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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20250085436 A1 to Amini et a. “AMINI”
Independent claims
As to claim 1, AMINI teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system (Fig. 3- AFC 315 and corresponding services 310 [0062]) comprising one or more processor devices (see e.g., [0042-43]), for a particular geographic area in which two or more network entities are located (see e.g., [0005]):
(a) topographic information comprising terrain height values for a plurality of points within the particular geographic area (see e.g., [0076] topographical data) ; and
(b) clutter information comprising clutter height values for at least some of the plurality of points, wherein a clutter height value is indicative of a height of clutter located atop terrain within the particular geographic area (see e.g., [0007], [0077] with respect to blockage data == clutter information, including height of obstructions == clutter height value);
determining, by the computing system, a plurality of high-fidelity obstruction height values for a plurality of sampled points from the plurality of points (see e.g., [0039],[0076] that that the blockage data as well as high-accuracy topographic data, high-fidelity obstruction height values, as the sample points) , wherein each of the plurality of sampled points are located between a first network entity (see e.g., Fig. 1 and 120-x devices) and a second network entity (see e.g., Fig. 1 and 110 fixed station) of the two or more network entities;
identifying, by the computing system, one or more critical points from the plurality of sampled points based on the plurality of high-fidelity obstruction height values (see e.g., Fig. 6 and [0081-82]. Examiner notes BRI of term “critical point(s)” as any of the sample points used in the computation. They are considered critical as they further determine LoS); and based on the one or more critical points, generating, by the computing system, propagation information indicative of a predicted degree of interference for the first network entity (see e.g., [0039],[0041] where the predicted degree of interference is whether the device is within LoS Fig. 5:560 [0079-80] and [0084]).
As to claim 13, AMINI teaches a computing system comprising: one or more processor devices (see e.g., [0042-43]). See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 20, AMINI teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions (see e.g., [0044], [0046]) configured to cause one or more processor devices to (see e.g., [0042-43]). See similar rejection to claim 1.
Dependent claims
As to claim 2, AMINI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: making, by the computing system, a spectrum access decision for the first network entity based at least in part on the propagation information (see e.g., [0039],[0041] where the spectrum access decision is whether the device is within LoS Fig. 5:560 [0079-80] and [0084]).
As to claim 3, AMINI teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first network entity comprises an endpoint device, and wherein the second network entity comprises a base station (See above rejection. See also [0054] where network device ca be an access point. See also Fig. 3 with respect to access points 350 and mobile devices or end point devices).
As to claim 8, AMINI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of high-fidelity obstruction height values for the plurality of sampled points from the plurality of points comprises: sampling, by the computing system, the plurality of sampled points from the plurality of points, wherein each of the plurality of sampled points is located along a line from the first network entity to the second network entity (see e.g., LOS [0004]. The sampling is the collection of points [0039],[0076-77],[0082]).
As to claim 9, AMINI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the clutter information comprises high-fidelity Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) information (see e.g., [0039]).
As to claim 10, AMINI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more critical points from the plurality of sampled points comprises: identifying, by the computing system, the one or more critical points from the plurality of sampled points, wherein each of the one or more critical points is identified based on at least one of: the high-fidelity obstruction height value of the plurality of high-fidelity obstruction height values that corresponds to the critical point; a distance between the critical point and the first network entity; or a distance between the critical point and the second network entity (Again, critical points are any sample points. see. e.g., [0093] respect to distance).
As to claim 14, AMINI teaches the computing system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processor devices are further configured to: make a spectrum access decision for the first network entity based at least in part on the propagation information (see e.g., [0039],[0041] where the spectrum access decision is whether the device is within LoS Fig. 5:560 [0079-80] and [0084])..
As to claim 15, AMINI teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein the first network entity comprises an endpoint device, and wherein the second network entity comprises a base station (See above rejection. See also [0054] where network device ca be an access point. See also Fig. 3 with respect to access points 350 and mobile devices or end point devices).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 11-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250085436 A1 to Amini et a. “AMINI” in view of US 20220399946 A1 to MARSHALL.
As to claim 7, AMINI teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the computing system comprises a Spectrum Access System (SAS).
AMINI broadly covers RF propagation but does not expressly mention SAS.
MARSHALL teaches that propagation system could also be applied specifically to CBRS and spectrum access which is SAS [0023-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AMINI to include the SAS transmission concept of MARSHALL. The motivation/rational for doing so would be to clarify that the computing system could handle SAS. There would be a high reasonable expectation of success since MARSHALL teaches the propagation can also include SAS.
As to claim 11, AMINI and combination with MARSHALL teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the propagation information indicative of the predicted degree of interference comprises: based on the one or more critical points, selecting, by the computing system, one or more propagation modes from a plurality of propagation modes; using, by the computing system, the one or more propagation modes to generate one or more corresponding path loss values; and determining, by the computing system, the predicted degree of interference for the first network entity based on the one or more path loss values. AMINI does teach line of sight (LOS) (see e.g., LOS [0004]) but doesn’t expressly teach path loss values. AMINI does teach eliminating multipath errors (see e.g., [0083-0085]).
MARSHALL teaches one or more path loss values (see e.g., [0042-0043]).
Same motivation/rational applies as in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 12, AMINI and combination with MARSHALL teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of propagation modes comprises at least one of: Free Space Loss (FSL); Line-Of-Sight (LOS); diffraction; or tropo-scatter (see e.g., AMINI LOS [0004]. The sampling is the collection of points [0039],[0076-77],[0082]).
As to claim 19, AMINI and combination with MARSHALL teaches the computing system of claim 15, wherein the computing system implements or is communicatively coupled to a SAS. See similar rejection to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK W FERRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3123. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 7 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411