DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 04 January 2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALALI et al. US 2013/0182790 A1, and in view of Chopra et al. US patent No. 11,791,873 B1.
As to claim 1, JALALI discloses substantially the invention as claimed, including a system for beamforming muting (Figure 9, system 900 for wireless communication, [83]), the system comprising:
at least one antenna array (Figures 4, 5, and associated paragraphs, a ground base station 102 includes antennas 434a-434t, and can be also configures to have a ground base station antenna array system 500 with antenna arrays 520, 540, [47], [54]);
one or more processors corresponding to the at least one antenna array (Figures 4, 5, and associated paragraphs, the transmit processor 420 and transmit MIMO processor 430 exist the ground base station 102, which process and send data to modulator 432 which convert the data into downlink and forward link signals to be transmitted via antennas 434a-434t; another controller/ processor 440 controls the operation of various processes at the ground base station 102, [48]-[51]); and
computer memory storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (memory 442 stores data and programs codes executed by the controller/processor 440 at the ground base station 102, [51]): the interference corresponding to a satellite earth station (Figure 9, and associated paragraphs, a satellite earth station transmitter 940 may cause interference to the ground base station 102, [84]); and muting at least one beam for the at least one antenna array (Figure 1 and associated paragraphs, the ground base station 102-1 can use antenna beam-forming to mitigate interference by forming a null towards the satellite earth station transmitter 940, [88])
However, JALALI does not explicitly disclose the claimed elements of “transmitting, via the at least one antenna array, a plurality of signals along a plurality of vectors of a coverage area such that the at least one antenna array is in a listening mode for interference detection; based on transmitting the plurality of signals, detecting an interference above a predetermined threshold, at least one vector of the plurality of vectors of the coverage area associated with the interference; and muting at least one beam for the at least one antenna array based on the at least one vector”.
Chopra discloses in Figures 1, 4 and associated text that, “transmitting, via the at least one antenna array, a plurality of signals along a plurality of vectors of a coverage area such that the at least one antenna array is in a listening mode for interference detection (Figures 1, 4 and associated text, the interference detection module 136 directs receive beams via antenna array; interference locationing process 400 is used to detect interference by directing a beam along multiple directions and evaluating the signal strength of the receive beams, col. 6, lines 44-64, col. 11, lines 49-67); based on transmitting the plurality of signals, detecting an interference above a predetermined threshold (Figures 1, 4 and associated text, interference locating process 400 is used to detect interference that meet a threshold condition by directing a beam along multiple directions and evaluating the signal strength of the receive beams, col. 11, lines 49-67), (the interference locationing process 400 can determine which directions interference has been detected, col. 12, lines 45-67); and
muting at least one beam for the at least one antenna array based on the at least one vector (Figure 5, and associated text, the interference correction map generation process 500 can be used to minimize the signal along the interference direction determined via the interference locating process 400 by altering beamforming parameters, col. 12, lines 45-67)”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified Chopra’s teachings of the interference locationing process 400 and the interference correction map generation process 500 with the teachings of JALALI’s, for the purpose of preventing the unwanted signals and noise from impacting the quality and effectiveness of the wireless communication system.
As to claim 3, JALALI-Chopra discloses, wherein the at least one vector is determined using an angle of arrival associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station (Chopra discloses that the direction of the interfering device associated with the elevation angle and an azimuth angle and stored as a vector (col. 11, lines 21-32) for the purpose of saving the direction as a vector in a coordinates system for further use (Chopra, col. 11, lines 30-32)).
As to claim 4, JALALI-Chopra discloses, wherein the at least one vector is determined using an azimuth angle of arrival associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station (Chopra discloses in (col. 11, lines 21-32) that the direction of the interfering device associated with the elevation angle and an azimuth angle and stored as a vector for the purpose of saving the direction as a vector in a coordinates system for further use (Chopra, col. 11, lines 30-32)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALALI-Chopra, as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yie et al. US 2015/0208371 A1.
As to claim 2, JALALI-Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the plurality of signals are synchronization signals”.
Yie discloses in paragraph [2] that, “a synchronization can be transmitted to detect interference from another device” for the purpose of acquiring time synchronization and cell identities to be used as a common time reference between the base station and the terminal of another device (Yie, [52]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALALI-Chopra, as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ramamurthi et al. US 2018/0103381 A1.
As to claim 5, JALALI-Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the at least one vector is determined using an azimuth domain beam width associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station”.
Ramamurthi discloses in [67] that, “an antenna beamwidth can be received by the base station 110 from the satellite system station 115” for the purpose of determining the coverage of the interfering beam.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALALI-Chopra, applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li et al. US 2016/0119886A1.
As to claim 6, JALALI-Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the at least one antenna array is in the listening mode for a special subframe time period”.
Li discloses in Figure 6 and [55] that, “the time period in which an interference signal is detected based on a detected power level during a receiving mode” for the purpose of ensuring an allotted time that is sufficient for the interfering signal to be detected.
As to claim 7, JALALI-Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the at least one antenna array is in the listening mode without utilizing a guard period, such that transitions from receiving mode and transmission mode occur without delay”.
Li discloses in Figure 6, [55] that, “transmission mode is switched to receiving mode without a buffer period between the two” for the purpose of minimizing the amount of time required for the interference detecting operation by eliminating a guard interval period.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALALI-Chopra, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Reis et al. US 2017/0171868A1.
As to claim 8, JALALI does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the plurality of signals are transmitted via an azimuth sweep from −90 to +90 degrees, and wherein the at least one beam is muted based on an angle of arrival and a peak energy detected during the azimuth sweep, the angle of arrival and the peak energy corresponding to the interference”.
Chopra discloses in Figures 6A-6C and (col. 7, lines12-31; col. 11, lines 21-32) that, “wherein the plurality of signals are transmitted via an azimuth sweep Chopra suggests that, “an antenna gain pattern shows a signal minimum in the direction of the interfering device, indicating peak energy of the interfering device; the direction of the interfering device may be associated with an azimuth angle and stored as a vector” (col. 7, lines 12-31; col. 11, lines 21-32) for the purpose of saving the direction as a vector in a coordinates system for further use (Chopra, col. 11, lines 30-32).
Reis discloses in Figure 19, and associated paragraphs, that, “a gain pattern for an antenna is done between azimuth angles of -90 and + 90 degrees” ([87]) for the purpose of ensuring a wide enough sweep to be able to detect any possible interference.
As to claim 9, JALALI-Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the interference corresponds to an aviation surveillance frequency”.
Reis discloses in [43] that, “interference mitigation is required for communication systems operating in the C-band [5925-6425 MHz]” for the purpose of ensuring high-bandwidth communications for detecting signals from satellite devices.
Claims 10-12, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra, and in view of JALALI.
As to claim 10, Chopra discloses a method for beamforming muting (Figure 3, the interference correction process 300), the method comprising:
transmitting, during a listening mode, a plurality of signals along a plurality of vectors of a coverage area for interference detection (Figures 1, 4 and associated paragraphs, the interference detection module 136 directs receive beams via antenna array and the interference locationing process 400 is used to detect interference by detecting a beam along multiple directions, col. 11, lines 49-67);
based on transmitting the plurality of signals, detecting an interference above a predetermined threshold (Figures 1, 4 and associated paragraphs, the interference locationing process 400 is used to detect interference that meets the threshold condition by directing a beam along multiple directions and evaluating the signal strength of the received beams, col. 11, lines 49-67),
determining an angle of arrival associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station; and muting beamforming by at least one antenna array for at least one beam based on the angle of arrival (Figure 5 and associated paragraphs, the interference correction map generation process 500 can be used to minimize the signal sent by the antenna array along the interference direction determined via the interference locationing process 400 by altering the beamforming parameters, col. 6, lines 44-64, col. 12, lines 45-67).
However, Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “the interference corresponding to a satellite earth station”.
JALALI discloses in Figure 9, paragraph [84] that, “a satellite earth station transmitter 940 may cause the interference to the ground base station 102”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified JALALI’s teachings of the interference corresponding to a satellite earth station with the teachings of Chopra’s, for the purpose of accounting for a common and frequently encountered interfering device thereby improving the operation of the method.
As to claim 11, Chopra-JALALI disclose, wherein the angle of arrival is determined using at least two of the plurality of vectors (Chopra, Figures 1, 4, col. 11, lines 21-32, 49-67).
As to claim 12, Chopra-JALALI disclose, wherein the beamforming is muted based on a determined azimuth associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station (JALALI discloses in Figure 9, paragraph [84] that, “a satellite earth station transmitter 940 may cause the interference to the ground base station 102” for the purpose of accounting for a common and frequently encountered interfering device thereby improving the operation of the method).
