DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to Preliminary Amendment made to an Application No. 18/579,821 filed on 01/16/2024 in which claims 4-8, 19-24, 26-27, and 34-37 are canceled and claim 31 is amended. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 9-18, 25, and 28-33 are currently pending for examination.
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 .
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 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.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 01/16/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 01/16/2024.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 9-13, 15, 17-18, 25, 28-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 2020/0092731 A1) hereinafter “Beck” in view of FURUICHI et al. (US 2016/0128000 A1) hereinafter “Furuichi”. The U.S. reference, Beck, was cited in IDS filed 01/16/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a method for selecting a channel for a network element in a shared spectrum communication system, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band of the shared spectrum communication system (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020], identifying one or more candidate channels in a CBRS);
for each of the plurality of candidate channels, determining at least one transmit power estimate based on at least one available interference margin (see ¶ [0021] [0024], the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria including Interference margin/transmit power),
scoring each of the plurality of candidate channels based on at least the at least one transmit power estimate (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020] [0030], the process evaluates and scores each of the selected channels and scoring may utilize a coarse or fine granularity);
ranking the plurality of candidate channels based on the scores for each of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0030-31], the process ranks the channels based on the final score); and
selecting one of the plurality of candidate channels based on the ranking of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0031], the CBSD selects one or more channels).
Beck does not explicitly disclose the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol.
However, Furuichi discloses wherein the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol for the shared spectrum communication system (see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol as taught by Furuichi, in the system of Beck, so that it would provide to calculate a transmit power to be allocated including a nominal transmit power and a margin for interference avoidance and to adjust the margin for interference avoidance on a basis of the determined variation (Furuichi: see ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein the at least one available interference margin comprises a plurality of available interference margins, wherein each available interference margin is based on a distinct power allocation protocol for the shared spectrum communication system (Beck: see ¶ [0021] [0024], the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria including Interference margin/transmit power and Furuichi: see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein selecting the one of the plurality of candidate channels includes selecting one operating parameter for the one of the plurality of candidate channels including a frequency range defined by an upper frequency and a lower frequency range, and a transmit power (Beck: see ¶ [0005] [0020], the CBSD could choose the available channel that meets its EIRP needs; to actively scan the radio frequencies associate with channels and measure the received channel power as an indication of channel utilization; and identify any of the channels in the band, such as any number of 5 MHz, 10 MHz, or 20 MHz channels and Furuichi: see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses further comprising sending a message to the network element including the selected one of the plurality of candidate channels and the one operating parameter (Beck: see FIG. 6; see ¶ [0035], channel evaluator pushes channel information; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0139], reporting power allocation related information to the wireless communication apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein determining the at least one transmit power estimate further comprises:
constraining the at least one transmit power estimate corresponding to a respective candidate channel of the plurality of candidate channels based on adverse impact to other network elements in the shared spectrum communication system communicating at or near the respective candidate channel; and wherein scoring the each of the plurality of candidate channels further comprises scoring the respective candidate channel based on whether the at least one transmit power estimate exceeds an operational transmit power threshold (Beck: see ¶ [0024], channel usage may be unrestricted until the population of neighbor CBRS sites builds to the point when incumbent aggregate interference thresholds are exceeded. The difference between the total aggregate site interference signal level and the allowable threshold is referred to as the interference margin. Sites with a lower interference margin have a higher probability of having their transmit power reduced in the future due to future incumbent impact. Thus, in one embodiment, channels for sites that are evaluated to have a low interference margin are assigned a low score and sites that are evaluated to have a high interference margin are assigned a high score).
Regarding claim 11, Beck discloses a channel evaluator (see FIG. 7; see ¶ [0036], a channel evaluator), comprising:
a communication interface (see FIG. 7; see ¶ [0036], a communication interface);
a storage media storing a channel recommendation function (see FIG. 7; see ¶ [0036], a storage media); and
at least one processor coupled to the communication interface and the storage media (see FIG. 7; see ¶ [0036], a processor), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the channel recommendation function to evaluate channels for a network element of a shared spectrum communication system by:
identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band of the shared spectrum communication system (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020], identifying one or more candidate channels in a CBRS);
for each of the plurality of candidate channels, determining at least one transmit power estimate based on at least one available interference margin (see ¶ [0021] [0024], the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria including Interference margin),
scoring each of the plurality of candidate channels based on at least the at least one transmit power estimate (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020] [0030], the process evaluates and scores each of the selected channels and scoring may utilize a coarse or fine granularity);
ranking the plurality of candidate channels based on the scores for each of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0030-31], the process ranks the channels based on the final score); and
selecting one of the plurality of candidate channels based on the ranking of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0031], the CBSD selects one or more channels).
Beck does not explicitly disclose each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol.
However, Furuichi discloses wherein each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol for the shared spectrum communication system (see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol as taught by Furuichi, in the system of Beck, so that it would provide to calculate a transmit power to be allocated including a nominal transmit power and a margin for interference avoidance and to adjust the margin for interference avoidance on a basis of the determined variation (Furuichi: see ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein the channel recommendation function, running on the at least one processor, is configured to evaluate channels by:
determining whether the frequency band incudes one incumbent use to be protected; identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band of the shared spectrum communication system when the frequency band includes one or more incumbent users to be protected; and enabling communications for the network element based on a received grant request from the network element when the frequency band does not include one or more incumbent user to be protected (Beck: see ¶ [0002] [0016] [0021] [0024], the CBRS model includes three levels of access. Tier I of the CBRS model is dedicated to incumbents who currently use portions of the band; the channel evaluator identifies a number of candidate channels that could be used by a network element; the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria; an interference margin-Rules for the protection of some incumbents are based on the aggregate interference of all sites using the same channel in geographic proximity to the incumbent; and incorporation of channel evaluator into the operation of system is an improvement to the way that access is granted to channels in shared spectrum communication systems).
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein the channel recommendation function, running on the at least one processor, is configured to:
send a message including the selected candidate channel to the network element; determine whether the network element has accepted the selected candidate channel; enable communications for the network element on the selected candidate channel when the network element has accepted the selected candidate channel (Beck: see FIG. 6; see ¶ [0035], channel evaluator pushes channel information; see ¶ [0017-18], channel evaluator resides in each CBSD and is used by the CBSD to evaluate and rank candidate channels when the CBSD requests to access to a channel from SAS; and SAS grants access to a communication channel in system for a CBSD using a known protocol; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0139], reporting power allocation related information to the wireless communication apparatus).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein the channel recommendation function, running on the at least one processor, is configured to evaluate channels by identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band further comprises:
determining whether a potential channel is overlapping with a frequency of one incumbent user in the frequency band; designating the potential channel as an incumbent-impacting channel when the potential channel is overlapping with a frequency of one or more incumbent users; and designating the potential channel as an incumbent-free channel when the potential channel is non-overlapping with a frequency of one or more incumbent users (Beck: see ¶ [0016] [0027] [0029], the channel evaluator then uses one or more of a plurality of criteria to evaluate each of the candidate channels to determine the relative merits of each of the candidate channels; the potential coverage area of the CBSD is evaluated as a criteria in channel ranking, this reflects the lower probability of interference or incumbent overlap in isolated coverage areas; and the bandwidth of a channel is evaluated as a criteria in ranking candidate channels. Higher bandwidth channels may be more susceptible to incumbent use).
Regarding claim 17, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein selecting a candidate channel comprises selecting one of the designated incumbent-free channels (Beck: see ¶ [0016], the channel evaluator uses one or more of a plurality of criteria to evaluate each of the candidate channels to determine the relative merits of each of the candidate channels).
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein scoring each of the candidate channels comprises scoring each designated incumbent-impacting channel when no incumbent-free channels are available; and wherein selecting a candidate channel comprises selecting an incumbent-impacting channel (Beck: see ¶ [0016] [0027], the channel evaluator uses one or more of a plurality of criteria to evaluate each of the candidate channels to determine the relative merits of each of the candidate channels; the potential coverage area of the CBSD is evaluated as a criteria in channel ranking; and this reflects the lower probability of interference or incumbent overlap in isolated coverage areas).
Regarding claim 25, Beck discloses a method for selecting an alternate channel for a network element in a shared spectrum communication system, comprising:
receiving notice of a Dynamic Protection Area (DPA) activation that covers one or more frequencies in the shared spectrum communication system utilized by the network element (see ¶ [0022], Dynamic Protection Area are frequency specific geographic regions);
suspending access to the shared spectrum communication system of the network element (see ¶ [0022], a limited frequency band must suspend service); and
selecting at least one alternative channel to send to the network element by:
identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band of the shared spectrum communication system (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020], identifying one or more candidate channels in a CBRS);
for each of the plurality of candidate channels, determining at least one transmit power estimate based on at least one available interference margin (see ¶ [0021] [0024], the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria including Interference margin),
scoring each of the plurality of candidate channels based on at least the at least one transmit power estimate (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020] [0030], the process evaluates and scores each of the selected channels and scoring may utilize a coarse or fine granularity);
ranking the plurality of candidate channels based on the scores for each of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0030-31], the process ranks the channels based on the final score); and
selecting one of the plurality of candidate channels based on the ranking of the plurality of candidate channels (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0031], the CBSD selects one or more channels).
Beck does not explicitly disclose each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol.
However, Furuichi discloses wherein each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol for the shared spectrum communication system (see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide each available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol as taught by Furuichi, in the system of Beck, so that it would provide to calculate a transmit power to be allocated including a nominal transmit power and a margin for interference avoidance and to adjust the margin for interference avoidance on a basis of the determined variation (Furuichi: see ¶ [0010]).
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses comprising determining the at least one transmit power estimate by:
determining a first transmit power estimate based on a first available interference margin of the at least one available interference margin (Beck: see ¶ [0024]; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0132] [0215], calculating the maximum transit power by subtracting the interference avoidance margin); and
determining a second transmit power estimate based on a second available interference margin of the last one available interference margin (Beck: see ¶ [0024]; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0132] [0215], updates the configuration of the transmit power by adding the margin adjustment to the margin included in the already-configured transmit power).
Regarding claim 29, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses further comprising determining the first power transmit estimate based on an operational transmit power threshold for the network element and an authorized power change metric (Beck: see ¶ [0024]; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0132] [0215] [0274], calculating the maximum transit power by subtracting the interference avoidance margin and to recalculate the transmit power in related to a threshold value).
Regarding claim 31, Beck discloses a method, comprising:
identifying a plurality of candidate channels of a frequency band of a shared spectrum (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020], identifying one or more candidate channels in a CBRS);
for each candidate channel of the plurality of channels, determining whether the candidate channel is an incumbent-free channel (see ¶ [0017], a shared spectrum communication);
when the candidate channel is determined to be an incumbent-free channel:
scoring the candidate channel based on a maximum transmit power estimate for the candidate channel (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020] [0030], the process evaluates and scores each of the selected channels and scoring may utilize a coarse or fine granularity);
when the candidate channel is determined to not be an incumbent-free channel:
evaluating the candidate channel based on at least one criterion of the shared spectrum (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020], identifying one or more candidate channels in a CBRS), wherein the at least one criterion includes at least one allowable transmit power estimate for the candidate channel based on at least one available interference margin (see ¶ [0021] [0024], the process evaluates the candidate channels based on a specified set of criteria including Interference margin),
scoring the candidate channel based on the at least one allowable transmit power estimate (see FIG. 3; see ¶ [0020] [0030], the process evaluates and scores each of the selected channels and scoring may utilize a coarse or fine granularity); and
Beck does not explicitly disclose the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol.
However, Furuichi discloses wherein the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol for the shared spectrum communication system (see ¶ [0135-36] [0284-85], the allocated transmit power is related to the nominal transmit power and the interference avoidance margin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the at least one available interference margin is based on a power allocation protocol as taught by Furuichi, in the system of Beck, so that it would provide to calculate a transmit power to be allocated including a nominal transmit power and a margin for interference avoidance and to adjust the margin for interference avoidance on a basis of the determined variation (Furuichi: see ¶ [0010]).
The combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses providing the scores for each candidate channel of the plurality of channels to a network element of the shared spectrum communication system (Beck: see FIG. 6; see ¶ [0035], channel evaluator pushes channel information; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0139], reporting power allocation related information to the wireless communication apparatus).
Regarding claim 32, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein providing the scores for each candidate channel comprises sending a message including a list of the scored candidate channels to an automated frequency coordination (AFC) device (Beck: see FIG. 6; see ¶ [0031], the CBSD sends a request to SAS to request access to the selected channels from the ranked list of channels; see ¶ [0035], channel evaluator pushes channel information to each CBSD based on criteria for the specific CBSD and pushes channel rankings the CBSD; and Furuichi: see ¶ [0139], reporting power allocation related information to the wireless communication apparatus).
Regarding claim 33, the combined system of Beck and Furuichi discloses wherein scoring the candidate channel comprises assigning a first score to the candidate channel when the candidate channel is determined to be an incumbent-free channel; and assigning a second score to the candidate channel when the candidate channel is determined to not be an incumbent-free channel, wherein the first score is higher than the second score (Beck: see ¶ [0020][0029-30], scoring each of the plurality of channels in the geographical location and different score values may be used for different categories or criteria and higher bandwidth channels may be more susceptible to incumbent use and the candidate channels that are evaluated to have higher channel bandwidths (e.g. 20 MHz) are assigned to a lower score than lower channel bandwidths (e.g. 5 MHz)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaudhri et al. (US 2010/0081449 A1) teaches a technique for a secondary communication system to utilize spectrum designated to another (or primary) communication system, by ranking a plurality of secondary base stations based on base station transmit power, calculated required transmit power and path loss, a set of criteria is developed for selecting a highest ranked secondary base station for operation within a primary's spectrum (see Abstract).
ABRAHAM et al. (US 2018/0063851 A1) teaches a method for dynamic allocation of communication channels among multiple wireless networks and providing interference mitigation and control among a plurality of wireless protocols operating in an environment (see Abstract).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462