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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 01/20/2026, have been entered into the record. Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-16 are allowed. Claims 13-14 and 17-20 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, para. 2, filed 01/20/2026,, with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 15 have been withdrawn. The examiner notes that the applicant refers to “independent claim 19” rather than “independent claim 15” in the second paragraph of p. 9. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 13, but claim 15 is an independent claim that includes the same relevant limitation as amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 13, also filed 01/20/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest a control system configured to, “modify an antenna beam pattern of the transmitter to mitigate interference with an observation sensing activity of the satellite.” However, Eichen teaches this limitation in para. 2 of the introduction, stating, “This algorithm works by reducing Tx power, and by moving network traffic (if required) to alternate bands using the 3GPP dual-active stack protocol [5] when and where interference will occur.” Moving network traffic to alternate bands involves modifying transmission frequency, which in turn changes the beam pattern of the antenna. The image below, for example, shows the effect of frequency on the antenna beam pattern of a dipole antenna.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image source: Blattenberger, K. (2010). Electronic warfare and radar systems engineering handbook: frequency/phase effects of antennas. RF Café. https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/frequency-phase-effects-antennas.htm.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichen (E. Eichen, "Performance of Real-Time Geospatial Spectrum Sharing (RGSS) between 5G Communication Networks and Earth Exploration Satellite Services," 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021, pp. 73-79, doi: 10.1109/DySPAN53946.2021.9677268) in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0219401 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Eichen discloses (note: what Eichen does not disclose is struck through; text added by the examiner for clarity is italicized),
A system, comprising: a transmitter configured to emit a signal (fig. 5, CBSD 1-4 and EUDs); and a control system (fig. 5, noting that “It is also interesting that RGSS is compatible with the Wireless Innovation Forum’s SAS architecture ( Figure 5 )…In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data. For RGSS, network infrastructure data could be read from the FCC or directly from carrier databases; similarly, output control information from RGSS would be provided to base stations through the carrier’s NMS system.”), configured to: determine a geographical mitigation region of a satellite (p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data.”), when the transmitter is located within the geographical mitigation region (p. 77, right-hand col., final para., “Both systems prevent interference by controlling base station Tx power levels and traffic (connected endpoints) based on RF modeling based and a schedule of when incumbent spectrum users will be interfered with.”), and modify an antenna beam pattern of the transmitter to mitigate interference with an observation sensing activity of the satellite (p. 74, right-hand col., heading III, para. 1, “RGSS uses existing (deployed) network infrastructure and actual satellite traversals and radiometer characteristics. This data is provided to a spectrum management system that models the RF environment and modifies Tx power and network traffic to meet OOB emission limits.” See also para. 2 of the introduction, “This algorithm works by reducing Tx power, and by moving network traffic (if required) to alternate bands using the 3GPP dual-active stack protocol [5] when and where interference will occur.” The examiner notes that moving network traffic to alternate bands involves modifying transmission frequency, which in turn changes the beam pattern of the antenna).
Ren et al. discloses,
…determine the transmitter is located within the geographical mitigation region (para. 0050, “Based on the GPS coordinates (or other location data), cloud service 202 identify any geofences in the vicinity of vehicle 403A. Cloud service 202 can send identified geofences to communication module 407. Communication module 407 can receive geofences from cloud service 202. Communication module 407 can send geofences to geofence processor 434.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location determination of Ren et al. with the RGSS system of Eichen. Although Eichen does not explicitly teach a step of determining the transmitter is located within the geographical mitigation region, said step is implied by Eichen’s teaching of using a schedule to prevent interference, quoted above. However, for moving transmitters a schedule may not be sufficient for determining that the transmitter is within the geographical mitigation region. Ren et al.’s location-based geofence communication demonstrates a method of determining the location of the transmitter, and thus increases the applicability of Eichen’s system by enabling its use on mobile transmitters.
Regarding claim 14, Eichen in view of Ren et al. teaches the system of claim 13. Eichen further discloses,
…wherein the control system is configured to determine a time period during which transmitters located within the geographical mitigation region should mitigate interference with the sensing activity (p. 77, right-hand col., final para., “There are striking similarities between the RGSS proposal and the CBRS deployments ( Table 3 ). Both systems prevent interference by controlling base station Tx power levels and traffic (connected endpoints) based on RF modeling based and a schedule of when incumbent spectrum users will be interfered with…both systems use schedule data (in the case of RGSS, the traversal of a given satellite/radiometer, and in CBRS’ case, the proximity of radars) to prevent interference.” The examiner notes that “a schedule” indicates a time period) and the control system is configured to transmit an indication of the time period to a second device that includes a second transmitter (fig. 5, EUD).