As to claim 17, Chopra discloses, one or more non-transitory computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon (Figure 1 and associated text, one or more computer-readable storage media may be provided in the interference correction module 134 to store program modules within the system memory, (col. 19, lines 49-63)), that when executed by at least one processor (Figure 1, and associated text, the one or more processors in the interference correction module 134 are used to execute the instructions within the system memory), cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising:
transmitting, via at least one antenna array using a listening mode for interference detection, a plurality of signals along a plurality of vectors of a coverage area (Figures 1, 4, and associated text, the interference detection module 136 directs receive beams via an antenna array; the interference locationing process 400 is used to detect interference by directing a beam along multiple directions, (col. 6, lines 44-64; col. 11, lines 49-67));
based on transmitting the plurality of signals, detecting an interference above a predetermined threshold (Figure 4 and associated text, the interference locationing process 400 is used to detect interference that meets a threshold condition by directing a beam along multiple directions and evaluating the signal strength of the receive beams, (col. 11, lines 49-67);
identifying at least one beam of the at least one antenna array based on a determined angle of arrival associated with the interference (Figure 4 and associated text, the interference locationing process 400 can determine the direction of the interference device that an antenna array signal has been transmitted along; the direction of the interference device may be associated with an elevation angle and an azimuth angle and stored as a vector, (col. 6, lines 44-64, col. 11, lines 21-32, col 12, lines 45-67)); and
muting the at least one beam for the at least one antenna array (Figure 5 and associated text, the interference correction map generation process 500 can be used to minimize the signal sent by the antenna array along the interference direction determined via the interference locationing process 400 by altering beamforming parameters, (col. 6, lines 44-64; col. 12, lines 45-67).
However, Chopra does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “the interference corresponding to a satellite earth station”.
JALALI discloses in Figure 9, paragraph [84] that, “a satellite earth station transmitter 940 may cause the interference to the ground base station 102”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified JALALI’s teachings of the interference corresponding to a satellite earth station with the teachings of Chopra’s, for the purpose of accounting for a common and frequently encountered interfering device thereby improving the operation of the system.
As to claim 19, Chopra-JALALI disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 17, wherein the at least one beam is muted based on a determined azimuth associated with the interference corresponding to the satellite earth station (JALALI discloses in Figure 9, paragraph [84] that, “a satellite earth station transmitter 940 may cause the interference to the ground base station 102” for the purpose of accounting for a common and frequently encountered interfering device thereby improving the operation of the system).
Claims 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra-JALALI, as applied to claims 10-12 and further in view of Reis et al. US 2017/0171868A1.
As to claim 13, Chopra-JALALI does not explicitly discloses claimed bold element of “wherein the plurality of signals are transmitted via an azimuth sweep from −90 to +90 degrees, and wherein the beamforming is muted based on a peak energy detected during the azimuth sweep, the peak energy corresponding to the interference”.
Reis discloses in Figure 19, and associated paragraphs, that, “a gain pattern for an antenna is done between azimuth angles of -90 and + 90 degrees” ([87]) for the purpose of ensuring a wide enough sweep to be able to detect any possible interference.
As to claim 14, Chopra-JALALI does not explicitly disclose the claimed element, “wherein the interference corresponds to an aviation surveillance frequency”.
Reis discloses in [43] that, “interference mitigation is required for communication systems operating in the C-band [5925-6425 MHz]” for the purpose of ensuring high-bandwidth communications for detecting signals from satellite devices.
As to claim 20, Chopra-JALALI does not explicitly discloses claimed bold element of “wherein the plurality of signals are transmitted via an azimuth sweep from −90 to +90 degrees”.
Reis discloses in Figure 19, and associated paragraphs, that, “a gain pattern for an antenna is done between azimuth angles of -90 and + 90 degrees” ([87]) for the purpose of ensuring a wide enough sweep to be able to detect any possible interference.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra-JALALI, as applied to claims 10-12, and in view of Clause US 2015/0156724 A1.
As to claim 15, Chopra-JALALI, does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the plurality of signals include cell-specific reference signals”.
Clause discloses in claim 21 that, the cell-specific reference signals can be transmitted as part of an interference detection device and process.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified Clause’s teachings of the cell-specific reference signals with the teachings of Chopra-JALALI’s, for the purpose of maintaining the synchronization and other functions of the downlink,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra-JALALI, as applied to claims 10-12, and in view of Yie et al. US 2015/0208371 A1.
As to claim 16, Chopra-JALALI does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the plurality of signals are synchronization signals”.
Yie discloses in paragraph [2] that, “a synchronization can be transmitted to detect interference from another device” for the purpose of acquiring time synchronization and cell identities to be used as a common time reference between the base station and the terminal of another device (Yie, [52])..
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra-JALALI, as applied to claim 17, and in view of Li et al. US 2016/0119886A1.
As to claim 18, Chopra-JALALI does not explicitly disclose the claimed element of “wherein the at least one antenna array is in the listening mode for a special subframe time period”.
Li discloses in Figure 6 and [55] that, “the time period in which an interference signal is detected based on a detected power level during a receiving mode” for the purpose of ensuring an allotted time that is sufficient for the interfering signal to be detected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prior art cited in this Office action are: JALALI et al. US 2013/0182790 A1; Chopra et al. US patent No. 11,791,873 B1; Ramamurthi et al. US 2018/0103381 A1; Yie et al. US 2015/0208371 A1; Li et al. US 2016/0119886A1; Reis et al. US 2017/0171868A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00AM -3:30PM.
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, Kevin Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/HAI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649