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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US Publication 2010/0266002 A1) further in view of Loneman et al. (US Publication 2016/0150415 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Du et al. (US Publication 2010/0266002 A1) teaches, A method of cooperative spectrum sensing for Cognitive Radio (CR) device, the method comprising: computing; a trade-off among baseband sampling (fs) (see paragraph 58; The spectrum is downconverted by 2 GHz to the baseband; see paragraph 56 and table 3; The signal environment for benchmarking is shown in the table below: there are 5 PU signals representing a primary service, and 2 SU signals representing different CR modes. The sampling rate f.sub.s at the receiver is chosen to be 20 Million samples per second (Msps)); a mobile user spectrum sensing duration time (td) (see paragraph 30; the spectrum sensing component 108 can extract a number of features to identify the type of the PUs from the received data using signal processing techniques. These features can be frequency-domain features (e.g., bandwidth, center frequency, single carrier versus multi-carrier), time-domain features (e.g., maximum duration of a signal, multiple-access technique, duplexing technique, frame duration, spreading codes or hopping patterns), and/or the like); a probability to correctly detect an occupied channel (Pd) (see paragraph 63; The result is shown in FIG. 12 in the graphs at 1200, 1202, 1204, and 1206. In particular, at graph 1200, the line at 1208 represents probability of a hole (or vacancy) being detected); and a probability of false alarm (Pf) identifying a probability that a vacant frequency is undetected (see paragraph 63; the line at 1210 represents probability that a hole is missed, and the line at 1212 represents probability that there is a false alarm detected), providing the cooperative spectrum sensinq for the CR device based on analysis resulting from the computing (see paragraph 29; the spectrum sensing component 108 can utilize radio signal analysis to detect and/or identify a user of frequency band resources. For radio signal analysis, modulation recognition and bit stream analysis can be applied to identify whether an alarm (e.g., a detected signal) corresponds to a PU, or a SU, or noise (e.g., false alarm). Modulation recognition can be necessary for the selection of a suitable demodulation process at the receiver).
In further regards to claims 1, Du fails to teach dynamic power consumption values considering technical capabilities of an analog-to-digital converters (ADC) in relation to a number of bit resolution levels.
Loneman et al. (US Publication 2016/0150415 A1) however teaches, dynamic power consumption values considering technical capabilities of an analog-to-digital converters (ADC) in relation to a number of bit resolution levels (see the abstract for use of lower frequency ADCs; see paragraph 85; The energy-based RCD approach is based on the concept that smaller energy in a channel implies high posterior belief of the channel being in an OFF state, for symmetric channels with equal noise and primary signal power levels).
Du and Loneman are both related to cognitive radio sensing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of ADC in relation of bit resolution levels as taught by Loneman into the teachers Du. The motivation to do so would be to use more cost effective components such as lower frequency ADCs for cognitive radio sensing.
In regards to claim 2, Du teaches, 2. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The method as in claim 1, wherein energy detection is computed in both a time domain and a frequency domain and a received sample signal x[n] is expressed as follows: x[n] = hs[n] + n[n], wherein x[n] is the received sample signal, s[n] is a transmitted signal, h is a complex gain of an ideal channel, n is an Additive White Gaussian Noise and n is a sample index in a case of sensing in the time domain or symbol index for sensing in the frequency domain (see paragraph 23 and the equation in paragraph 23).
In regards to claim 10, Du and Loneman teach all the limitations of the parent claims as stated above.
Du however fails to teach, wherein statistics metrics of an energy detector are defined as follows: the probability to correctly detect the occupied channel (Pd) is a function of the dynamic power consumption values considering technical capabilities of the ADC as a relation of a number of bits levels of resolution; the probability of false alarm (Pf) which is a probability not to detect properly a vacant frequency; the probability of missed detection (Pm) which is the probability not to detect properly an occupied frequency; and a threshold value λ.
Loneman however teaches, wherein statistics metrics of an energy detector are defined as follows: the probability to correctly detect the occupied channel (Pd) is a function of the dynamic power consumption values considering technical capabilities of the ADC as a relation of a number of bits levels of resolution; the probability of false alarm (Pf) which is a probability not to detect properly a vacant frequency (see paragraph 37; The detection probability for wideband spectrum sensing can be defined as the probability that all occupied channels are correctly detected, and the false alarm probability for wideband defined as the probability that any of the vacant channels are falsely detected as occupied); the probability of missed detection (Pm) which is the probability not to detect properly an occupied frequency (see paragraph 65; he detection performance for a single channel is often characterized by the pair (P.sub.M, P.sub.F), where P.sub.M is the probability of missed detection and P.sub.F is the probability of false alarm); and a threshold value λ (see paragraph 29; After removing the energy associated with out of band noise, an energy detector compares these energy levels to minimum energy level thresholds to determine whether there is enough energy in the primary radio users' spectrum to make the determination that it is the primary radio users' current transmissions that is the cause of the energy. If the energy meets these thresholds or a subset of thresholds, the spectrum is considered occupied by the primary users).
Du and Loneman are both related to cognitive radio sensing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of ADC in relation of bit resolution levels as taught by Loneman into the teaches Du. The motivation to do so would be to use more cost effective components such as lower frequency ADCs for cognitive radio sensing.
In regards to claim 15, Du teaches, wherein a mobile user decides whether a primary signal is present upon all mobile users having detected a primary user on a channel of interest (see paragraph 21; Secondary devices, however, can determine whether a portion of the frequency band is currently utilized by a PU to avoid interfering with the primary reserved use and/or avoid receiving interference from the PUs as part of the mandate; see paragraph 22; a spectrum sensing component 108 is also provided that can detect presence of communication over a frequency band and/or identify whether the communication is by PUs, secondary users (SU), etc).
In regards to claim 16, Du teaches, wherein a mobile user decides whether a primary signal is present upon at least one mobile user having detected a primary user in an interest channel (see figure 5 and see paragraph 55; it can be determined whether the frequency band is being utilized by a PU, SU, or is vacant, based on the one or more SOIs. For example, as described, if the SOI is a conjugate or non-conjugate cycle frequency related to a PU and has a mainlobe, then it can be assumed that a PU is communicating over the related frequency band; see paragraph 29; For radio signal analysis, modulation recognition and bit stream analysis can be applied to identify whether an alarm (e.g., a detected signal) corresponds to a PU, or a SU, or noise (e.g., false alarm)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 11-14 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.
In regards to claims, the cited prior fails to teach the spectrum sensing being formulated based on the parameters in the claims.
Conclusion
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 JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 571-272-8786. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights