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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1 and 11, it is unclear how the interference mitigation unit will vary the first parameter of the radar. It appears the radar and the interference unit are separate entities, separated by a distance, and there appears to be no instructions from one to the other. Further clarification on how the “first parameter” is modified, and by who, is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovancevic, U.S. Patent Number 9,699,663, published July 4, 2017.
As per claims 1 and 11, Jovancevic discloses a method of mitigating interference between multiple signals, the method comprising:
detecting, by a plurality of distributed radar sensors, one or more radar signals transmitted from a radar-based communication network; extracting, by a processing unit, at least one first parameter related to the one or more radar signals (Jovancevic, Col. 17, lines 12-29);
predicting, by the processing unit, at least one potential radar waveform of one or more radar signals based on at the least one first parameter (Jovancevic, Col. 21, lines 15-27);
receiving, by a receiver chain, one or more wireless communication signals from a wireless communication network; extracting, by the receiver chain, at least one second parameter related to the one or more wireless communication signals (Jovancevic, Col. 28, lines 23-35);
performing, by an interference mitigation unit, waveform matching, OFDMA like, between the at least one potential radar waveform and the one or more wireless communication signals (Jovancevic, Col. 22, lines 7-50);
determining, by the interference mitigation unit, a probability of interference between the one or more radar signals and the one or more wireless communication signals based on the waveform matching; performing, by the interference mitigation unit, interference mitigation between the one or more radar signals and the one or more wireless communication signals based on the probability of interference by varying/modulating the at least one first parameter (Jovancevic, Col. 37, lines 1-38).
Jovancevic fails to explicitly disclose determining a probability, instead looking for radar and communication signals on the same frequency. It has been held that a mere omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. In this case, the disclosure of Jovancevic still provides for interference mitigation as needed.
As per claim 2, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: continuously monitoring the one or more radar signals and the one or more wireless communication signals; determining a probability of interference between the one or more radar signals and the one or more wireless communication signals; and performing interference mitigation between the one or more radar signals and the one or more wireless communication signals, based on the probability of interference by varying/modulating the at least one first parameter (Jovancevic, Col. 23, lines 4-5 where signals are continuously monitored).
As per claims 3, 4, 12 and 13, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one first parameters are signal power, pulse rate, and signal information of the one or more radar signals and communication signals (Jovancevic, Col. 28, lines 23-35).
As per claims 6 and 7, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interference mitigation unit includes nRT-RIC and NRT-RIC and wherein the nRT-RIC notify NRT- RIC to trigger interference handling process (Jovancevic, Fig. 5, Col. 15, lines 59-67 and Col. 16, liens 1-5).
While Jovancevic does not use the same nomenclature, it is clear he provides an interference detection unit to identify and handle the interference.
As per claims 8 and 15, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the varying/modulating the at least one first parameter is performed by the interference mitigation unit through interference handling process such as but not limited to bandwidth part switch, trigger blank subframe, beam alignment, and frequency evacuation (Jovancevic, Col. 5, lines 30-50).
As per claim 9, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of distributed radar sensors is provisioned and managed by a spectrum aware server (Jovancevic, Fig. 1 where each SSS can act as a server).
As per claims 10 and 16, Jovancevic further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless communication signal is 5G (Jovancevic, Col. 9, lines 1-22 where below 1GHz is considered the lower end of the 5G spectrum).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovancevic in view of Dai, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0350017, filed June 1, 2020.
As per claims 5 and 14, Jovancevic discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the waveform comparisons are performed however he fails to disclose the use of machine learning.
Dai teaches machine learning algorithms to analyze waveforms (¶76).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use machine learning, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Jovancevic in providing interference reduction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646