DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication regarding to the Response to Election/Restriction received on 20 February 2026.
Claims 1-7 in group I are elected without traverse.
Claims 8-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-32 are new.
Claims 1-7, 21-32 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 1-7, 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. EP 3687247 A1.
As to claim 1, LI discloses, substantially the invention as claimed, including an apparatus (Figures 2-15, The Spectrum Access Spectrum (SAS) server 1500) configured for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Figure 15, the memory 1530), individually or in combination, having instructions; and
one or more processors (Figure 15, the processors 1510, 1511), individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to:
transmit, (Figures 2-12, 17, the network device or the base station 1700 representing the first cell), a first message (Figure 4, step 407, the first SAS authorization status) configuring the first network entity to apply effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) metrics to wireless communications between the first network entity and one (the terminal device) (Figure 2, step 201, the SAS authorization status; Figures 4,5 and associated paragraphs, the SAS server notifies the base station of the first SAS authorization status …allows the terminal device to use the max EIRP in the frequency range of the first cell, [102]-[105], [107]-[111]); and
output, for transmission to a second network entity (a second cell), a second message indicating the EIRP metrics (Figure 2, 4-5, 14 and associated paragraphs, step 1400, the SAS server notifies the terminal device of the SAS authorization status to use the max EIRP in the frequency range of the first cell or the second cell, [102]-[105], [107]-[111]; [204]-[206]);
It is obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the communication art to recognize that “the SAS server can notify the base station or the network device of an SAS authorization status of the terminal device, the network device can correspondingly manage the terminal device based on the SAS authorization status of the terminal device and this is beneficial to reducing a conflict possibility of scheduling the terminal device by the SAS server, thereby helping improve the communication performance” ([57]) that align with the instant invention’s purpose of improving spectrum sharing between terrestrial and ATG networks and preventing interference with other wireless devices and/or networks and to improve spectrum efficiency (instant [36]-[37]). .
As to claim 2, LI discloses, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to: obtain updated EIRP metrics; and output, for transmission to one or more of the first network entity or the second network entity (handover to the different cells), the updated EIRP metrics (Figures 2, 4-5, 14-16 and associated paragraphs, claim 20).
As to claim 3, LI discloses, wherein the EIRP metrics are at least one of time-dependent EIRP metrics, frequency-dependent EIRP metrics, average-type EIRP metrics, instantaneous-type EIRP metrics, or operational deployment associated with the first network entity's functioning (Figures 2, 4-5, 14-16 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 4, LI discloses, wherein the EIRP metrics comprise a first set of EIRP metrics associated with a first frequency range, and second set of EIRP metrics associate with a second frequency range (Figures 2, 4-5, 14-16 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 5, LI discloses, wherein the EIRP metrics comprise a first set of EIRP metrics associated with a first time window, and a second set of EIRP metrics associated with a second time window (Figures 2, 4-5, 14-16 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 6, LI discloses, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to: obtain, from the second network entity, an indication of whether at least one of the wireless communications between the first network entity and the one or more UEs complies with the EIRP metrics (Figures 2, 4-5, 14-16 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 7, LI discloses, further comprising a transceiver (Figure 15, the transceiver 1520) configured to: transmit the first message (the SAS authorization status); and transmit the second message (the SAS authorization status), wherein the apparatus is configured as a regulatory body (The Spectrum Access Spectrum (SAS) server).
Claims 21-26 correspond to the method claims of the apparatus claims 1-6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale as in the apparatus claims 1-6 shown above.
Claims 27-32 correspond to the non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of the apparatus claims 1-6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale as in the apparatus claims 1-6 shown above.
The prior art cited in this Office action is: LI et al. EP 3687247 A1.
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