Regarding claim 17, Eichen in view of Ren et al. teaches the system of claim 13. Eichen further discloses,
…wherein the control system the control system is configured to modify the operation of the transmitter by causing the transmitter to at least one of: reduce a transmit power, reduce a duty cycle of a signal transmission, inhibit transmission of signals having a frequency that overlaps a second frequency band of signals that are detected by the satellite, and modify a transmission beam of the transmitter satellite (p. 73, left-hand col., final para., “Using the issue of interference between 5G NR2 band transmitters (24.25 – 24.75 GHz) and EESS radiometers (23.7–23.9 GHz) [3 , 4] as a test case, a simple RGS algorithm that pauses communications while a base station (gNB) is within a radiometer’s measurement pixel provides a network availability of 99.6% for the aggregate of all satellite/radiometer operating in the 23.8 GHz band. A more sophisticated algorithm that models the interference using network infrastructure data plus specific radiometer characteristics and traversals has also been investigated. This algorithm works by reducing Tx power, and by moving network traffic (if required) to alternate bands using the 3GPP dual-active stack protocol [5] when and where interference will occur.”).
Regarding claim 18, Eichen in view of Ren et al. teaches the system of claim 17. Eichen further discloses,
…wherein the control system the control system is further configured to: determine an observation time period during which the satellite will observe at least a portion of the geographical mitigation region; and modify the operation of the transmitter by preventing the transmitter from outputting the signal during the observation time period (p. 73, left-hand col., final para., “Using the issue of interference between 5G NR2 band transmitters (24.25 – 24.75 GHz) and EESS radiometers (23.7–23.9 GHz) [3 , 4] as a test case, a simple RGS algorithm that pauses communications while a base station (gNB) is within a radiometer’s measurement pixel provides a network availability of 99.6% for the aggregate of all satellite/radiometer operating in the 23.8 GHz band.).
Regarding claim 19, Eichen further discloses,
…wherein the control system the control system is configured to: receive a satellite path data for the satellite (fig. 5, EUD receives data from base stations. See also p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data. For RGSS, network infrastructure data could be read from the FCC or directly from carrier databases; similarly, output control information from RGSS would be provided to base stations through the carrier’s NMS system.”), wherein the satellite path data includes at least one of: satellite altitude data, satellite observational direction, satellite field of vision data, and a data scanning methodology and associated parameters used by the satellite (p. 74, right-hand col., final para., “From figure 2, a measurement pixel computed from the effective field of view (eFOV) of the radiometer (i.e., the projection of the radiometer’s aperture in the sensor’s object plane) is scanned across the Earth as its satellite moves in orbit.”); and determine the geographical mitigation region using the satellite path data (p. 75, left-hand col., final para., “In addition to pausing transmission in the measurement pixel, it is necessary to pause transmission in a buffer around a measurement pixel to accommodate uncertainty in the calculated pixel position and size.”).
Regarding claim 20, Eichen further discloses,
…wherein the control system the scanning methodology specifies a pixel sweep area and an area of the geographical mitigation region is greater than the pixel sweep area (fig. 3 shows a geographical mitigation region (safety buffer in blue) that is greater than the pixel sweep area (in red)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Eichen (E. Eichen, "Performance of Real-Time Geospatial Spectrum Sharing (RGSS) between 5G Communication Networks and Earth Exploration Satellite Services," 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021, pp. 73-79, doi: 10.1109/DySPAN53946.2021.9677268) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Ren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0219401 A1) is also considered relevant close prior art to the claimed invention..
Regarding claim 1, Eichen discloses (note: what Eichen does not disclose is struck through; text added by the examiner for clarity is italicized),
A system, comprising: a server computer, including: a database storing satellite path data for a plurality of satellites (p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data. For RGSS, network infrastructure data could be read from the FCC or directly from carrier databases; similarly, output control information from RGSS would be provided to base stations through the carrier’s NMS system.”), and a processor (fig. 5, CBSD device) configured to: retrieve a first satellite path data for a first satellite from the database (p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data.”), calculate, using the first satellite path data, a geographical mitigation region path, the geographical mitigation region path defining a plurality of geographic mitigation regions and observation time periods during which at least a portion of each geographical mitigation region of the plurality of geographic mitigation regions will be observed by the first satellite (p. 75, left-hand col., para. 4, “In addition to pausing transmission in the measurement pixel, it is necessary to pause transmission in a buffer around a measurement pixel to accommodate uncertainty in the calculated pixel position and size. In the case of cross-track scanners, the radiometer scanning period is synchronized with the satellite’s position [17] . When using ATMS pixel position data for times 12 hours prior to a given transversal [18] , RGSS could predict a radiometer’s scan cycle accurately enough to such that the position of the calculated pixel to the actual pixel was ± 5km. It was thus reasonable to use pixel-based geofencing to buffer the pixel area for cross-track radiometers.” See also fig. 3); and transmit, using a wireless communication network, the geographical mitigation region path to a plurality of user devices that are within a geographical region (fig. 5, CBSD 1 transmits information, including the RGSS data, to end user devices (EUDs). See also p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data. For RGSS, network infrastructure data could be read from the FCC or directly from carrier databases; similarly, output control information from RGSS would be provided to base stations through the carrier’s NMS system.” The examiner notes that the reference teaches that geographical mitigation region path is shared with a variety of EUDs, but does not specify that said path is shared with vehicles specifically); and (fig. 5, EUD receives data from base stations. See also p. 78, left-hand col., para. 2, “In the case of RGSS, the Incoming Incumbent data would be radiometer/satellite traversal data. For RGSS, network infrastructure data could be read from the FCC or directly from carrier databases; similarly, output control information from RGSS would be provided to base stations through the carrier’s NMS system.”); (p. 73, left-hand col., final paragraph, “Using the issue of interference between 5G NR2 band transmitters (24.25 – 24.75 GHz) and EESS radiometers (23.7–23.9 GHz) [3 , 4] as a test case, a simple RGS algorithm that pauses communications while a base station (gNB) is within a radiometer’s measurement pixel provides a network availability of 99.6% for the aggregate of all satellite/radiometer operating in the 23.8 GHz band.”); determine an observation time period associated with the geographical mitigation region; and modify a duty cycle of a user device to align the off period of the duty cycle with the observation time period so that the observation time period occurs during the off period to mitigate interference with an observation activity of the first satellite (p. 75, left-hand col, para. 4, “In addition to pausing transmission in the measurement pixel, it is necessary to pause transmission in a buffer around a measurement pixel to accommodate uncertainty in the calculated pixel position and size.” The examiner notes that this reference specifies modifying radio frequency transmissions as a genus but does not specifically teach modifying a vehicle radar subsystem).
Ren et al. discloses (note: what Ren et al. does not teach is struck through),
…transmit, using a wireless communication network, the geographical mitigation region path to a plurality of vehicles that are within a geographical region (“Cloud service 202 can send identified geofences to communication module 407.” The examiner notes that communication module 407 is part of a vehicle.); and a vehicle, including: a global navigation satellite subsystem, a vehicle radar subsystem (fig. 4, GPS device 433 is part of vehicle 403A), (“Cloud service 202 can send identified geofences to communication module 407.” The examiner notes that communication module 407 is part of a vehicle.); determine a location of the vehicle using the global navigation satellite subsystem (para. 0050, “Based on the GPS coordinates (or other location data), cloud service 202 identify any geofences in the vicinity of vehicle 403A. Cloud service 202 can send identified geofences to communication module 407. Communication module 407 can receive geofences from cloud service 202. Communication module 407 can send geofences to geofence processor 434.”), determine that the location of the vehicle is within a geographical mitigation region of the plurality of geographic mitigation regions (para. 0050, “Based on the GPS coordinates (or other location data), cloud service 202 identify any geofences in the vicinity of vehicle 403A. Cloud service 202 can send identified geofences to communication module 407. Communication module 407 can receive geofences from cloud service 202. Communication module 407 can send geofences to geofence processor 434
Thus, Ren et al. fails to correct for the deficiencies in Eichen. Specifically, the system of Ren et al. cannot reasonably be said to render obvious using a geofence in a vehicle to modify the duty cycle of a vehicle radar subsystem. The system of Eichen teaches a way of modifying radio transmissions, but does not specify applications to radar systems, let alone vehicle radar systems. In reference to independent claim 1, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 1.
Claims 4-12 are allowed because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of, claim 1.
Claim 15 is allowed for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1.
Claim 16 is allowed because it depends upon, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoyhtya et al. (M. Höyhtyä et al., "Database-Assisted Spectrum Sharing in Satellite Communications: A Survey," in IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 25322-25341, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2771300) discloses a survey of existing database-assisted spectrum sharing techniques for satellite communications.
Gurney (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0092103 A1) discloses a method and system for frequency spectrum sharing using a base station.
Eichen 2019 (E. Eichen, "Real-Time Geographical Spectrum Sharing by 5G Networks and Earth Exploration Satellite Services," 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Newark, NJ, USA, 2019, pp. 1-2, doi: 10.1109/DySPAN.2019.8935715) discloses the initial formulation of the RGSS system explored in Eichen 2021
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights