DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation 1, 15-16 and 18-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The language of the claim raises a question as to whether the claim is directed merely to an abstract idea that is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine which would result in a practical application producing a concrete, useful, and tangible result to form the basis of statutory subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 claims the non-statutory subject matter of a program where the only limitations in this claim is directed solely to the program which is purely a data structure and thus non-statutory subject matter. Data structures not claimed as embodied in a computer readable medium are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1754 (claim to a data structure per se held none statutory). Therefore, since the claimed program is tangibly embodied in a physical medium and encoded on a non-transitory computer readable medium then the Applicants has not complied with 35 U.S.C 101.
An amendment to this claim adding a non-transitory computer readable medium must be supported by accompanying disclosure in the specification, otherwise, it will raise a new matter issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solondz (US Pub. 2015/0223069).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-18, Solondz discloses an information processing device comprising:
a communication unit (par.019 “controller 106”, fig.2) that performs communication with a first base station of which a grant is registered in a list of grants (par.027 “the ASAS system 105 database may include Tier 1……..to determine……may grant or deny access to the channels.”) for which radio wave transmission needs to be stopped in a case where a wireless communication device exists in a predetermined area (par.020 “the vicinity of Dickinson Count for access……..the requesting Tier 3 device may be moved to another available channel , or completely disconnected, in favor of the Tier 1/2 user”) and a second base station of which a grant is not registered in the list (par.029 “the AP is actually in New Jersey”); and
a control unit that determines whether or not to (par.029 “should mitigate against a problem”) change a frequency channel of the second base station from a first frequency channel to a second frequency channel when information regarding the existence of the wireless communication device in the predetermined area is acquired (par.029 “so the ASA controller may give access to channel XYZ, which may be properly available in Alaska”).
Regarding claim 2, Solondz discloses the information processing device being a device that relays communication between a spectrum access system (SAS) and the first and second base stations (par.019 “The ASAS 105”, fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Solondz discloses the control unit determines whether or not to change the frequency channel of the second base station when the SAS requests the second base station to change the frequency channel (par.029 “ASAS controller and data base system 105 properly allocate spectrum regions…….so the ASA controller may give access to channel XYZ, which may be properly available in Alaska).
Regarding claim 4, Solondz discloses in a case of determining to change the frequency channel, the information processing device notifying the SAS that the frequency channel is to be changed and changing the frequency channel of the second base station at a predetermined timing (par.020 “ASAS 105 provides……the identified channel and an expiration time of the requesting Tier 3 granting access the identified channel”, par.027 “the ASA system….receive the measurement reports….Once the database propagation models……that channel or set of channels could be allocated for serving the requesting Tier 3 GAA user”, par.028 “the AP 410 is configured to forward the indicated channel as well as other parameters…..begin communicating with the access point 410 on the allocated channel”).
Regarding claim 5, Solondz discloses the control unit determines whether or not to change the frequency channel of the second base station when the SAS requests the first base station to stop the radio wave transmission (par.027 “the ASA system…. receive the measurement reports….Once the database propagation models……that channel or set of channels could be allocated for serving the requesting Tier 3 GAA user”).
Regarding claim 6, Solondz discloses the information processing device being a device having a function of a spectrum access system (SAS) (par.028 “the ASAS 105”).
Regarding claim 7, Solondz discloses further comprising a storage unit that stores grant information of each of the first and second base stations, wherein the control unit temporarily invalidates the grant information in a case where the frequency channel is to be changed (par.019 “data base 115….the expected use of the shared radio frequency spectrum…..months, days, or hours ahead of time……coverage areas….and durations”, par.023 “specific radio frequency channel(s) is (are) temporarily turned over to Tier 3 users”).
Regarding claim 8, Solondz discloses the control unit further determines whether or not to change a frequency channel of the first base station to a frequency channel allocated to a general authorized access tier (par.027 “the ASA system…. receive the measurement reports…. Once the database propagation models……that channel or set of channels could be allocated for serving the requesting Tier 3 GAA user”).
Regarding claim 9, Solondz discloses the information processing device according to wherein the information processing device changing a frequency channel of the first base station and the frequency channel of the second base station at a same timing in a case of determining to change the frequency channels (par.018 “the shared radio frequency spectrum may be shared in one or more coverage areas”).
Regarding claim 10, Solondz discloses the information processing device
changing a frequency channel of the first base station and the frequency channel of the second base station at different timings in a case of determining to change the frequency channels (par.019 “months, days or hours”, par.020 “Dickinson County…. several days”).
Regarding claim 11, Solondz discloses the control unit changes the frequency channel of the second base station in a case where a difference between maximum transmission power allowed for the second base station in the first frequency channel and maximum transmission power allowed for the second base station in the second frequency channel does not exceed a predetermined allowed value (par.028 “The requesting access point…..forward the indicated channel as well as other parameters, such as maximum signal power levels”).
Regarding claim 12, Solondz discloses the control unit changes the frequency channel of the second base station when a remaining time until next coordinated periodic activities among SAS's (CPAS) becomes shorter than a predetermined time in a case where the difference exceeds the allowed value (par.020 “An expiration time is included”).
Regarding claim 13, Solondz discloses the control unit determines whether or not to change the frequency channel of the second base station on a basis of maximum transmission power allowed for the second base station in the first frequency channel, transmission power allowed for the second base station within a predetermined margin in the second frequency channel, and transmission power allowed for the second base station in next coordinated periodic activities among SAS's (CPAS) in the secondary channel (par.028 “The requesting access point…..forward the indicated channel as well
as other parameters, such as maximum signal power levels”).
Regarding claim 14, Solondz discloses the first frequency channel is a frequency channel allocated to a priority access tier, and the second frequency channel is a frequency channel allocated to a general authorized access tier (par.019 “the first Tier 1, having the highest priority”, par.022 “Third Tier 3-GAA”).
Regarding claim 15, Solondz discloses an information processing device comprising: a communication unit that performs communication with a first base station of which a grant is registered in a list of grants for which radio wave transmission needs to be stopped in a case where a wireless communication device exists in a predetermined area; and a control unit that controls transmission power of the base station to a value that is not registered in the list when information regarding the existence of the wireless communication device in the predetermined area is acquired (par.020, 027, 029).
Regarding claim 16, Solondz discloses an information processing device comprising a communication unit that performs communication with a first information processing device, wherein the first information processing device performs communication with a first base station of which a grant is registered in a list of grants for which radio wave transmission needs to be stopped in a case where a wireless communication device exists in a predetermined area and a second base station of which a grant is not registered in the list, and determines whether or not to change a frequency channel of the second base station from a first frequency channel to a second frequency channel on a basis of information indicating that the wireless communication device exists in the predetermined area, and the communication unit acquires determined information regarding the frequency channel of the second base station from the first information processing device (par.020, 027, 029).
Regarding claim 17, Solondz discloses a communication system comprising: a first base station of which a grant is registered in a list of grants for which radio wave transmission needs to be stopped in a case where a wireless communication device exists in a predetermined area; a second base station of which a grant is not registered in the list; a communication unit that performs communication with the first base station and the second base station; an acquisition unit that acquires information regarding the existence of the wireless communication device in the predetermined area; and a control unit that determines whether or not to change a frequency channel of the second base station from a first frequency channel to a second frequency channel on a basis of the information (par.020, 027, 029).
Regarding claim 18, Solondz discloses an information processing method comprising: a communication process of performing communication with a first base station of which a grant is registered in a list of grants for which radio wave transmission needs to be stopped in a case where a wireless communication device exists in a predetermined area and a second base station of which a grant is not registered in the list; and a control process of determining whether or not to change a frequency channel of the second base station from a first frequency channel to a second frequency channel when information regarding the existence of the wireless communication device in the predetermined area is acquired (par.020, 027, 029)
Regarding claim 19, Solondz discloses everything as claim 1 above. More specifically Solondz discloses a program for causing a computer to execute (par.0100-0101).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Tu Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7883. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM Eastern Time.
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 Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Delany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TU X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642