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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
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. 62/019,353, 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. Claims 1 and 15 (and claims 2-14 and 16-20 ultimately dependent upon corresponding claim 1 or 15) includes “wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device”, however, the closest to the above limitation in Application No. 62/019,353 is in para. 97 which discloses “In addition, the persistent, real-time spectrum analyzers that run in parallel with a primary receiver/transceiver and transmitter may be particularly useful for dynamic frequency selection (DFS), because the devices and systems described herein, in which there are simultaneously operating primary receivers and secondary (spectrum analyzers) receivers may allow concurrent channel availability checks to detect radar signals and allow the radio devices to move their operating frequencies if a radar signal is detected. Thus, with a persistent frequency analyzer (secondary receiver) the device can monitor for protected frequencies without any down time. This could be done locally by the device, as described in the examples below, or it could be done by a remote processor (e.g. cloud server).” which merely describes DFS functionality and does not support the claimed “wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device”. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Response to Arguments
A) Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
B) Applicant's arguments regarding double patenting on pages 6-7 indicate “provisionally rejected” and “The claims in the instant case have been amended” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been rejected, and applicant’s amendments have been directed to the 35 USC § 112(a) rejections and have not changed the claimed subject matter shown in the Office Action on pages 5-10. Applicant has merely made a general statement (“The claims in the instant case have been amended”) and has not argued nor provided evidence that the rejection is in error. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
C) Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-10 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 include “Husted [US 2003/0206130 A1] merely describes a radar detector that measures or determines signal pulse and amplitude. The measurement of various signal aspects that may indicate the presence of a radar signal is not the same as a link simulator that simulates a wireless link performance before physically installing and configuring the link” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “link simulator that simulates a wireless link performance before physically installing and configuring the link”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim language indicates “wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device” which is not commensurate with applicant’s argument. Further, the rejection is a 103 obviousness rejection with the combination of Rappaport [US 2006/0015814 A1] and Husted. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, in looking to the claim language and cited para. [19, 39-41] of Husted, the claim language is wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device, where Husted discloses:
“If the signals are radar, characteristics. (parameters) of the received signal are forwarded to an analysis device 250 that determines if the radar should be avoided (e.g., the wireless device 200 needs to change channels). If the characteristics of the received signal cannot be affirmatively determined, estimates are produced and similarly forwarded. Thus the detector 240 provides an important step in identifying radar signals by first detecting that the received signals are radar ... the analysis device 250 sends a control signal to an alert device that produces an audio and/or visual warning signal to an operator (e.g., radar warning). In another alternative, the analysis device sends a message that is interpreted and displayed on a screen (e.g., a sweep radar style screen that identifies radar sources). In yet another alternative, a message (e.g., containing data about the detected radar) is sent to a database program that maintains a record”
thus, Husted’s analysis device determines if radar should be avoided [potential radar source interference with the link of new / any / all device(s)] and estimates [link simulation] identified radar signals and provides a warning [indication]. Further, Husted discusses throughout the application how the unwanted radar signals represent interference (specifically stated in Husted para 30). Accordingly, Husted’s disclosure in combination with the disclosure Rappaport’s teaching of the limitations wherein the input includes location information for a new wireless device to be added to the wireless radio network (user adds component placed within active floor [location information]; para. [15, 18-19, 57]); and output an interactive map (device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59) and link simulation of a link between one or more wireless devices and a new wireless radio device (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency, signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); para. 70, device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59) as shown in the OA on page 12 teaches the argued claimed limitation wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
D) Remaining arguments are dependent upon argument C) above and thus, are correspondingly non-persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 10-11, 24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,751,068 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because take an example of comparing claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, and 14, of pending application and claims 1, 4, 10-11, 24 of US Patent No. US 11,751,068 B2:
Pending Application 18/358,933 claims 1,
US Patent No. 11,751,068 B2 claims 1,
(claim 1) A tool for assisting in the configuration of a wireless radio network, the tool comprising:
(claim 1) A tool for assisting in the configuration of a wireless radio network, the tool comprising:
a user interface, the user interface configured to:
a user interface for a mobile device, the user interface configured to:
receive an input from a user,
receive an input from a user; and
wherein the input includes location information for a new wireless device to be added to the wireless radio network; and
wherein the input includes a predetermined location for the new wireless radio device;
output an interactive map and link simulation of a link between one or more wireless devices and a new wireless radio device;
output an interactive map, a link simulation, and network management information comprising a device parameter for a new wireless radio device to be added to the wireless radio network,
a database, remote to the user interface, the database including a map of a geographic region of the wireless radio network, geographic location information for wireless devices within the wireless radio network, device characteristics of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network, and radio frequency (RF) spectral information for the wireless devices within the wireless radio network; and
a database, remote to the user interface, the database including a map of a geographic region of the wireless radio network, geographic location information for wireless devices within the wireless radio network, device characteristics of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network, and radio frequency (RF) spectral information for the wireless devices within the wireless radio network, including frequency reservations and blocked out frequency ranges due to regulatory requirements; and
a memory configured to store instructions; a processor adapted to communicate with the user interface, the memory, and the database, the processor configured to execute the instructions and determine and send, to the user interface the interactive map and the link simulation based on the input from the user and the database,
a processor adapted to communicate with the user interface and the database, the processor configured to determine and send, to the user interface, the device parameter for the new wireless radio device, wherein determination of the device parameter is based on a processor simulation of network performance for each of a plurality of potential new wireless radio devices having different operational parameters at the predetermined location based on the map of the geographic region, the device characteristics for the wireless devices within the wireless radio network, the frequency reservations, and the blocked out frequency ranges of the wireless devices,
wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device.
further wherein the processor is configured to display positions of one or more of the wireless devices of the wireless radio network on the interactive map, and wherein the processor is configured to determine and display a simulation of a link between one or more selected wireless devices and the new wireless radio device in the link simulation, including a Fresnel profile and a warning indicating a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more selected wireless devices and the new wireless radio device, the potential radar source interference based on a threshold.
(claim 2) The tool of claim 1, wherein the indication of the potential radar source interference is based at least in part on a radar source signals above threshold.
(claim 1) the potential radar source interference based on a threshold.
(claim 3) The tool of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless devices are selected by the user.
(claim 4) The tool of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to receive, as input, a wireless radio device type for the new wireless radio device and wherein the processor is configured to use the wireless radio device type to determine the network management information.
(claim 4) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation describes a wireless link between known and simulated wireless devices.
(claim 1) display a simulation of a link between one or more selected wireless devices and the new wireless radio device in the link simulation
(claim 5) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation describes a wireless link between at least two simulated wireless devices.
(claim 1) wherein the processor is configured to determine and display a simulation of a link between one or more selected wireless devices and the new wireless radio device in the link simulation
(claim 6) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation includes predicted signal to noise radios, network capacity, data throughput, or a combination thereof.
(claim 11) The tool of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the output based on a metric for network performance over time including the RF spectral information, further wherein the metric comprises one or more of network capacity, or data throughput.
(claim 7) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation is based on weather information associated with the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device.
(claim 24) The tool of claim 1, wherein the database includes weather data for a region of the map, further wherein the link simulation includes the weather data.
(claim 9) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation includes an estimated link quality between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device.
(claim 11) The tool of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the output based on a metric for network performance over time including the RF spectral information, further wherein the metric comprises one or more of network capacity, or data throughput.
(claim 11) The tool of claim 1, wherein the location information is entered in the user interface by dragging and dropping markers/pins, and/or entering a location, address or latitude/longitude corresponding to the new wireless device.
(claim 1) receive an input from a user; and wherein the input includes a predetermined location for the new wireless radio device;
(claim 12) The tool of claim 1, wherein the link simulation is adjusted based on a presence of other devices in the wireless radio network.
(claim 1) a processor simulation of network performance for each of a plurality of potential new wireless radio devices having different operational parameters at the predetermined location based on the map of the geographic region, the device characteristics for the wireless devices within the wireless radio network
(claim 14) The tool of claim 1, wherein the database includes frequency spectral information received from a plurality of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network at multiple times over a time period of greater than 24 hours comprising the RF spectral information over time for a plurality of regions within the geographic region.
(claim 10) The tool of claim 1, wherein the database includes frequency spectral information received from a plurality of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network at multiple times over a time period of greater than 24 hours comprising the RF spectral information over time for a plurality of regions within the geographic region.
Regarding claim 15, the claim corresponds to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim corresponds to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim corresponds to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim corresponds to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim corresponds to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim corresponds to claim 7.
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) 1-6, 9-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport et al. (US 2006/0015814 A1, made of record in the IDS of 10/13/2023) hereinafter Rappaport in view of Husted et al. (US 2003/0206130 A1, made of record in the IDS of 10/13/2023) hereinafter Husted.
Regarding claim 1, Rap814 teaches a tool for assisting in the configuration of a wireless radio network (portable computer for user for deploying/testing/optimizing wireless communication network; para. 17-18), the tool comprising: a user interface (user uses graphical user interface (GUI); para. 52), the user interface configured to: receive an input from a user (user uses GUI; para. 52), wherein the input includes location information for a new wireless device to be added to the wireless radio network (user adds component placed within active floor [location information]; para. [15, 18-19, 57]); and output an interactive map (device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59) and link simulation of a link between one or more wireless devices and a new wireless radio device (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency, signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); para. 70, device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59); a database (use of database; para. 16), remote to the user interface, the database including a map of a geographic region of the wireless radio network (database includes foliage, buildings, hills, obstacles affecting radio waves of physical environment; para. 16, devices retrieves building information and equipment information from server; para. [15, 67]), geographic location information for wireless devices within the wireless radio network (editing communication component position/location that are uploaded to server; para. [19, 57, 60]), device characteristics of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network (network component configuration uploaded to server; para. 64-65), and radio frequency (RF) spectral information for the wireless devices within the wireless radio network (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency; para. 70, measurement data stored in database and displayed alongside prediction/simulation data; para. 76-78); a memory configured to store instructions (computer with memory running software; para. [36, 49, 72, 78]); and a processor (device using software and computer; para. [49, 51, 72, 78]) adapted to communicate with the user interface, the memory (software and computer employ method for drawing; para. 51), and the database (devices retrieves plans from server; para. [15, 63, 67]), the processor configured to execute the instructions and determine and send, to the user interface the interactive map and the link simulation based on the input from the user and the database (user adds component placed within active floor [location information]; para. [15, 18-19, 57], device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59, measurement data stored in database and displayed alongside prediction/simulation data; para. 76-78).
Rap814 does not explicitly disclose wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Husted discloses wherein the link simulation includes an indication of a potential radar source interference with the link between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device (each device detects radar; para. 36, radar warning displayed on screen based on estimates; para. [19, 39-41]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Husted to the system of Rap814, where Rap814’s design, deployment, test, and maintenance device (para. [31, 72]) along with Husted’s radar detection (para. 46-48) improves the communication system by enabling radar detection among the interference for design, deployment, test, and maintenance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the potential radar source interference is based at least in part on a radar source signals above threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Husted further discloses wherein the indication of the potential radar source interference is based at least in part on a radar source signals above threshold (radar detection based on threshold; para. [18, 48, 52, 56, 71, 73, 75-76, 78, 80] and Tables 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Husted to the modified system of Rap814 and Husted, where Rap814 and Husted’s modified system along with Husted’s radar detection (para. 46-48) improves the communication system by enabling radar detection among the interference for design, deployment, test, and maintenance.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the one or more wireless devices are selected by the user (user adds component placed within active floor [location information]; para. [15, 18-19, 57]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation describes a wireless link between known and simulated wireless devices (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency; para. 70, measurement data stored in database and displayed alongside prediction/simulation data; para. 76-78).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation describes a wireless link between at least two simulated wireless devices (modeled components include base stations, repeaters, hubs, switches, routers, firewalls [multiple devices at least suggesting between at least two simulated devices] selected by user; para. 61).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation includes predicted signal to noise radios (prediction includes signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); para. 17, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), network capacity (prediction includes network throughput; para. 17), data throughput (modeling prior to actual implementation [prediction] includes data throughput; para. 15), or a combination thereof (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency; para. 70, prediction includes data throughput, SNR, and network throughput; para. [15, 17]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation includes an estimated link quality between the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device (user adds component placed within active floor [location information]; para. [15, 18-19, 57], device updates display with changed network configuration; para. 59, simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency, SIR, SNR; para. 70, color for SNR and other performance parameters; para. 17).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 9.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the estimated link quality is indicated by a color on the interactive map (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency; para. 70, color for SNR and other performance parameters; para. 17).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the location information is entered in the user interface by dragging and dropping markers/pins, and/or entering a location, address or latitude/longitude corresponding to the new wireless device (selection and placement of components and use of mouse/stylus, dragging [markers/pins], tapping, clicking [mouse], PalmOS®, Windows® operating system, coordinate axes X, Y, Z [latitude/longitude], ; para. [15-16, 18, 33-34, 52, 57], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation is adjusted based on a presence of other devices in the wireless radio network (making changes to components on the fly and displays updated model and changed network configuration; para. 59).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Rap814 further teaches wherein the link simulation is based on at least one of local frequency spectrum information (simulation data represented as signal strength, network throughput, bit error rate, packet error rate, packet latency; para. 70, measurement data stored in database and displayed alongside prediction/simulation data; para. 76-78, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), geographic information (database includes foliage, buildings, hills, obstacles affecting radio waves of physical environment; para. 16, devices retrieves building information and equipment information from server; para. [15, 67]), time information (time code to indicate when data collected; para. 74) and device characteristics provided by a spectrum analyzer included within one or more of the wireless devices.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rap814 in view of Husted, and further in view of Rappaport et al. (US 2004/0143428 A, made of record in the IDS of 10/13/2023) hereinafter Rap428.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Rap814 and Husted does not explicitly disclose wherein the link simulation is based on weather information associated with the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rap428 discloses wherein the link simulation is based on weather information associated with the one or more wireless devices and the new wireless radio device (modeled / predicted / simulated connections displayed; para. 102, determine configuration settings based on climatic conditions; para. 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Rap428 to the modified system of Rap814 and Husted, where Rap814 and Husted’s modified system along with Rap428's iterative simulation with different equipment and parameters (para. [64, 137]) enables selecting optimal equipment and parameters, thereby improving network performance.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rap814 in view of Husted, and further in view of Somoza et al. (US 6,336,035 B1) hereinafter Somoza.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Rap814 and Husted does not explicitly disclose wherein the potential radar source interference is from one or more terminal doppler weather radar towers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Somoza discloses wherein the potential radar source interference is from one or more terminal doppler weather radar towers (weather condition information using Doppler radar; Col. 9 lines 45-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Somoza to the modified system of Rap814 and Husted, where Rap814 and Husted’s modified system along with Somoza's automatic generation of product information (Col. 2 lines 26-67) improves planning, testing, and operating by reducing the need for manual trial and error.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rap814 in view of Husted, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2014/0274090 A1, made of record in the IDS of 10/13/2023) hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rap814 and Husted teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Rap814 and Husted does not explicitly disclose wherein the database includes frequency spectral information received from a plurality of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network at multiple times over a time period of greater than 24 hours comprising the RF spectral information over time for a plurality of regions within the geographic region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses wherein the database includes frequency spectral information received from a plurality of the wireless devices within the wireless radio network at multiple times (dynamic database updated; para. 23 and Fig. 3, dynamic database includes conditions for multiple devices at multiple locations of services area; para. 48, conditions include conditions of channels; para. 46) over a time period of greater than 24 hours (duration of T4 (element 328) includes six months; para. 36 and Figs. 3-4, dynamic database updates at 2 hours; para. 39, dynamic database updated at 10 minutes; para. 42 and Figs. 4-5, Tx duration increasing in order from T1 - T5; para. 29 and Fig. 3-5) comprising the RF spectral information over time for a plurality of regions within the geographic region (Figs. 3-5 showing multiple locations; area includes service area; para. 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Mitchell to the modified system of Rap814 and Husted, where Rap814 and Husted’s modified system along with Mitchell's dynamic use of regulated/licensed channels (para. [02, 12-13, 45]) improves efficiency of spectrum use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goodall et al. (US 2007/0042716 A1) discloses automatic radio site survey using a robot.
Mlinarsky et al. (WO 03/077060 A2) discloses a test system for simulating a wireless environment and method of using same.
Pfeiffer (US 2010/0029286 A1) discloses generation of a space-related traffic database in a radio network.
Yacovitch (US 2014/0301328 A1) discloses wireless access point alternate settings.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights