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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 10271351 in view of Cimpu CN 114402648
1. A method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system comprising one or [[more]] computing devices, that a spectrum access grant for a non-incumbent network entity has been revoked by a Spectrum Access System (SAS) responsive to spectrum utilization by an incumbent network entity, wherein the spectrum access grant is indicative of a first antenna configuration for one or more antenna devices of the non-incumbent network entity to communicate via a wireless network (Wang: col. 8, lines 23-30 e.g., the SAS may deny access (i.e., grant denial) when operating on the secondary CC at the maximum transmit power is expected to cause impermissible interference with higher-tier users operating in the same spectrum space or operation on the secondary CC is strictly prohibited due to an incumbent first-tier user in close proximity or interfering with a restricted area reserved for incumbent first-tier users);
determining, by the computing system, a second antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network, wherein the second antenna configuration is predicted to cause less interference between the non-incumbent network entity and the incumbent network entity than the first antenna configuration (Wang: fig. 3, unit 340-350, col. 15, lines 35-60 e.g., determine to operate on the second uplink channel at a transmit power (e.g., allowable transmit power) less than or equal to the EUD allowable transmit power limit (e.g., 23 dBm/10 MHz) until the SAS 210 authorizes the grant to operate at the higher maximum transmit power ); and
providing, by the computing system, a non-incumbent spectrum access request to the SAS, wherein the non-incumbent spectrum access request comprises a request for access to the second antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network (Wang: col. 8, lines 20-23 e.g., apply for a new SAS grant for operation on a different secondary CC and/or a reduced transmit power).
Wang merely discloses the term computing system comprising more computing devices
Cimpu further teaches computing system comprising more computing devices (Cimpu: fig. 18, more processors 430)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Wang’s invention in order to calculating antenna pattern, and combining the expected maximum EIRP to determine the desired antenna direction pattern envelope, so as to reduce the interference level between CBSD of different TDD configuration to be lower than the target interference threshold T1, as taught by Cimpu.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, that a second spectrum access grant has been provided to the non-incumbent network entity, wherein the second spectrum access grant grants access to the second antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network (Wang: col. 5, lines 39-41 e.g., The grant message grants the UE permission to operate on the secondary CC at the maximum transmit power from the current location).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: detecting, by the computing system, occurrence of a configuration reversion event; and responsive to detecting the occurrence of the configuration reversion event, providing, by the computing system to the SAS, a non-incumbent configuration reversion request, wherein the non-incumbent configuration reversion request comprises a request to restore access to the first antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network (Wang: col. 13, lines 28-35 e.g., subsequent grant request message 160 over the primary CC 120P).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein detecting occurrence of the configuration reversion event comprises: determining, by the computing system, that the spectrum utilization by the incumbent network entity has ceased (Wang: col. 14, lines 11-25 e.g., added and removed).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: responsive to providing the non-incumbent spectrum access request, receiving, by the computing system from the SAS, information indicating denial of the non-incumbent spectrum access request (Wang: fig. 5C e.g., denial message 180).
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, a third antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network, wherein the third antenna configuration is predicted to cause less interference between the non-incumbent network entity and the incumbent network entity than the second antenna configuration; and providing, by the computing system, a second non-incumbent spectrum access request to the SAS, wherein the second non-incumbent spectrum access request comprises a request for access to the third antenna configuration for the one or more antenna devices (Wang: col. 13, lines 35-36 e.g., different secondary CC 120S associated with another frequency).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the spectrum access grant for the non-incumbent network entity has been revoked comprises: determining, by the computing system, that the spectrum access grant for the non-incumbent network entity has been revoked by the SAS responsive to the spectrum utilization BY the incumbent network entity, wherein the spectrum access grant grants access to the first antenna configuration for a plurality of antenna devices associated with non-incumbent network entity to communicate via the wireless network; and wherein determining the second antenna configuration comprises: determining, by the computing system, a second antenna configuration for the plurality of antenna devices to communicate via the wireless network, wherein: the first antenna configuration forms a plurality of beams comprising a first beam that points towards a location of the incumbent network entity; and the second antenna configuration forms a second plurality of beams each pointing towards locations other than the location of the network incumbent entity (Wang: fig. 3, unit 350, col. 12, lines 55-56 e.g., antenna orientation, antenna tilt, or antenna height).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 10271351 in view of Cimpu CN 114402648 further in view of Ansley US 20200305004
5. The method of claim 3, wherein detecting occurrence of the configuration reversion event comprises: determining, by the computing system, that a period of time has passed since either: (a) the SAS revoked the spectrum access grant for the non-incumbent network entity; or (b) the incumbent network entity last communicated via the wireless network (Ansley: fig. 7 [0033, 0063-0066] e.g., node 110 has one minute to vacate the channel(s) after a notification)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Wang’s invention in order to provide the new channel allotment to accommodate the same devices currently using the revoked channel, as taught by Ansley.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 10271351 in view of Cimpu CN 114402648 further in view of Duong US 12185134
9. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the second antenna configuration different than the first antenna configuration comprises: processing, by the computing system, a set of inputs comprising the first antenna configuration with a machine-learned antenna configuration model to obtain the second antenna configuration (Duong: co. 50, lines 37-46, AI algorithms can dynamically adjust beam patterns and power allocation based on real-time network condition).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Wang’s invention in order to seamlessly integrate with dynamic spectrum access systems, enabling automated management of interference issues, as taught by Duong.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the set of inputs further comprises information indicative of a location of the incumbent network entity (Wang: fig. 3, unit 330, location).
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the set of inputs further comprises historical information indicative of a prior non-incumbent spectrum access request provided to the SAS and a corresponding response received from the SAS (Wang: fig. 3, unit 300, CBRS log; Duong: col. 10, lines 48-50, historical data on interference and user communication patterns).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the computing system, information indicating that the SAS has denied the non-incumbent spectrum access request; and training, by the computing system, the machine-learned antenna configuration model based on the non-incumbent spectrum access request and the information indicating that the SAS has denied the non-incumbent spectrum access request (Wang: col. 4, lines 17-18, grant message or denial message from the SAS).
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the first antenna configuration provides coverage of a first portion of a geographic area in which the one or more antenna devices are located, and wherein the second antenna configuration provides coverage of a second portion of the geographic area that is less than then first portion of the geographic area (Wang: col. 1, unit 120p, 120s & 106).
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the first antenna configuration causes the one or more antenna devices to form a beam that interferes with communications from the incumbent network entity, and wherein second antenna configuration modifies a value of a parameter associated with the beam (Wang: col. 8, lines 20-23 e.g., apply for a new SAS grant for operation on a different secondary CC and/or a reduced transmit power).
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the spectrum access grant for the non-incumbent network entity is revoked by the Spectrum Access System (SAS) responsive to incumbent detection information received from an Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) device, wherein the ESC device detects spectrum utilization by incumbent network entities, and wherein the incumbent detection information is descriptive of the incumbent network entity and/or the spectrum utilization by the incumbent network entity (Wang: col. 14, lines 8-9, e.g., Environmental Sensing Capability (ESC) systems).
Regarding claims 16-20, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-15, where the difference used is an “apparatus & NTCRS” with a processor and a memory (Wang: Referring to FIG 8, unit 800 includes a processor 810, a memory 830) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415