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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20190386759 A1) in view of Hess et al. (US 20210367681 A1) and Lutchoomun et al. (US 20260113100 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a system (Fig. 1), comprising: a processor and a memory (Fig. 11), the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (Fig. 11), including instructions to: obtain a sample of a first received signal (Fig. 5, S510 and Pars. 23-25); extract a suspected interference characteristic from the sample (Fig. 5, S530 and Pars. 55, 81); generate a parameter for input to (Fig. 5, S550 and Pars. 51-53, ML model (machine learning application) performs (generates) priority or weight (parameter)), the input parameter including a weight or a setting (Par. 53); upon generating the input parameter, execute the machine learning application using the input parameter (Pars. 31-34, detection algorithms that function to detect interference); and in response to the machine learning application indicating interference, transmit a first request to a transmitter of the first received signal to modify a parameter of the transmitter responsive to the input parameter (Fig. 5 and Pars. 94, 97, providing an output interference analysis to an infrastructure element (transmitter) recommending corrective actions for mitigating the interference).
Singh does not mention a layer of the ML model. However, it is very well-known the ML model has at least a layer for receiving and processing the input as taught by Hess (Fig. 3 and Par. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Hess into Singh to process data.
The modified Singh lacks on the teaching of the suspected characteristic is based on a characterization of a received signal power over a first radio frequency (RF) spectrum of the first received signal exceeding a threshold.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Lutchoomun. Lutchoomun teaches WTRU perform one or more measurements of the wireless environment or characteristics and when the measurements exceed a threshold input the measurements to a machine learning model (Fig. 5B at steps 558, 560 and 562 and Pars. 270, 274). Lutchoomun also teaches determine whether the machine learning model indicates or predicts a blockage or interference (i.e. upon generating the input parameter, execute the machine learning application using the input parameter) (Fig. 5B at step 564 and Par. 277); and in response to the machine learning application indicating interference, transmit a first request to a transmitter of the first received signal to modify a parameter of the transmitter responsive to the input parameter (Fig. 5B at step 566 and Pars. 278, 283).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Lutchoomun into Singh to ensure quality measurement meet the requirement.
Regarding claim 6, method of claim 6 is performed by the apparatus of claim 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, system of claim 13 is performed by the apparatus of claim 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Hess teaches previous claim. The modified Hess further teaches the system of claim 13, wherein extracting the suspected interference characteristic from the sample includes transmitting a request from the second processor to the first processor to supply signal power data (Pars. 46, 55).
2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20190386759 A1) in view of Hess et al. (US 20210367681 A1) and Lutchoomun et al. (US 20260113100 A1) and in further view of Hermel et al. (US 20070243899 A1) and Olgaard (US 20070009021 A1).
Regarding claim 2, apparatus of claim 2 is performed by the method of claim 7. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hess teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Hess does not teach the method of claim 6, wherein the suspected interference characteristic includes a deviation in received signal power over a first radio frequency (RF) spectrum of the first received signal
Hermel teaches determining a power loss versus RF frequency relationship comprises calculating a best fit curve equation and estimating a power loss for an RF signal in an RF frequency band based on the power loss versus RF frequency relationship (Fig. 7 and Par. 76). Olgaard teaches wherein the best fit curve calculation/estimation is well-known based on a linear relationship, and the best fit curve is compared to a predetermined expected or desired target to determine whether to perform an iterative adjustment (deviation) (Pars. 31 and 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Hermel and Olgaard into modified Singh for avoiding the interference.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hess teaches previous claim. The modified Hess further teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining a curve fit representing the deviation in a power of the first received signal over the first spectrum (Hermel, Fig. 7 and Par. 76).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hess teaches previous claim. The modified Hess further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the deviation in the received signal power is determined based on a curve fit representative of a power of the first received signal over of the first RF spectrum exceeding a threshold with respect to the linear approximation (Olgaard, Par. 37).
Regarding claim 14, system of claim 14 is performed by the method of claim 7. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, system of claim 15 is performed by the method of claim 8. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, system of claim 16 is performed by the method of claim 9. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 9.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20190386759 A1) in view of Hess et al. (US 20210367681 A1) and Lutchoomun et al. (US 20260113100 A1) and in further view of Khati et al. (US 20250113327 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified Singh teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Hess does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the transmitted first request includes a request to an orbiting satellite to discontinue transmitting the first received signal utilizing a first spectrum; and wherein the transmitted first request additionally comprises a request to initiate transmission of a second signal utilizing a second spectrum.
Khati teaches such feature (Figs. 8-9 and Pars. 58-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Khati into the modified Singh to mitigate interference in wireless communication.
Regarding claims 10-11, method of claims 10-11 are performed by the apparatus of claims 3-4. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claims 3-4.
Regarding claims 18-20, system of claims 18-19 are performed by the apparatus of claims 3-4. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claims 3-4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20190386759 A1) in view of Hess et al. (US 20210367681 A1) and Lutchoomun et al. (US 20260113100 A1) and in further view of Dzierwa et al. (US 20190072601 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Singh teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Singh does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions additionally include instructions to generate a training input to the machine learning application, the training input including a square waveform or trapezoidal-shaped waveform modified via summation with a selectable machine-generated noise signal.
Dzierwa teaches such feature (Figs. 36-37 and Par. 253).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Chen into modified Singh for effectively classify the detected signals.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20190386759 A1) in view of Hess et al. (US 20210367681 A1) and Lutchoomun et al. (US 20260113100 A1) and in further view of Boghrat et al. (US 9831899 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Singh teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Singh does not teach the method of claim 6, further comprising: transmitting a second request to an operator of a communications system generating the suspected interference, the second request to include a request to discontinue a transmit operation.
Boghrat teaches such feature (Col. 24 Lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Boghrat into modified Singh to prevent unacceptable co-site interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 6 and 13 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chaki et al. US 20230362660 A1 (discontinue using the BW)
Christopherson et al. US 20230079578 A1
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 CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights