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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7 and 14 – 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 11,115,831 B1) in view of CIMPU et al. (US 2020/0162929 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bandyopadhyay teaches method for power savings in a wireless network using Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) spectrum, the method comprising: receiving, by a power saving engine (Operator Network 322, including the Domain Proxy 309, FIG. 3) from a spectrum access system (SAS), CBRS spectrum suspension commands (wireless communications network shown in Fig. 11A includes an SAS which sends a suspension order for one or more grants to the Operator Network, with the Domain Proxy (DP) receiving this order; Col. 19, lines 54 -55 and Col. 20, lines 23 – 60); generating, by the power saving engine (Operator Network 322, including the Domain Proxy309, FIG. 3) a suspension list of CBRS devices (CBSDs) impacted by the CBRS spectrum suspension commands (The DP identifies which base stations (or access points or CBSDs) have been impacted by the suspension order, generating a Stop TX command directed to those impacted base stations (or access points or CBSDs); Col. 21, lines 16 – 25).
However, Bandyopadhyay does not specifically teach sending, by the power saving engine to service provider components including one or more power node switches, the suspension list to cause the one or more power node switches to switch off power for the CBSDs on the suspension list such that the CBSDs are operationally switched off with respect to transmitting data or traffic.
In an analogous art, CIMPU teaches sending, by the power saving engine to service provider components including one or more power node switches (CBSDs are registered in Spectrum Access System (SAS) and it serves a CBRS, Fig. 11; Page 6, Paragraph 0105), the suspension list to cause the one or more power node switches to switch off power for the CBSDs on the suspension list such that the CBSDs are operationally switched off with respect to transmitting data or traffic (the electronic device within SAS (Fig. 12) detects that Dynamic Protection Area (DPA) is activated in the vicinity and it moderates transmission by one or more CBSDs within the set of CBSDs which includes terminating transmission of the one or more CBSDs or reducing transmission power of the one or more CBSDs; Page 3, Paragraph 40 and Page 7, Paragraphs 0107, 0109, 0120 – 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of CIMPU to Bandyopadhyay to provide an effective interference management algorithm that maximizes allowed output power of the impacted CBSDs to protect sensitive assets within a specific region(s) (CIMPU, Page 1, Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU, specifically CIMPU teaches subscribing, by the power saving engine with an operations support system, to spectrum access system messages including the CBRS spectrum suspension commands (updating a spectrum used by the one or more SBSDs to reduce interference; Page 7, Paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU, specifically Bandyopadhyay, teaches receiving, by the power saving engine from an operations support system, configuration information for each of the CBSDs (DP obtains RSSI levels, RSRP levels, high interference indications on band sections, utilization rates of the frequency band and/or channels from the CBSDs via REM scans; Col 16, lines 26-35).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU specifically Bandyopadhyay, teaches wherein the generating further comprising: reviewing, by the power saving engine, the CBRS spectrum suspension commands in view of the configuration information for each of the CBSDs to determine the suspension list (The DP contains REM scan information, which includes utilization rates of the frequency band and/or channels of the CBSDs. After receiving the suspension message (spectrum suspension command), the DP identifies suspended channels and determines BS/APs that are impacted, generating a Stop TX-Command (Col 16, lines 26 – 35; Col. 21, lines 14 – 25).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU, specifically CIMPU, teaches wherein the one or more power node switches comprise one or more software switches (the electronic device within SAS (Fig. 12) moderates the transmission and it is a software; Page 7, Paragraphs 0123 – 0124).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay, in view of CIMPU, and in further view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2024/0114352 A1, hereinafter "Bandyopadhyay 352").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU does not specifically teach wherein a CBSD is impacted if all CBRS spectrum granted to the CBSD by the SAS is suspended by the CBRS spectrum suspension commands.
In analogous art, Bandyopadhyay 352 teaches wherein a CBSD is impacted if all CBRS spectrum granted to the CBSD by the SAS is suspended by the CBRS spectrum suspension commands ("If no grant is available, then the system will wait for the suspension to be lifted"[0088]. Grants are checked for availability and are either determined to be suspended or active. In the case that all grants are suspended (e.g. none of the grants are active/available) the system, including any CBSDs, will have to wait until a grant suspension is lifted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU to include waiting if no grant is available until a suspension is lifted as taught by Bandyopadhyay 352 in order to create efficiency making more spectrums available even as the density of base stations increases, to present consistent and secure interfaces, and to reduce interference (Bandyopadhyay 352; [0054, 0059, 0060]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU specifically Bandyopadhyay, teaches the power saving controller further configured to: receive, from an operations support system, channel information for each of the base stations (DP obtains RSSI levels, RSRP levels, high interference indications on band sections, utilization rates of the frequency band and/or channels from the BS/APs via REM scans; Col 16, lines 26-35); and review the shared channel suspension orders against the channel information to determine which of the base stations are impacted by the shared channel suspension orders (The DP contains REM scan information, which includes utilization rates of the frequency band and/or channels of the CBSDs. After receiving the suspension message (spectrum suspension command), the DP identifies suspended channels and determines BS/APs that are impacted, generating a Stop TX-Command; Col 16, lines 26 – 35 and Col. 21, lines 14 – 25).
The combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU does not teach wherein a base station is impacted if all shared channels granted to the base station by the SAS are suspended by the shared channel suspension orders.
In analogous art, Bandyopadhyay 352 teaches wherein a base station is impacted if all shared channels granted to the base station by the SAS are suspended by the shared channel suspension orders ("If no grant is available, then the system will wait for the suspension to be lifted"[0088]. Grants are checked for availability and are either determined to be suspended or active. In the case that all grants are suspended (e.g. none of the grants are active/available) the system, including any CBSDs, will have to wait until a grant suspension is lifted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU to include waiting if no grant is available until a suspension is lifted as taught by Bandyopadhyay 352 in order to create efficiency making more spectrums available even as the density of base stations increases, to present consistent and secure interfaces, and to reduce interference (Bandyopadhyay 352: 0054, 0059, 0060).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay in view of CIMPU and further in view of Schilling (US 5,224,120 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU does not specifically teach sending, by an operations support system to a user device, a notification that certain CBSDs have been powered down.
In analogous art, Schilling teaches sending, by an operations support system to a user device, a notification that certain CBSDs have been powered down (Controllers send a message signal to user(s) to indicate when the base station(s) are in power-down mode; Col. 7, lines 15 – 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bandyopadhyay and CIMPU to include user device messages on the power mode of base stations as taught by Schilling in order to reduce interference and avoid noticeable performance degradation (Schilling: Col. 12, lines 57 – 65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 13 and 18 – 20 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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taneja et al. (US 2021/0099886 A1) discloses managing resources in CBRS networks
Bhatia et al. (US 2024/0292228 A1) discloses a citizens broadband radio service channel selection for cellular communication networks
Kim et al. (US 2020/0314748 A1) discloses configurable power saving signal with multiple functionalities in 5G NR
ELSHAFIE et al. (US 2023/0189141 A1) discloses communications in power saving mode
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Un C Cho whose telephone number is (571)272-7919. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
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.
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights