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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Turning now to Macmullan, the Office Action relies on Macmullan for the teaching of estimating a terminal range based on position information and transmission power. However, Macmullan determines an RSA (RLAN Service Area) used by an AFC system to evaluate channel availability. The claimed terminal range is fundamentally different. The claimed terminal range represents a range in which a terminal communicating with an interfering wireless communicator is likely to be present. Accordingly, Macmullan does not disclose the claimed terminal range itself“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Furuichi discloses estimating for each interfering device a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator (paragraph 235-246). Furuichi does not disclose specifically the use of position and transmission power to estimate the range. Macmullan does disclose estimating a coverage area of a wireless device based on location and transmission power for the purpose of interference avoidance with incumbent devices (paragraph 49-52). In combination Furuichi and Macmullan teach the limitation “estimate, for each interfering wireless communicator, a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator is present based on the position and the transmission power”. Applicant’s argument is a piecemeal attack on single references in an obviousness rejection.
On page 14 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Therefore, even if one were to assume that some processing may be distributed among devices in Furuichi 2, there is no teaching or suggestion that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specifically relocate the claimed terminal-range estimation process and registration-application transmission process from the controller to the repeater. The Office Action's conclusion can only be reached through impermissible hindsight reconstruction using the Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Furuichi (‘011) discloses acquiring registration information (paragraph 144, 146, 149) and estimating a terminal range (paragraph 235-246). Furuichi2 (‘239) discloses load balancing the SAS processes by implementing distributed decision-making where intermediate devices, i.e. repeaters, perform some of the functions for the SAS (paragraph 77, 83, 84). Load balancing can be incrementally distributed across the SAS and intermediate device which makes obvious any combination of functions to be performed by the intermediate device. In combination Furuichi (‘011) and Furuichi2 (‘239) teach the limitation “the repeater includes a processor and a memory storing a program executed by the processor, and the processor is configured to: acquire registration information including a position and a transmission power for each interfering wireless communicator; estimate, for each interfering wireless communicator, a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator is present based on the position and the transmission power; and transmit a registration application including the terminal range from the repeater located in the carrier network to the controller located in the public network”.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1-14 still stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (US 2021/0022011) (“Furuichi”) in view of Furuichi et al. (US 2024/0373239) (“Furuichi2”) in view of Macmullan et al. (US 2021/0144724) (“Macmullan”) in view of Ahmet et al. (US 2020/0351989) (“Ahmet”).
For claims 1, 6, 7, and 8; Furuichi discloses: interference control system for wireless communication, the interference control system comprising: a plurality of interfering wireless communicators that perform wireless communication; an interfered-with wireless communicator whose wireless communication is to be protected; and a controller that controls an amount of interference to which the interfered-with device wireless communicator is subjected by the interfering wireless communicator (fig. 13, 18: SAS, CBSD; Primary System 110 is protected from 200 a&b interference), wherein a repeater disposed between the interfering wireless communicator (fig. 13: Domain Proxy) and the controller includes a processor and a memory storing a program executed by the processor, and the processor executes: a process of acquiring registration information including a position and a transmission power for each interfering wireless communicator (paragraph 144, 146, 149: For the device parameter in this case, the following parameters (1) to (6) are assumed… (2) Installation position information (e.g. the latitude, longitude, height, information regarding the accuracy of acquiring the positional information) … (5) Public authentication information (e.g. a public authentication number/ID, the maximum EIRP, a supported frequency band)); a process of estimating, for each interfering wireless communicator, a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator is present (paragraph 235-246: The communication control device calculates the coverage of a registered communication node by the Enhanced Spectrum Coordination function… the Enhanced Spectrum Coordination function calculates the coverage of the communication node by using the registration information… information regarding either (1) or (2) below can be obtained. (1) The radius (about the communication node) (2) A positional information set indicating the coverage outer shape); and an application process of transmitting a registration application including the terminal range to the controller (paragraph 152: the registration request generated by the Translation function is reported to the Database function ).
Furuichi does expressly disclose “a process of estimating, for each interfering wireless communicator, a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator is present”; Furuichi does not expressly disclose based on the position and the transmission power, but Macmullan from similar fields of endeavor teaches: estimating based on the position and the transmission power (paragraph 50: the AFC system may compute an RSA based on an estimate of the RLAN AP coverage area determined using, for example, RLAN AP location, RLAN AP height, RLAN AP category, RLAN AP EIRP, RSA propagation models (RPM), and RLAN cell edge RSL). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the algorithm as described by Macmullan in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve resource scheduling.
Furuichi does expressly disclose “estimating, for each interfering wireless communicator, a terminal range in which there is a likelihood that a terminal wireless communicator communicating with the interfering wireless communicator is present” by the controller; Furuichi does not expressly disclose estimating the terminal range by the repeater processor then sending to the controller, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the primary controller 130 and the intermediate controllers 130B can operate in a Distributed Decision-Making mode (paragraph 77, 83: When there are a plurality of communication control devices 130 having similar roles, at least one of the following three types of decision-making topologies can be applied to the communication control devices 130. Autonomous Decision-Making Centralized Decision-Making Distributed Decision-Making… Distributed decision-making is a decision-making topology in which a decision-making entity cooperates with another decision-making entity to make decisions). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the coverage calculations at each intermediate node as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve performance by load balancing processor intensive calculations across the multiple intermediate devices.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Ahmet from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the controller is disposed in a public network (paragraph 10: the SAS may be located on a public network such as the internet), the interfering wireless communicators are disposed in a carrier network provided by a specific communication carrier, a repeater located between the interfering wireless communicators and the controller is disposed in the carrier network (paragraph 12: the private network can include a network device (e.g., a domain proxy device) that can receive communications associated with the SAS from the base stations and/or function as an intermediary device between the base stations and the network proxy device bridging the gap between the private network and a second network). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the network architecture as described by Ahmet in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve coordination with multiple RATs.
For claim 3; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the controller includes a control processor, and the control processor executes: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator; a process of reading the terminal range from the registration application; a process of estimating a representative point that subjects the interfered-with wireless communicator to a maximum amount of interference in the terminal range based on the position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 202-206: When using propagation loss estimation models, the communication control device 130 may estimate these pieces of information from registration information of the communication device 110 and information of the primary system, which have already been acquired…a designated propagation loss estimation model is used, as an example, it is possible to perform spectrum grant processing according to evaluation of an interference risk. Specifically, for example, when it is assumed that a desired transmission power indicated by transmission power information is used, if an estimated amount of interference is less than an allowable interference power in the primary system or the protection zone thereof, it is determined that the corresponding frequency channel is permitted to be used, and is signaled to the communication device …any of the above calculations, when using location information of a communication device, frequency availability may be determined by correcting location information and coverage using location uncertainty); a process of registering the representative point estimated by the process as a position of an interfering wireless communicator that has issued the registration application for the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 295: the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 needs to be equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p. A CBSD interference margin is determined such that the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 becomes equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p, and a transmission power of each CBSD is determined); a process of calculating a total amount of interference received by the interfered-with wireless communicator based on the representative point registered by the process (paragraph 294-295: the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 needs to be equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p. A CBSD interference margin is determined such that the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 becomes equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p, and a transmission power of each CBSD is determined); and a process of determining allocation of a communication resource to each of the interfering wireless communicators based on the total amount of interference (paragraph 294-295: a transmission power of each CBSD is determined). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi in view of Furuichi2 in view of Macmullan in view of Ahmet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuriki et al. (US 2024/0172142) (“Kuriki”).
For claim 2; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action. Furuichi discloses: the application process includes a process of transmitting a registration application (paragraph 152: the registration request generated by the Translation function is reported to the Database function)
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Kuriki from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 167: position information of a reference point for calculating an interference power level suffered by the primary system); and a process of estimating a representative point of the terminal range for each interfering wireless communicator based on the position of the interfered-with device wireless communicator, the representative point includes a position within the terminal range that subjects any interfered-with wireless communicator to a maximum amount of interference (paragraph 167-171: it is possible to calculate a range of a separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system from the following equation…I.sub.Th(dBm) denotes allowable interference power (a limit value of allowable interference power)…d denotes a distance between a predetermined reference point and the communication apparatus), and. Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Kuriki in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose interference calculations at the repeater, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the primary controller 130 and the intermediate controllers 130B can operate in a Distributed Decision-Making mode (paragraph 77, 83: When there are a plurality of communication control devices 130 having similar roles, at least one of the following three types of decision-making topologies can be applied to the communication control devices 130. Autonomous Decision-Making Centralized Decision-Making Distributed Decision-Making… Distributed decision-making is a decision-making topology in which a decision-making entity cooperates with another decision-making entity to make decisions). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations and signaling at each intermediate node as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve performance by load balancing processor intensive calculations across the multiple intermediate devices.
For claims 4 and 10; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 2 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a subscriber database that stores information about a position of each of the interfering wireless communicators (paragraph 85, 122: the communication control device 130 can also obtain necessary information from entities other than communication devices 110 and terminals 120 of the communication network 100. Specifically, for example, information necessary to protect a primary system can be obtained from a database (regulatory database) managed or operated by a national or regional radio regulatory authority (NRA: National Regulatory Authority)…location information registered in an information management device managed by the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) or its entrusted agency), wherein the subscriber database stores construction information about an actual installation position of the interfering wireless communicator (paragraph 125: the location information may also include information indicating the floor of the building where the communication device 110 is located. For example, the location information can include identifiers indicating the number of floors, ground, and underground. Further, the location information can include information indicating more closed indoor spaces, such as room numbers and room names in the building), and the processor further executes: a process of acquiring an error between the position of the interfering wireless communicator acquired as the registration information and the actual installation position based on the construction information; and a process of correcting the representative point based on the error (paragraph 122-123: Typically, information on a latitude, a longitude, ground height/above sea level, an altitude, and positioning error may be included…location information may also include location uncertainty. For example, as the location uncertainty, both or either of horizontal and vertical planes can be provided. The location uncertainty can be used as a correction value, for example, at the time of calculating a distance to an arbitrary point). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
For claim 9; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 2 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the controller includes a control processor, and the control processor executes: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator; a process of reading the terminal range from the registration application; a process of estimating a representative point that subjects the interfered-with wireless communicator to a maximum amount of interference in the terminal range based on the position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 202-206: When using propagation loss estimation models, the communication control device 130 may estimate these pieces of information from registration information of the communication device 110 and information of the primary system, which have already been acquired…a designated propagation loss estimation model is used, as an example, it is possible to perform spectrum grant processing according to evaluation of an interference risk. Specifically, for example, when it is assumed that a desired transmission power indicated by transmission power information is used, if an estimated amount of interference is less than an allowable interference power in the primary system or the protection zone thereof, it is determined that the corresponding frequency channel is permitted to be used, and is signaled to the communication device …any of the above calculations, when using location information of a communication device, frequency availability may be determined by correcting location information and coverage using location uncertainty); a process of registering the representative point estimated by the process as a position of an interfering wireless communicator that has issued the registration application for the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 295: the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 needs to be equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p. A CBSD interference margin is determined such that the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 becomes equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p, and a transmission power of each CBSD is determined); a process of calculating a total amount of interference received by the interfered-with wireless communicator based on the representative point registered by the process (paragraph 294-295: the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 needs to be equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p. A CBSD interference margin is determined such that the cumulative amount of interference I.sub.1+I.sub.2+I.sub.3 becomes equal to or less than the allowable amount of interference I_p, and a transmission power of each CBSD is determined); and a process of determining allocation of a communication resource to each of the interfering wireless communicators based on the total amount of interference (paragraph 294-295: a transmission power of each CBSD is determined). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
For claim 12; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Kuriki from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 167: position information of a reference point for calculating an interference power level suffered by the primary system). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Kuriki in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose interference calculations at the repeater, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the primary controller 130 and the intermediate controllers 130B can operate in a Distributed Decision-Making mode (paragraph 77, 83: When there are a plurality of communication control devices 130 having similar roles, at least one of the following three types of decision-making topologies can be applied to the communication control devices 130. Autonomous Decision-Making Centralized Decision-Making Distributed Decision-Making… Distributed decision-making is a decision-making topology in which a decision-making entity cooperates with another decision-making entity to make decisions). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations and signaling at each intermediate node as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve performance by load balancing processor intensive calculations across the multiple intermediate devices.
For claim 13; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Kuriki from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 167: position information of a reference point for calculating an interference power level suffered by the primary system); and a process of estimating a representative point of the terminal range for each interfering wireless communicator based on the position of the interfered-with device wireless communicator (paragraph 167-171: it is possible to calculate a range of a separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system from the following equation…I.sub.Th(dBm) denotes allowable interference power (a limit value of allowable interference power)…d denotes a distance between a predetermined reference point and the communication apparatus). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Kuriki in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose interference calculations at the repeater, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the primary controller 130 and the intermediate controllers 130B can operate in a Distributed Decision-Making mode (paragraph 77, 83: When there are a plurality of communication control devices 130 having similar roles, at least one of the following three types of decision-making topologies can be applied to the communication control devices 130. Autonomous Decision-Making Centralized Decision-Making Distributed Decision-Making… Distributed decision-making is a decision-making topology in which a decision-making entity cooperates with another decision-making entity to make decisions). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations and signaling at each intermediate node as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve performance by load balancing processor intensive calculations across the multiple intermediate devices.
For claim 14; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but Kuriki from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a process of acquiring a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator (paragraph 167: position information of a reference point for calculating an interference power level suffered by the primary system); and a process of estimating a representative point of the terminal range for each interfering wireless communicator based on the position of the interfered-with device wireless communicator, the representative point includes a position within the terminal range that subjects any interfered-with wireless communicator to a maximum amount of interference (paragraph 167-171: it is possible to calculate a range of a separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system from the following equation…I.sub.Th(dBm) denotes allowable interference power (a limit value of allowable interference power)…d denotes a distance between a predetermined reference point and the communication apparatus). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Kuriki in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose interference calculations at the repeater, but Furuichi2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the primary controller 130 and the intermediate controllers 130B can operate in a Distributed Decision-Making mode (paragraph 77, 83: When there are a plurality of communication control devices 130 having similar roles, at least one of the following three types of decision-making topologies can be applied to the communication control devices 130. Autonomous Decision-Making Centralized Decision-Making Distributed Decision-Making… Distributed decision-making is a decision-making topology in which a decision-making entity cooperates with another decision-making entity to make decisions). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations and signaling at each intermediate node as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve performance by load balancing processor intensive calculations across the multiple intermediate devices.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi in view of Furuichi2 in view of Macmullan in view of Ahmet in view of Kuriki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WINNF (“Spectrum Sharing Committee WG1 CBRS Operational and Functional Requirements WINNF-TS-0112-V1.9.1”, 3/11/2020).
For claim 5; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 2 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but WINNF from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a subscriber database that stores information about a position of each of the interfering wireless communicators, wherein the subscriber database stores construction information about a range in which there is a likelihood that the interfering wireless communicator is relocated, and the processor further executes a process of converting information about the representative point into information about a representative point range including information about the range based on the construction information (pages 9, 37, 49: The SAS shall be technically capable of directly interfacing with any necessary FCC database containing information required for the proper operation of an SAS…All CBSDs must [shall] be able to determine their geographic coordinates (referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)) to an accuracy of ±50 meters horizontal and ±3 meters of elevation. Such geographic coordinates shall be reported to an SAS at the time of first activation from a power-off condition…geographic coordinates to the same accuracy specified above may be determined and reported to the SAS as part of the installation and registration process. Geographic coordinates must [shall] be determined and reported each time the CBSD is moved to a new location). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi in view of Furuichi2 in view of Macmullan in view of Ahmet as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WINNF (“Spectrum Sharing Committee WG1 CBRS Operational and Functional Requirements WINNF-TS-0112-V1.9.1”, 3/11/2020).
For claim 11; Furuichi discloses the subject matter in claim 3 as described above in the office action.
Furuichi does not expressly disclose, but WINNF from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a subscriber database that stores information about a position of each of the interfering wireless communicators, wherein the subscriber database stores construction information about a range in which there is a likelihood that the interfering wireless communicator is relocated, and the processor further executes a process of converting information about the representative point into information about a representative point range including information about the range based on the construction information (pages 9, 37, 49: The SAS shall be technically capable of directly interfacing with any necessary FCC database containing information required for the proper operation of an SAS…All CBSDs must [shall] be able to determine their geographic coordinates (referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)) to an accuracy of ±50 meters horizontal and ±3 meters of elevation. Such geographic coordinates shall be reported to an SAS at the time of first activation from a power-off condition…geographic coordinates to the same accuracy specified above may be determined and reported to the SAS as part of the installation and registration process. Geographic coordinates must [shall] be determined and reported each time the CBSD is moved to a new location). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the interference calculations as described by Furuichi2 in the dynamic protection area spectrum sharing as described by Furuichi. The motivation is to improve primary device performance guarantees.
12. (New) The interference control system for wireless communication according to claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to acquire a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator.
13. (New) The interference control system for wireless communication according to claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to: acquire a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator; and estimate a representative point of the terminal range for each interfering wireless communicator based on the position of the interfered-with wireless communicator.
14. (New) The interference control system for wireless communication according to claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to: acquire a position of the interfered-with wireless communicator; and estimate a representative point of the terminal range for each interfering wireless communicator based on the position of the interfered-with wireless communicator, and the representative point includes a position within the terminal range that subjects any interfered-with wireless communicator to a maximum amount of interference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Al-Mufti et al. (US 2022/0225109); Al-Mufti discloses new CBSD may be allocated a frequency spectrum and a maximum transmit power based upon a minimum interference margin. The minimum interference margin means a minimum of an interference margin and corresponds to a unique protection point which has the minimum interference margin. The interference margin is determined for a frequency spectrum, or each portion thereof, associated with each protection point having a neighborhood encompassing a geographic location of the new CBSD.
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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights