DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuichi et al., Pub. No.: US2023/0300757 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Furuichi discloses A method of controlling wireless communication device operation (Fig. 10, par. 0266; a flowchart of processing related to calculation and setting of the applicable transmission power value), the method comprising: determining a height of a wireless communication device in response to a horizontal location of the wireless communication device corresponding to a potential transmission regulation zone (par. 0271 and 0303; The distance from the primary system to the EXZ boundary is described as a boundary distance in order to be distinguished from the separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system. An area within the boundary distance d.sub.n based on the location of the wireless device 2P is the n-th EXZ, and a height h of the antenna of the secondary is an argument of the radio wave propagation model which may be expressed as PL(d,h).); determining, based on the horizontal location of the wireless communication device and the height of the wireless communication device, whether the wireless communication device is disposed in a transmission regulation zone relative to a first RAT device (first Radio Access Technology device) and a second RAT device (par. 0210; in a case of using the location information of the communication device, the frequency availability may be determined by performing correction of the location information or the coverage by using the positioning accuracy information (location uncertainty).); and providing, based on whether the wireless communication device is disposed in the transmission regulation zone, an indication of transmission power for wireless signal transmission by the wireless communication device (par. 0208; in a case where it is assumed that desired transmission power indicated by the transmission power information is used, when an estimated amount of applied interference is less than the allowable interference power in the primary system or the protection zone thereof, it is determined that the use of the frequency channel can be permitted, and the communication device 110 is notified that the frequency channel is available.).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1, 10 and 19. Furuichi also discloses wherein determining whether the wireless communication device is disposed in the transmission regulation zone comprises determining at least one of whether the wireless communication device is in a line of sight between the first RAT device and the second RAT device, or whether the wireless communication device is in a near-line-of-sight transmission regulation zone relative to the first RAT device and the second RAT device, or whether the wireless communication device is in a SIPR region (Signal-to-Interference Power Ratio region) within which signal transmission by the wireless communication device may induce an unacceptable SIPR for the first RAT device (par. 0292; In a case where the radio wave propagation model is valid, the calculated d.sub.n is adopted as the boundary distance of the C-EXZ, but in a case where the radio wave propagation model invalid, the calculated d.sub.n is discarded, and d.sub.n is calculated again using another radio wave propagation model. That is, the calculated d.sub.n can be said to be a candidate (i.e., equated to interference being caused in a SIPR region).).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein the indication indicates for the wireless communication device to avoid transmitting signals in a frequency band in which the first RAT device and the second RAT device are licensed to transmit communication signals (par. 0099; The user of the priority access tier is also generally referred to as a secondary user. In a case of using the shared frequency band, the priority access tier is required to avoid interference and to suppress the use of the shared frequency band for the incumbent tier having a higher priority than the priority access tier.).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein the indication indicates for the wireless communication device to transmit signals, in a frequency band in which the first RAT device and the second RAT device are licensed to transmit communication signals, at a lower power level from among at least the lower power level and a higher power level that the wireless communication device is configured to use for wireless signal transmission (par. 0214; If the start or continuation is permitted, the communication device 110 may start or continue the frequency usage (radio wave transmission at the permitted frequency).).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein determining the height of the wireless communication device comprises determining the height of the wireless communication device based on a height of a reference device and an angle of arrival of a reference signal transmitted between the wireless communication device and the reference device (par. 0132; antenna information is typically information indicating the performance, configuration, and the like of an antenna included in the communication device 110. Typically, for example, information such as an antenna installation height, a downtilt angle, a horizontal azimuth).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein determining the height of the wireless communication device comprises determining the height of the wireless communication device based on distances between the wireless communication device and at least three reference devices with known three-dimensional locations (par. 0326; Note that it may be determined which one of the separation distance d.sub.2D as the horizontal plane distance and the separation distance d.sub.3D as the spatial distance is used according to the radio wave propagation model. That is, the antenna height may be considered.).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein determining the height of the wireless communication device comprises determining the height of the wireless communication device based on distances between the wireless communication device and at least M reference devices with the wireless communication device at each of N locations, where M≥4 and N>3M (par. 0040; a distance between the boundary of the area or the second wireless device and the first wireless device may be represented by a spatial distance based on a difference between the antenna height of the second wireless device and an antenna height of the first wireless device.).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 1 and 10. Furuichi also discloses wherein determining whether the wireless communication device is disposed in the transmission regulation zone comprises: determining whether the wireless communication device is within a threshold distance of the first RAT device (par. 0329; It is assumed that the C-EXZ of the detected primary system is calculated as in the following table. In addition, it is assumed that the separation distance between the secondary system and the detected primary system is 5 m.); and determining, in response to determining that the wireless communication device is within the threshold distance of the first RAT device, whether the wireless communication device is in a SIPR region (Signal-to-Interference Power Ratio region) within which signal transmission by the wireless communication device may induce an unacceptable SIPR for the first RAT device (Fig. 11, par. 0330; it is preferable to allocate the transmission power at the EXZ whose boundary distance is smaller than the separation distance. In a case where the separation distance is 5 m, it is preferable to allow, for the secondary system, transmission power of 24 dBm of the C-EXZ1 whose boundary distance is 2 m and transmission power of 27 dBm of the C-EXZ2 whose boundary distance is 3 m.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Furuichi discloses all the limitations in claims 8 and 17. Furuichi also discloses wherein the threshold distance depends on at least one of: a separation distance between the first RAT device and the second RAT device (par. 0178; calculate a range of a separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system); a height of an antenna of the first RAT device (par. 0132; information such as an antenna installation height); an elevation angle of the second RAT device relative to the first RAT device (par. 0132; a downtilt angle, a horizontal azimuth); and a gain of the antenna of the first RAT device (par. 0173; the antenna gain may be set to an allowable peak gain for each spatial direction.).
Regarding claim 10, Furuichi discloses An apparatus (Fig. 9 item 130; communication control device 130) comprising: at least one transceiver (par. 0281; A transmission unit 135); at least one memory (par. 0283; storage unit 136); and at least one processor (par. 0345; the processing performed by the communication control device 130 described above is performed by a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer.), communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory (see Fig. 9), configured to: determine a height of a wireless communication device in response to a horizontal location of the wireless communication device corresponding to a potential transmission regulation zone (par. 0271 and 0303; The distance from the primary system to the EXZ boundary is described as a boundary distance in order to be distinguished from the separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system. An area within the boundary distance d.sub.n based on the location of the wireless device 2P is the n-th EXZ, and a height h of the antenna of the secondary is an argument of the radio wave propagation model which may be expressed as PL(d,h).); determine, based on the horizontal location of the wireless communication device and the height of the wireless communication device, whether the wireless communication device is disposed in a transmission regulation zone relative to a first RAT device (first Radio Access Technology device) and a second RAT device (par. 0210; in a case of using the location information of the communication device, the frequency availability may be determined by performing correction of the location information or the coverage by using the positioning accuracy information (location uncertainty).); and provide, based on whether the wireless communication device is disposed in the transmission regulation zone, an indication of transmission power for wireless signal transmission by the wireless communication device (par. 0208; in a case where it is assumed that desired transmission power indicated by the transmission power information is used, when an estimated amount of applied interference is less than the allowable interference power in the primary system or the protection zone thereof, it is determined that the use of the frequency channel can be permitted, and the communication device 110 is notified that the frequency channel is available.).
Regarding claim 19, Furuichi discloses An apparatus (Fig. 9 item 130; communication control device 130) comprising: means for determining a height of a wireless communication device in response to a horizontal location of the wireless communication device corresponding to a potential transmission regulation zone (par. 0271 and 0303; The distance from the primary system to the EXZ boundary is described as a boundary distance in order to be distinguished from the separation distance between the primary system and the secondary system. An area within the boundary distance d.sub.n based on the location of the wireless device 2P is the n-th EXZ, and a height h of the antenna of the secondary is an argument of the radio wave propagation model which may be expressed as PL(d,h).); means for determining, based on the horizontal location of the wireless communication device and the height of the wireless communication device, whether the wireless communication device is disposed in a transmission regulation zone relative to a first RAT device (first Radio Access Technology device) and a second RAT device (par. 0210; in a case of using the location information of the communication device, the frequency availability may be determined by performing correction of the location information or the coverage by using the positioning accuracy information (location uncertainty).); and means for providing, based on whether the wireless communication device is disposed in the transmission regulation zone, an indication of transmission power for wireless signal transmission by the wireless communication device (par. 0208; in a case where it is assumed that desired transmission power indicated by the transmission power information is used, when an estimated amount of applied interference is less than the allowable interference power in the primary system or the protection zone thereof, it is determined that the use of the frequency channel can be permitted, and the communication device 110 is notified that the frequency channel is available.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE whose telephone number is (571)270-7983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649