzija”)
As to claim 7:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band only in case a signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio and/or a mean-squared-error, associated with the RL transceiver is above a respective distortion acceptance threshold.
However, Samardzija further teaches increasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band only in case a signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio and/or a mean-squared-error, associated with the RL transceiver is above a respective distortion acceptance threshold.(“The MSE estimate is compared to a first threshold value T.sub.1. If the MSE estimate is above this threshold, this indicates signal quality is less than desired. Accordingly, compression parameters such as the block size K and/or resolution N.sub.b are adapted in step S708. To improve the signal quality, the resolution N.sub.b may be increased by a resolution increment and/or the block size K may be decreased by a size decrement. Consequently the transport data rate will be increased.”, Samardzija [49])
Das, Samardzija, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement as described in Samardzija into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include increasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement as taught by Samardzija, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Samardzija [49], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
As to claim 14:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises decreasing the bandwidth in case SINR and/or MSE and/or MCS is below a respective distortion acceptance threshold.
However, Samardzija further teaches decreasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises decreasing the bandwidth in case SINR and/or MSE and/or MCS is below a respective distortion acceptance threshold. (“Returning to step S706, if the MSE estimate is not greater than the first threshold T.sub.1, the MSE estimate is compared to a second threshold T.sub.2. If the MSE estimate is below the second threshold T.sub.2, this indicates that the signal quality exceeds the desired signal quality requirements. Accordingly, the resolution N.sub.b may be lowered by a resolution decrement and/or the block size K increased by a size increment. Consequently, the transport data rate will be lowered. As will be appreciated, the second threshold T.sub.2 may be lower than the first threshold T.sub.1 to provide for a hysteresis effect.”, Samardzija [50])
Das, Samardzija, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to characterizing the interference in the network.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include decreasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement as described in Samardzija into Das as modified by Tellado. By modifying the method to include decreasing the bandwidth if the MSE meets a requirement as taught by Samardzija, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Samardzija [49], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang CN 110278531 (hereinafter “Wang”)
As to claim 8:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a relative priority value of the RL transceiver relative to one or more other RL transceivers, and increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band in case the relative priority value is above a priority threshold.
However, Wang further teaches increasing the bandwidth if the relative priority meets a requirement which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a relative priority value of the RL transceiver relative to one or more other RL transceivers, and increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band in case the relative priority value is above a priority threshold. (“S603, which is the target UE is located in the target area of the configuring the target control policy priority greater than the first priority threshold value. wherein the first priority threshold value is that when the UE exceeds the preset number of times of switching in the appointed time section reaches the preset times threshold, as exceeds the preset number of UE needs to preferentially guarantee the communication quality. For example, the UE 1000 above and reaches 20 times within 1 hours switching times, it is necessary to increase the allocated bandwidth more than UE predetermined number of more so as to guarantee the communication quality.” Wang [page 10, line 26])
Das, Wang, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing the bandwidth if the relative priority meets a requirement as described in Wang into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include increasing the bandwidth if the relative priority meets a requirement as taught by Wang, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (Wang [page 10, line 26]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado, Lee, and Wang, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kadel et al. US 20140233472 (hereinafter “Kadel”)
As to claim 11:
The combination of Das, Lee, Wang, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises periodically increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band by a step-length with a predetermined probability, where the predetermined probability is configured in dependence of the relative priority value of the RL transceiver.
However, Kadel further teaches increasing the bandwidth based on prediction and relative probability which includes:
The control unit of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises periodically increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band by a step-length with a predetermined probability, where the predetermined probability is configured in dependence of the relative priority value of the RL transceiver. (“To maximize the Quality of Experience (QoE), it is important that the application needs are matched as closely as possible to the available spectrum resources and network resources, anticipating future requirements if possible by both predicting future application needs and location based routes which are taken by the user.”, Kadel [0024]) (“These can, for example, include temporarily increasing the data transfer rate and buffer size to ensure low disruptions to the QoE in an area of reduced SR availability for a particular user. The mitigation measures are determined by policies which are selected according the application context/location/route of the users in the Defined Area. The policies themselves are defined by the network operator.”, Kadel [0083]) (“Accordingly, this part of the process takes as input User Ranking between the SR and PGLCU databases, user future data need at specific locations, and mitigation policies, and generates based thereon updated User Ranking, user Quality of Experience along predicted route, and mitigation policy selection.”, Kadel [0084]) (FIG. 1 shows that this process is repeated, Kadel) (“This is important, as a user's route will allow a prediction to be made of their future communication (and hence network resource) needs, and as a result (a) the likely availability of network spectrum resources and (b) the match of user needs to available network spectrum resources. A prediction of (a) and (b) is useful, as this can determine which policies are used in the transmission of data (for example, an increased buffer size may be established) if it is known that the user will enter an area with poor network and/or spectrum resource availability for a specific user priority class. [0026] (ii) Different applications have different bandwidth, latency and robustness needs. To maximize the Quality of Experience (QoE), it is important that the application needs are matched as closely as possible to the available spectrum resources and network resources, anticipating future requirements if possible by both predicting future application needs and location based routes which are taken by the user.”, Kadel [0024])
Das, Wang, Lee, Kadel, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing the bandwidth based on prediction and relative probability as described in Kadel into Das as modified by Tellado and Wang. By modifying the method to include increasing the bandwidth based on prediction and relative probability as taught by Kadel, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (Kadel [0024] and Wang [page 10, line 26]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. US 20140247746 (hereinafter “You”)
As to claim 12:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises adiusting a modulation and/or coding configuration of the RL transceiver prior to increasing bandwidth of the communication frequency band.
However, You further teaches adjusting a MCS before increasing the bandwidth which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises adiusting a modulation and/or coding configuration of the RL transceiver prior to increasing bandwidth of the communication frequency band. (“That is, unlike in a method of sending the authentication request frame using a low MCS irrespective of a channel state, the authentication request frame is transmitted by adaptively changing an MCS according to channel conditions, thereby being capable of increasing the transfer rate and data throughput.”, You [0067])
Das, You, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include adjusting a MCS before increasing the bandwidth as described in You into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include adjusting a MCS before increasing the bandwidt as taught by You, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (You [0067]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukkavilli et al. US 20180013594 (hereinafter “Mukkavilli”)
As to claim 13:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises decreasing the bandwidth in case a frequency difference to an adjacent interference signal is below a difference acceptance threshold.
However, Mukkavilli further teaches decreasing the bandwidth if the adjacent interference signal is below a threshold which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises decreasing the bandwidth in case a frequency difference to an adjacent interference signal is below a difference acceptance threshold. (“In an aspect, an operator may choose a size of its synchronous region to be as small as possible in order to minimize the mixed interference with an adjacent bandwidth region of a different operator to acceptable levels (e.g., below a threshold) and may assign rest of the bandwidth for asynchronous operation.”, Mukkavilli [0110]) (FIG. 10 shows the guard band or the distance that needs to be maintained to minimize interference, Mukkavilli)
Das, Mukkavilli, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include decreasing the bandwidth if the adjacent interference signal is below a threshold as described in Mukkavilli into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include decreasing the bandwidth if the adjacent interference signal is below a threshold as taught by Mukkavilli, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (Mukkavilli [0110]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akkarakaran et al. US 11477754 (hereinafter “Akkarakaran”)
As to claim 20:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band up to but not beyond a block license frequency band.
However, Akkarakaran further teaches increasing the bandwidth within the system bandwidth which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises increasing the bandwidth of the communication frequency band up to but not beyond a block license frequency band. (“the bandwidth (BW) value can be increased to the system bandwidth (i.e., BW=LTE system bandwidth in the case of LTE).”, Akkarakaran [83])
Das, Akkarakan, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include increasing the bandwidth within the system bandwidth as described in Akkarakaran into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include increasing the bandwidth within the system bandwidth as taught by Akkarakaran, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (Akkarakaran [83]).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Tellado and Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pratt et al. US 20090010233 (hereinafter “Pratt”)
As to claim 21:
The combination of Das, Lee, and Tellado as described above does not explicitly teach:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is arranged to autonomously increase and/or decrease the bandwidth of the communication frequency band.
However, Pratt further teaches autonomously increasing the bandwidth which includes:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is arranged to autonomously increase and/or decrease the bandwidth of the communication frequency band. (“In some of these embodiments, the wireless gateway may automatically request an increase or decrease in bandwidth allocation from an appropriate entity (e.g., a network manager module running in or outside the wireless network) in response to detecting these changes.”, Pratt [0008])
Das, Pratt, Lee, and Tellado are analogous because they pertain to improving communication quality of a UE.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include autonomously increasing the bandwidth as described in Pratt into Das as modified by Tellado and Lee. By modifying the method to include autonomously increasing the bandwidth as taught by Pratt, the benefits of improved interference management (Das [0136], Lee [0225], and Tellado [0020]) and improved communication quality (Pratt [0008]).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. US 20150341939 (hereinafter “Sharma”)
As to claim 24:
Lo as described above does not explicitly teach:
The network node of claim 23, wherein the database comprises one or more relative priority values, each relative priority value being indicative of a priority of a respective radio link transceiver relative to one or more other radio link, where the network node is arranged to transmit data to one or more radio link transceivers in the network of radio link transceivers, the data being associated with one or more of the relative priority values.
However, Sharma further teaches database for storing relative priority value and transmitting this data which includes:
The network node of claim 23, wherein the database comprises one or more relative priority values, each relative priority value being indicative of a priority of a respective radio link transceiver relative to one or more other radio link, where the network node is arranged to transmit data to one or more radio link transceivers in the network of radio link transceivers, the data being associated with one or more of the relative priority values. (“The RRM database 314 stores statistics and data, including configuration information and interference, received through the AP data collection module 308 from various network components, including any gateways, Aps 110, radios 120 and clients 130. The RRM system 100 has access to the RRM database 314 for storing data from the APs 110, configuration for the APs 110, and data on priorities for SSIDs, clients 130, and other network data. The RRM database 314 additionally stores information generated by the RRM engine 304 for any network node and associates the data with the node. For example, data and information stored in the RRM database 314 includes radios 120, channels, interference, noise, traffic, neighbor access points, channel utilization and transmit power associated with each AP 110 and radio 120.”, Sharma [0047]) (“The RRM software establishes a network connection between the nodes in the network, including gateways, Aps 110, radios 120, other RRM servers or network servers, sending and receiving data between network nodes through the network connection. In some embodiments, other network servers, for example RADIUS or AAA servers 140, provide additional information about network nodes, e.g., client priorities based on client IDs. In some embodiments, the network server receives data about the network nodes from RRM database 314 of the RRM system 100, and provide access, priority and other information in return to the RRM engine 304.”, Sharma [0045]) (“The hierarchy processing engine 312 includes a radio root manager 210 and controls all radio nodes (i.e. child nodes with respect to the root node) in the network. The hierarchy processing engine 312 through the AP configuration module 310 sends configurations of radio resource parameter to the gateways, APs 110, and radios 120 in the network as provided by, for example, the operator of RRM system 100 or the RRM engine 304. In some embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 3B, the AP configuration module 310 sends the configuration data through a downstream network management protocol to an RRM AP agent 326 running on the AP. Upon receipt of the configuration data, the radio configuration module 330 configures the AP 110 and any radio 130 specified in the configuration data. The radio data collection module 332 of the RRM AP agent 326 returns statistics of the AP 110 and its radios 130, information about neighbor APs and neighbor radios, and interference data back to AP data collection module 308 through an upstream network management protocol.”, Sharma [0046])
Lo and Sharma are analogous because they pertain to using a database to manage wireless devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include database for storing relative priority value and transmitting this data as described in Sharma into Lo. By modifying the method to include database for storing relative priority value and transmitting this data as taught by Sharma, the benefits of improved interference management (Lo [0069]) and improved communication quality (Sharma [0046]).
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 ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471