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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 02/13/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claim(s) 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10 – 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190215058 (Smyth) in view of US 20170230137 (Tang).
Regarding claim 13, Smyth teaches “A computing device (Par. 0187 and FIG 10: a central server 1004. Par. 0096 and FIG 4: a central server 412) comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (Implicit for the server), the one or more processors collectively configured to perform an operation comprising:
receiving an indication of interference on a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on (Par. 0004: The FSS incumbents. Paragraph 0187: system 1000 includes an FSS site 1002 (incumbent), a central server 1004. FSS site 1002 includes at least one beacon detector 1014. Each neighboring AP 1016 includes a respective neighboring beacon transmitter 1018. Paragraph 0189: central server 1004 is in operable communication with the beacon detectors 1009, 1013, 1014 to receive information regarding detected beacon transmissions. Paragraph 0190: operation of neighboring APs 1016 within the vicinity of first FS transceiver 1006 generates Wi-Fi interference 1034 into first FS transceiver 1006 from the respective Wi-Fi operations. Co-channel interference (“interference on a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on”) is addressed at least in paragraphs 0091, 0099 (instructing the interfering device to change its transmission channel, which means that the interference is on the same channel), 0106 and elsewhere in the disclosure. Paragraph 0099: in the case where AP 408 is a source of potential interference, central server 412 is capable of detecting the interference and associating the detected interference with the potential interference source (AP 408 in this example) through the unique ID assigned to the beacon transmitter associated with the AP. In other words, disclosed detecting the interference corresponds to the claimed “receiving an indication of interference”);
in response to the indication, determining a source of the interference based on…” “…one or more respective key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each of a plurality of access points (APs) operating on the channel (paragraph 0099: central server 412 is capable of detecting the interference and associating the detected interference with the potential interference source (AP 408 in this example) through the unique ID. Paragraph 0100: the in-band (“a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on”) beacon transmission from beacon transmitter 416 allows measurement by central server 412 of the actual path loss between AP 408 and FSS site 402. Beacon detector 418 includes a means of measuring the signal of the interference and reporting the measured signal to central server 412 for calculation of the link loss. This measured strength of the signal and/or path loss, in combination with the respective unique ID, represents “one or more respective key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each of a plurality of access points (APs) operating on the channel”. Since the identification of a specific AP by its ID, namely that the interference is caused by this specific AP, is performed after the detection of the interference through the measurements and calculations, it is thus “in response to the indication”. Paragraph 0102: usage of the transmitted effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), as well as a measured antenna gain at one or both of AP 408 and earth station 404, also representing KPIs.);
determining a set of actions to mitigate the interference; and performing the set of actions by controlling at least one AP of the plurality of APs to modify at least one operating parameter of the at least one AP (Par. 0099: by being able to identify the source of potential interference, central server 412 may remedy the interference by instructing the interfering device to change its transmission channel and/or lower its transmission power or cease operation. Paragraph 0107: In the case where central server 412 determines that a particular AP 408 (“at least one AP of the plurality of APs”) will cause interference, central server 412 may instruct AP 408 to lower its power, operate on a different channel, or simply deny authorization and hence operation (“to modify at least one operating parameter of the at least one AP”).).”
Smyth does not teach that the determination of sources of the interference is based on “comparison of” one or more key performance indicators.
On the other side, Tang in paragraph 0113 teaches sorting all interference sources according to [interfering] signal strength, and selecting an interference source whose interference intensity reaches a preset threshold or select a preset quantity of interference sources. In other words, Tang teaches identification of sources of interference based on interfering signal strength (which may be considered as a “respective key performance indicator” “associated with each of a plurality” of potential interference sources). However, determining a source of the interference based on sorting according to signal strength involves actual comparison between signal strengths of all interference sources, or using the language of the claim, “based on a comparison of one or more respective key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each of a plurality of [interference sources] operating on the channel”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Tang method of interference source determination by using sorted list of interferers and selecting certain entries in the list, in the system of Smyth and apply it to the selection of APs that may be causing interference to the incumbent user. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate interference to the incumbent user originating from the APs having the highest level of interfering signal.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is for a method performed by a device claimed in claim 13 above. Since claims 1 and 13 have similar limitations, Smyth in combination with Tang teaches all steps of the method claimed in claim 1 and, therefore, claim 1 is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 6, Smyth teaches “wherein the one or more respective KPIs comprise a respective distance to the incumbent user for each AP (Paragraph 0100: the in-band beacon transmission from beacon transmitter 416 allows measurement by central server 412 of the actual path loss between AP 408 and FSS site 402. Beacon detector 418 includes a means of measuring the signal of the interference and reporting the measured signal to central server 412 for calculation of the link loss. Both the measured strength of the signal and the calculated path loss directly or indirectly “comprise a respective distance to the incumbent user” since the formula for the path loss and/or the strength of the signal include distance as one of the operands) of the plurality of APs operating on the channel (paragraph 0187: presence of multiple APs 1016(1)-(n) which generate Wi-Fi interference 1034 into first FS transceiver 1006 (see paragraph 0190). Therefore, “the plurality of APs operating on the channel”).”
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Smyth in combination with Tang teaches “wherein the set of actions comprises blocking operation of one or more APs determined, based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs, to be the source of the interference (Par. 0099: central server 412 may remedy the interference by instructing the interfering device to cease operation. Paragraph 0107: In the case where central server 412 determines that a particular AP 408 will cause interference, central server 412 may deny AP 408 authorization and hence operation. Determination of interference sources “based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs” is addressed in the rejection of independent claim 13 above).”
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Smyth in combination with Tang teaches “wherein the set of actions comprises converting one or more APs determined, based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs, to be the source of interference to a low power mode (Par. 0099: central server 412 may remedy the interference by instructing the interfering device to lower its transmission power. Paragraph 0107: In the case where central server 412 determines that a particular AP 408 will cause interference, central server 412 may instruct AP 408 to lower its power. Determination of interference sources “based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs” is addressed in the rejection of independent claim 13 above).”
Regarding claim 12, Smyth in combination with Tang teaches “wherein the set of actions comprises: blocking operation of a first subset of APs of the plurality of APs determined, based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs, to be the source of the interference…” [or] “…converting a second subset of APs of the plurality of APs to a low power mode (Par. 0099: central server 412 may remedy the interference by instructing the interfering device to lower its transmission power (“converting a second subset of APs of the plurality of APs to a low power mode”, wherein the “second subset” consists of a single member) or cease operation (“blocking operation of a first subset of APs of the plurality of APs”, wherein the “first subset” also consists of a single member). Paragraph 0107: In the case where central server 412 determines that a particular AP 408 will cause interference, central server 412 may instruct AP 408 to lower its power or simply deny authorization and hence operation. Determination of interference sources “based on the comparison of the one or more respective KPIs” is addressed in the rejection of independent claim 13 above).”
Although Smyth teaches that the server may determine to instruct a particular AP to lower its power or to cease operation, Smyth not disclose that different APs may be instructed to perform different actions at the same time.
However, in paragraph 0187, Smyth teaches presence of multiple APs 1016(1)-(n) which generate Wi-Fi interference 1034 into first FS transceiver 1006 (see paragraph 0190). Paragraph 0194 teaches that each individual AP is in communication with the server.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply different instructions to different APs to enable those APs that may still operate with low power without creating interference to FSS to operate, without unnecessarily switching them off, while switching off those APs that even with low power would still create interference. Doing so would have allowed to keep as large number of APs in operation as possible, although at low power, and switching off only those APs that cannot be operated because of interference, thus increasing the functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 20, Smyth in combination with Tang as explained in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches “A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an indication of interference on a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on (Par. 0004: The FSS incumbents. Paragraph 0187: system 1000 includes an FSS site 1002 (incumbent), a central server 1004. FSS site 1002 includes at least one beacon detector 1014. Each neighboring AP 1016 includes a respective neighboring beacon transmitter 1018. Paragraph 0189: central server 1004 is in operable communication with the beacon detectors 1009, 1013, 1014 to receive information regarding detected beacon transmissions. Paragraph 0190: operation of neighboring APs 1016 within the vicinity of first FS transceiver 1006 generates Wi-Fi interference 1034 into first FS transceiver 1006 from the respective Wi-Fi operations. Co-channel interference (“interference on a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on”) is addressed at least in paragraphs 0091, 0099 (instructing the interfering device to change its transmission channel, which means that the interference is on the same channel), 0106 and elsewhere in the disclosure. Paragraph 0099: in the case where AP 408 is a source of potential interference, central server 412 is capable of detecting the interference and associating the detected interference with the potential interference source (AP 408 in this example) through the unique ID assigned to the beacon transmitter associated with the AP. In other words, disclosed detecting the interference corresponds to the claimed “receiving an indication of interference”);
obtaining interference information for the wireless network from a controller associated with the wireless network (Par. 0187 and FIG 10: a central server 1004. Par. 0096 and FIG 4: a central server 412), the interference information comprising one or more respective key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with each of a plurality of access points (APs) operating on the channel (Paragraph 0100: the in-band (“a channel that an incumbent user within a wireless network is operating on”) beacon transmission from beacon transmitter 416 allows measurement by central server 412 of the actual path loss between AP 408 and FSS site 402. Beacon detector 418 includes a means of measuring the signal of the interference and reporting the measured signal to central server 412 for calculation of the link loss. This measured strength of the signal and/or path loss, in combination with the respective unique ID, for each of APs represents “interference information for the wireless network” “the interference information comprising one or more key performance indicators (KPIs)”. Paragraph 0102: usage of the transmitted effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), as well as a measured antenna gain at one or both of AP 408 and earth station 404, also representing KPIs.);
determining a source of the interference, based on a comparison of the one or more KPIs associated with the plurality of APs; determining a set of actions to mitigate the interference; and performing the set of actions by controlling, via the controller, at least one AP of the plurality of APs to modify at least one operating parameter of the at least one AP (these limitations are rejected as unpatentable over a combination of Smyth and Tang as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 13 above, the limitations being incorporated herein by reference).”
Claims 2 – 5 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190215058 (Smyth) in view of US 20170230137 (Tang) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further and US 20230239909 (Li).
Regarding claim 2, Smyth does not teach “wherein the one or more respective KPIs comprise a respective interference-to-noise power ratio associated with each AP of the plurality of APs operating on the channel, wherein each respective interference-to-noise power ratio is based on a free space path loss (FSPL) parameter associated with the respective AP operating on the channel.”
As explained above in the rejection of claim 13, Smyth is concerned with determination of the interfering sources. It was also explained that Tang in paragraph 0113 teaches sorting all interference sources according to [interfering] signal strength, and selecting an interference source whose interference intensity reaches a preset threshold or select a preset quantity of interference sources. In other words, Tang’s method utilizes such key performance indicator (“the one or more respective KPIs”) as interference intensity or strength of interfering signal to determine interference sources.
Tang, however, does not disclose usage of “interference-to-noise power ratio” as the criterion for identification.
Li in paragraph 0222 teaches that the interference strength may be measured by using an interference-to-noise ratio, and a larger interference-to-noise ratio indicates a greater interference strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to optionally utilize disclosed by Li such key performance indicator as interference-to-noise ratio instead of interference strength, in the system of combined Smyth and Tang’s disclosures simply as design choice with predictable results since the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element (i.e. interference strength in Tang) for another known in the field (i.e. interference-to-noise ratio in Li), the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
Although neither Tang, nor Li teaches that interference intensity, strength of interfering signal or “interference-to-noise power ratio” are “based on a free space path loss (FSPL) parameter associated with the respective AP operating on the channel”, the Examiner takes an official notice that strength of any received wireless signal, including interfering signals, depends on the attenuation of the signal between transmitter of the signal and receiver, which also depends on the distance between them. Therefore, disclosed by Tang interference intensity or strength of interfering signal, or “interference” part of Li’s interference-to-noise ratio are inherently “based on a free space path loss (FSPL) parameter” associated with propagation of these signals.
Regarding claim 3, Smyth in combination with Tang and Li teaches “wherein determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on the respective interference-to-noise power ratios (Tang, paragraph 0113: sort all interference sources according to signal strength. When combined with Smyth and Li, this would have been applied to plurality of Smyth’s APs as sources of interference, and interference-to-noise ratio would be used, as disclosed by Li, instead of interference signal strength); and determining that one or more APs of the sorted plurality of APs that have a respective interference-to-noise power ratio greater than a predetermined threshold are the source of the interference (Tang, paragraph 0113: select an interference source whose interference intensity reaches a preset threshold. When combined with Smyth and Li, this would have been applied to plurality of Smyth’s APs as sources of interference, and interference-to-noise ratio would be used, as disclosed by Li, to compare with a preset threshold).”
Regarding claims 4 and 15, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 because claims 4 and 15 have similar but broader limitations.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Smyth in combination with Tang and Li teaches “wherein determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on the respective interference-to-noise power ratios (Tang, paragraph 0113: sort all interference sources according to signal strength. When combined with Smyth and Li, this would have been applied to plurality of Smyth’s APs as sources of interference, and interference-to-noise ratio would be used, as disclosed by Li, instead of interference signal strength); and determining that a threshold number of the APs within the sorted plurality of APs are the source of the interference (Tang, paragraph 0113: select a preset quantity (“a threshold number”) of interference sources. When combined with Smyth and Li, this would have been applied to plurality of Smyth’s APs as sources of interference).”
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 3 since claim 14 has limitations similar to the limitations of claim 3 (which includes the limitations of claim 2).
Claims 7, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190215058 (Smyth) in view of US 20170230137 (Tang) as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20170094630 (Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Smyth does not teach “wherein determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on the respective distances to the incumbent user; and determining that a threshold number of the APs within the sorted plurality of APs are the source of the interference.”
Kim teaches “determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of…” [interfering terminals] “…based on the respective distances to the…” [terminal receiving interference] (paragraph 0042: the method can determine 520 the distances between the receiving terminal and each of interfering terminals within the communication range based on locations of the receiving and the interfering terminals and sort 530 the interfering terminals according to the distances between the receiving terminal and each of the interfering terminals) “…and determining that a threshold number of the…” [interfering terminals] “…within the sorted plurality of…” [interfering terminals] “…are the source of the interference (paragraph 0043: the method determines that for the target outage probability only five interfering terminals can transmit concurrently with the transmitting the signal by the transmitting terminal (would be equivalent to FSS in Smyth and “incumbent user” in current claim). However, the method determines that there are seven interfering terminals within the communication range from the receiving terminals (would be equivalent to FSS in Smyth and “incumbent user” in current claim). Accordingly, two interfering terminal are requested to stop their transmission, while five other interfering terminals are allowed to transmit. For example, the two interfering terminals (at least implicitly determined to be the source of the highest interference) closest to the receiving terminal can be commanded to stop their transmission. In this case, the two interfering terminals closest to the receiving terminal corresponds to “a threshold number of the…” [interfering terminals] “…within the sorted plurality of…” [interfering terminals] “…are the source of the interference”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kim method of determination of possible sources of interference as a certain number of terminals being the closest to the interference victim in a sorted list, in the system of Smyth and apply it to the selection of APs that may be causing interference to the incumbent user. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate interference to the incumbent user originating from the nearest APs.
Regarding claim 8, Smyth does not teach “wherein determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on the respective distances to the incumbent user; and determining that one or more APs of the sorted plurality of APs that are within a threshold distance to the incumbent user are the source of the interference.”
Kim teaches “determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of…” [interfering terminals] “…based on the respective distances to the…” [terminal receiving interference] (paragraph 0042: the method can determine 520 the distances between the receiving terminal and each of interfering terminals within the communication range based on locations of the receiving and the interfering terminals and sort 530 the interfering terminals according to the distances between the receiving terminal and each of the interfering terminals) “…and determining that one or more…” [interfering terminals] “…of the sorted plurality of…” [interfering terminals] “…that are within a threshold distance to the…” [terminal receiving interference] “…are the source of the interference (paragraph 0042: commands 540 to a subset of interfering terminal closest to the receiving terminal (i.e. “within a threshold distance”) according to the sorted interfering terminals to stop their transmission, thus at least implicitly determining as “the sources of the interference”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kim method of determination of possible sources of interference as being the closest to the interference victim, in the system of Smyth and apply it to the selection of APs that may be causing interference to the incumbent user. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate interference to the incumbent user originating from the nearest APs.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6 and 8 because claim 17 has limitations similar to the limitations of claim 8 that also includes the limitations of claim 6.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190215058 (Smyth) in view of US 20170230137 (Tang) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20170094630 (Kim) and US 20230239909 (Li).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Smyth does not teach “wherein: the one or more respective KPIs comprise (i) a respective interference-to-noise power ratio associated with each AP of the plurality of APs operating on the channel and (ii) a respective distance to the incumbent user for each AP of the plurality of APs operating on the channel; and determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on (i) the respective interference-to-noise power ratios and (ii) the respective distances to the incumbent user; and determining that a threshold number of the APs within the sorted plurality of APs are the source of the interference.”
As explained above in the rejection of claim 13, Smyth is concerned with determination of the interfering sources.
Tang in combination with Li teaches or fairly suggests “the one or more respective KPIs comprise (i) a respective interference-to-noise power ratio associated with each AP of a plurality of APs operating on the channel…” “…and determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on (i) the respective interference-to-noise power ratios…” “…and determining that a threshold number of the APs within the sorted plurality of APs are the source of the interference (please see explanation in the rejection of claims 2 and 5, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference).”
On the other side, Kim teaches or fairly suggests “the one or more respective KPIs are based on…” “…(ii) a respective distance to the incumbent user for each AP of the plurality of APs operating on the channel; and determining the source of the interference comprises: sorting the plurality of APs based on…” “…the respective distances to the incumbent user; and determining that a threshold number of the APs within the sorted plurality of APs are the source of the interference (please see explanation in the rejection of claims 6 and 7, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the sorting and selection disclosed by both Tang and Kim, with the system of Smyth and apply it to the selection of APs that may be causing interference to the incumbent user. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate interference to the incumbent user originating from the nearest APs and the APs having the highest level of interfering signal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648