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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20220225358 A1), hereinafter Hong, in view of Freda et al. (US 20120320741 A1), hereinafter Freda.
Regarding Claim 1:
Hong discloses a method for a spectrum controller controlling use of a spectrum shared by multiple network operators (see paragraph [0053][0001]; “the management device 130 is an entity which controls a plurality of base stations”),
sequentially instructing one or more of the multiple network operators (see paragraphs [0082]–[0083]; “allocates a transmission time… schedules the sequence transmission of each base station”), thereby teaching “sequentially instructing one or more of the multiple network operators.”
receiving signal-strength measurements (see paragraph [0047]; “measuring the interference between the base stations”),
generating interference patterns (see paragraph [0047]; “identifying an interference relationship based on the measured result”), thereby teaching “receiving signal-strength measurements” and “generating interference patterns based on the signal-strength measurements.”
allocating the spectrum (see paragraphs [0082]–[0083]; “allocates a transmission time… schedules the sequence transmission of each base station”), corresponding to the identified interference (see paragraph [0047]; “identifying an interference relationship based on the measured result”), thereby teaching allocating the spectrum corresponding to the identified interference relationship.
Hong does not disclose to implement a silent period during which the one or more network operators cease operations on at least part of the spectrum;
Freda discloses a silent period during which the one or more network operators cease operations on at least part of the spectrum (see paragraph [0105]; the spectrum sensing entity IDs 1305 for each spectrum sensing operation to be performed during the silent period. When a node was previously configured to perform spectrum sensing for the spectrum sensing entity associated with an ID received in this message, the node may perform spectrum sensing during this silent period. Since multiple spectrum sensing operations may be performed on a specific silent period, for example over different frequency ranges, the Silent Period Start Control Message 1303 may activate multiple spectrum sensing entity IDs 1305. Fig. 13), thereby teaching “to implement a silent period during which the one or more network operators cease operations on at least part of the spectrum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong with Freda’s teaching, thereby allowing measurements to be performed during non-transmission periods.
Regarding Claim 2: Hong and Freda teach the method of claim 1
Hong discloses multiple network entities operating and coordinating interference (see paragraphs [0047]–[0048]; “identifying an interference relationship based on the measured result”), thereby teaching multiple network operators operating on shared spectrum.
Hong does not explicitly disclose during a silent period, all but one of the multiple network operators cease operations on at least part of the spectrum.
Freda discloses during a silent period, all but one of the multiple network operators cease operations on at least part of the spectrum (see Fig. 11B; “and paragraph [0098] “Node 1102 may only be configured for spectrum sensing… all of which occur during the silent period duration t” and “Node 1102 may transmit a Measurement Report Control Message…”), thereby teaching that selected nodes perform limited operations while other nodes do not transmit during the silent period, corresponding to the claimed limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong in view of Freda, so as to reduce interference and improve spectrum utilization.
Regarding Claim 3: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong further discloses wherein at least some of the signal-strength measurements are received from one of the multiple network operators (see paragraphs [0028]–[0030]; “interference measurement of another base station”; paragraphs [0010]–[0012]: “detecting the at least one sequence… and transmitting detection result information”), thereby teaching that signal-strength measurements are received from a network operator, wherein the base station corresponds to one of the multiple network operators.
Regarding Claim 4: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 3
Hong further teaches that measurements are obtained from a base station (see paragraphs [0028]–[0030]; “interference measurement of another base station”), thereby teaching that the signal-strength measurements are generated by a base station associated with a network operator.
Hong does not explicitly disclose that the measurements are generated during a silent period.
Freda discloses the measurements are generated during a silent period (see paragraph [0105]; the spectrum sensing entity IDs 1305 for each spectrum sensing operation to be performed during the silent period. When a node was previously configured to perform spectrum sensing for the spectrum sensing entity associated with an ID received in this message, the node may perform spectrum sensing during this silent period. Since multiple spectrum sensing operations may be performed on a specific silent period, for example over different frequency ranges, the Silent Period Start Control Message 1303 may activate multiple spectrum sensing entity IDs 1305), thereby teaching that measurements are generated during a silent period.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong with Freda’s teaching, thereby allowing measurements to be performed during non-transmission periods.
Regarding Claim 7: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong further discloses measuring signal strength and determining interference relationships based on measurement results (see paragraphs [0047]–[0048]; “identifying an interference relationship based on the measured result”), thereby teaching signal-strength measurements and generating interference patterns for multiple network entities.
Hong does not explicitly disclose further comprising aggregating the measurements from multiple silent periods for each network operator in order to generate the interference patterns.
Freda further discloses comprising aggregating the measurements from multiple silent periods for each network operator in order to generate the interference patterns (see paragraphs [0085]–[0098]; an asynchronous silent period for spectrum sensing may be triggered to immediately determine whether a primary user may be present, and may have accurate, up to date information about the available bands following this change in environment. An asynchronous silent period may also be extended by the DSM in the case where the reliability of the decision obtained from spectrum sensing a single silent period is insufficient…; Asynchronous silent periods may also be triggered by an event created in any of the CR nodes actively using a link on one of the licensed bands…), thereby teaching collection of measurements across multiple silent periods, the combination of which corresponds to aggregating such measurements to generate interference information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong in view of Freda to aggregate measurements collected across multiple silent periods for each network operator, as combing measurements across multiple time intervals is a known technique to enable a better response to a change of environment (Freda [0097]).
Regarding Claim 8: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong discloses measuring signal strength and determining interference relationships based on measurement results (see paragraphs [0047]–[0048]; “identifying an interference relationship based on the measured result”), thereby teaching generation of interference patterns for multiple network entities.
Hong does not explicitly disclose further accounting for changes in spectrum usage over time.
Freda discloses further accounting for changes in spectrum usage over time (see paragraph [0108]; multiple spectrum sensing operations may be performed on a specific silent period, for example over different frequency ranges, the Silent Period Start Control Message 1303 may activate multiple spectrum sensing entity IDs 1305. Fig. 13), thereby teaching operations across multiple time intervals, the combination of which corresponds to updating interference-related information over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong in view of Freda to update interference patterns over time, as updating information across multiple time intervals is a known technique to maintain accurate interference characterization.
Regarding Claims [10-13 and 16-17] “Apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-4 and 7-8] “Method”, where Hong teaches method/device for controlling interference between base stations in the wireless communication system (Hong [0001]).
Claims 5-6, 9, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hong and Freda, and further in view Nguyen et al. (US 20210385664 A1), hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding Claim 5: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong and Freda do not explicitly disclose the spectrum is shared by the multiple network operators and at least one incumbent or determining incumbent usage of the spectrum and controlling the use of the spectrum by the multiple network operators based on the generated interference patterns to protect the incumbent usage.
Nguyen disclose the spectrum is shared by the multiple network operators and at least one incumbent or determining incumbent usage of the spectrum and controlling the use of the spectrum by the multiple network operators based on the generated interference patterns to protect the incumbent usage (see paragraph [0038]; “radio frequency spectrum shared by the plurality of spectrum access systems”) and (see paragraph [0035]; “determine which emissions would have to be suspended to protect a geographic area from excessive aggregate interference”), thereby teaching a shared spectrum environment including incumbent users and secondary users corresponding to the claimed multiple network operators, and determining interference to protect incumbent usage, wherein the determination of interference corresponds to the claimed generated interference patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong and Freda to include Nguyen’s teaching, thereby allowing spectrum control decisions to account for incumbent protection and improve reliable shared spectrum operation.
Regarding Claim 6: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong further teaches receiving signal-strength measurements associated with network entities (see paragraphs [0028]–[0030]; “interference measurement of another base station”; paragraphs [0010]–[0012]; “detecting the at least one sequence… and transmitting detection result information”), thereby teaching receiving measurements associated with the network.
Hong and Freda do not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the signal-strength measurements are received from one or more sensors deployed in a geographic area associated with the multiple network operators and/or incumbents.
Nguyen teaches wherein at least some of the signal-strength measurements are received from one or more sensors deployed in a geographic area associated with the multiple network operators and/or incumbents (see paragraph [0035]; “determine which emissions would have to be suspended to protect a geographic area from excessive aggregate interference”) and (see paragraph [0038]: “radio frequency spectrum shared by the plurality of spectrum access systems”), thereby teaching that measurements are collected from entities deployed in a geographic area, corresponding to the claimed sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong and Freda to include Nguyen’s teaching, thereby allowing measurement collection from entities deployed in the geographic area to improve interference evaluation and spectrum control.
Regarding Claim 9: Hong and Freda teach method of claim 1
Hong further discloses controlling use of a shared spectrum among multiple network operators (see paragraphs [0051]–[0053]; “the management device 130 is an entity which controls a plurality of base stations”), thereby teaching control of shared spectrum.
Hong and Freda do not explicitly disclose wherein the spectrum is Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum.
Nguyen discloses wherein the spectrum is Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum (see paragraph [0027]; “the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band”) and (see paragraph [0038]; “radio frequency spectrum shared by the plurality of spectrum access systems”), thereby teaching a shared spectrum system implemented in the CBRS band, corresponding to the claimed CBRS spectrum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong and Freda to include Nguyen’s teaching of CBRS spectrum, thereby allowing Hong’s spectrum control techniques to be applied in a CBRS environment.
Regarding Claims [14-15 and 18] “Apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [5-6 and 9] “Method”, where Hong teaches method/device for controlling interference between base stations in the wireless communication system (Hong [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights