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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The terms “processing device” are structural modifiers. None of the claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/366,236, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
At claim 1, at least the limitations “channels,” “do not include,” “complementary” are not found in Application No. 63/366,236. Dependent claims 2-7 do not correct this issue.
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) 1, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3806525 A2 to Lekutai et al. (“Lekutai”) [provided by Applicant]
As to claim 1, Lekutai discloses an access point (AP) (fig. 1, Base Station 102), comprising: a processing device (fig. 1, computing device 114 of base station 102) configured to: detect, at the AP, a backhaul transmission received from a backhaul modem (para. 0104, measuring, based at least in part on the slot format, a signal during a time period associated with a flexible portion of the wireless communication. For example, a signal received during the flexible portion of the wireless communication can be determined to be interference based on the signal not arriving during a downlink portion or uplink portion; para. 0106, At operation 908, the process can include determining that a frequency of the signal corresponds to a backhaul communication frequency [fig. 6, interference message received at base station 102 from microwave backhaul transceiver 110]); identify, at the AP, one or more backhaul frequency channels present in the backhaul transmission (para. 0106, At operation 908, the process can include determining that a frequency of the signal corresponds to a backhaul communication frequency.); compute, at the AP, one or more complementary backhaul frequency channels based on the one or more backhaul frequency channels (para. 0106, For example, for a sensor or computing device associated with a base station, a signal received during the flexible portion can be determined to be interference. The operation 908 can further include determining a center frequency (i.e. one or more complementary backhaul frequency channels) associated with the signal (i.e. based on the one or more backhaul frequency channels) to determine if the signal is associated with a channel similar to a channel used for a communication between the base station and a UE); and compute, at the AP, one or more operating frequency channels (para. 0108, At operation 912, the process can include selecting a wireless resource for at least one of a base station or a backhaul transceiver based at least in part on the power level meeting or exceeding the threshold level. In some examples, the operation 912 may include falling back to LTE, selecting another channel (for the base station and/or transceivers) (i.e. one or more operating frequency channels)), wherein the one or more operating frequency channels do not include: the one or more backhaul frequency channels and the one or more complementary backhaul frequency channels (para. 0108, selecting another channel (for the base station and/or transceivers), i.e. not center frequency, not a frequency of the signal); and a transceiver (fig. 1, illustrating antenna on top of base station 102) configured to: transmit, from the AP to a wireless device, a signal using the one or more operating frequency channels (para. 0069, In some examples, the switch channel(s) action 408 may include instructing the base station 102, the UE 104, and/or the transceivers 108 and 110 to use a different channel (e.g., channel Y) to introduce a guard band between the connections 334 and 336; fig. 4, note bi-directional communication occurs between base station 102 and UE 104 over connection 334, hence switching channels implies this communication (i.e. at least a signal) is transmitted after switching).
As to claim 4, Lekutai further discloses the access point of claim 1 wherein the processing device is further configured to: acquire, at the AP from an AFC server, one or more signal parameters for the one or more backhaul frequency channels (para. 0105, At operation 906, the process can include determining signal characteristics (e.g., frequency, power level, etc.) (i.e. signal parameters) associated with the signal. For example, the operation 906 can include determining a RSSI, SING, RSRP, RSRQ, and the like, as appropriate. [fig. 6, interference message received at base station 102 from microwave backhaul transceiver 110 (i.e. AFC server)]; para. 0106, At operation 908, the process can include determining that a frequency (i.e. one or more backhaul frequency channels) of the signal corresponds to a backhaul communication frequency.); determine, at the AP, backhaul interference in the one or more backhaul frequency channels based on the signal parameters (para. 0106, At operation 908, the process can include determining that a frequency of the signal corresponds to a backhaul communication frequency. For example, for a sensor or computing device associated with a base station, a signal received during the flexible portion can be determined to be interference ); and adjust, at the AP, the one or more operating channels based on the backhaul interference in the one or more backhaul frequency channels (para. 0108, At operation 912, the process can include selecting a wireless resource for at least one of a base station or a backhaul transceiver based at least in part on the power level meeting or exceeding the threshold level. In some examples, the operation 912 may include falling back to LTE, selecting another channel (for the base station and/or transceivers) (i.e. one or more operating frequency channels)).
As to claim 6, Lekutai further discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compute, at the AP, one or more of an AP location or a backhaul location based on one or more signal parameters for the one or more backhaul frequency channels (para. 0030-0034, For example, the base station 102 may be located at a distance 124 away from the microwave backhaul transceiver 108 (i.e. AP location, backhaul location). In some examples, the base station 102 may be located perpendicular to the backhaul connection 112, as indicated by the symbol 126. That is, an angle formed by line segments based at least in part on the locations of the base station 102, the transceiver 108, and the transceiver 110 may correspond to a 90 degree angle (or may be within a threshold value of a 90 degree angle). Further, the base station 102 may be located a distance 128 away from the microwave backhaul transceiver 110. An angle 130 associated with the connection 106 represents an angular difference between the connection 106 and the connection 112. A distance 132 represents a distance between the UE 104 and the microwave backhaul transceiver 110. The interference detection component 120 can receive information (i.e. one or more signal parameters) about the topology of the devices in the environment 100 to determine whether interference is likely. In some examples, the computing device 114 can receive a prior coordination notice about different devices in an environment. Based on the location of the devices and/or on wireless resources used by such devices, the interference mitigation component 122 may implement mitigation techniques, as discussed herein; para. 0106, At operation 908, the process can include determining that a frequency (i.e. backhaul frequency channel) of the signal corresponds to a backhaul communication frequency [fig. 6, interference message received at base station 102 from microwave backhaul transceiver 110]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3806525 A2 to Lekutai et al. (“Lekutai”) [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0074129 A1 to Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al. (“Taherzadeh”).
As to claim 3, Lekutai does not expressly disclose the access point of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: determine, at the AP, a preamble based on one or more of a carrier frequency or a symbol rate, wherein the one or more of the carrier frequency or the symbol rate is determined from an autocorrelation of a carrier signal; or determine, at the AP, a preamble repetition.
Taherzadeh discloses the base station may configure the UE with a preamble that the UE may use to request repetition. In some examples, the base station may transmit a configuration for the first message including the preamble, where the configuration indicates a preamble, a random access occasion, a transmission technique for the preamble, a preamble format, a quantity of repetitions of the preamble (i.e. determine, at the AP, a preamble repetition), or a combination thereof, among other examples, that is associated with the use of repetition to transmit the DCI (para. 0044).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the preambles of Taherzadeh into the
invention of Lekutai. The suggestion/motivation would have been for including message two control channel repetition for contention free random access (Taherzadeh, para. 0001). Including the preambles of Taherzadeh into the
invention of Lekutai was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Taherzadeh.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3806525 A2 to Lekutai et al. (“Lekutai”) [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0294976 A1 to HAHN et al. (“Hahn”).
As to claim 5, Lekutai does not expressly disclose the access point of claim 1, wherein the processing device is further configured to: compute, at the AP, backhaul interference in the one or more backhaul frequency channels by correlating one or more of a backhaul preamble or a backhaul pilot sequence.
Hahn discloses at para. 0008: In a further aspect of the present invention, provided herein is a method for measuring interference from a second moving cell by a first moving cell connected to a fixed evolved node B (eNB) in a wireless communication system, including: transmitting, to the fixed eNB, a channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) (i.e. pilot sequence) configuration on an access link of the first moving cell; receiving, from the fixed eNB, a CSI-RS configuration on a backhaul link of the first moving cell; and measuring interference caused to the backhaul link of the first moving cell by an access link of the second moving cell based on (i.e. correlating) the CSI-RS configuration on the backhaul link of the first moving cell. In this case, the CSI-RS configuration on the backhaul link of the first moving cell may be determined based on CSI-RS configurations on access links of a plurality of individual moving cells including the first and second moving cells.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the interference of Hahn into the
invention of Lekutai. The suggestion/motivation would have been for performing interference coordination between backhaul links and/or access links of moving cells connected to a fixed evolved node B (eNB) and apparatus therefor (Hahn, para. 0001). Including the interference of Hahn into the invention of Lekutai was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hahn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080139232 A1 discloses at claims 7 and 15: determination of the retransmission timeout value includes an autocorrelation function of backhaul delay over a forward common control channel (F-CCCH).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights