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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5,8-14, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11751067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1.
For claim 2, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 2, 8, 10.
For claim 3, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 4.
For claim 4, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 4.
For claim 5, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1 and 5.
For claim 8, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-5, and 10.
For claim 9, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3-10, 11.
For claim 10, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 10.
For claim 11, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 12, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 13, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11
For claim 14, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 17, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 18, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 19, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
For claim 20, ‘067 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, 7-11.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11122440. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-5.
For claim 2, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-5.
For claim 3, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-5.
For claim 4, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-5.
For claim 5, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 18.
For claim 6, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-10.
For claim 7, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 8, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 9, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 10, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 11, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 12, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 13, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1-20.
For claim 14, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 15, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 16, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 17, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 18, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 19, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
For claim 20, ‘440 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-20.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12081997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1.
For claim 2, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 2.
For claim 3, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 3.
For claim 4, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 3.
For claim 8, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1 and 10.
For claim 9, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1.
For claim 10, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claim 12.
For claim 11, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 12, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 13, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 17, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 18, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 19, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
For claim 20, ‘997 discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1, 3, 7-10.
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)(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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Syed et al (US 2019/0394678)[R1].
For claims 1, 10, and 19, R1 discloses (paragraphs 159-162 processor, memory, instructions) receiving, from Spectrum Access System (SAS) and at an access point (AP) of a Citizen Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) network, an assignment of operational parameters to deploy the AP and associated constraints (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); transmitting, to a digital network architecture center (DNA-C), the assignment of operational parameters (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); receiving, from the DNA-C, modifications of the assignment of operational parameters within the associated constraints (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); implementing, at the AP, the modifications of the assignment of operational parameters (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); and receiving, at the AP, revised modifications of the assignment of operational parameters based at least in part on performance feedback (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 2 and 11, R1 discloses the performance feedback is an evaluation of channel quality between an AP and user equipment (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 3 and 12, R1 discloses the evaluation of channel quality is for a plurality of channels and, the revised modifications of the assignment of operational parameters is a recommendation a channel with a least amount of interference (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 4 and 13, R1 discloses the operational parameters include at least one of a network topology, available channels and operating parameters associated with other access points within a same enterprise, observations related to performance of other access points and/or user equipment, detected interference, traffic load, building layout, and channel quality indicators from user equipment (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 5 and 14, R1 discloses the modifications of the assignment of operational parameters are different than a set of operational parameters to reduce interference from an adjacent AP or user equipment (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 6 and 15, R1 discloses receiving, at the AP, information of operational parameters to initially request from the SAS for deployment of the AP in the CBRS (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); and transmitting, to the SAS, a request for the information (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 7 and 16, R1 discloses providing, to the DNA-C, information of operational parameters for deploying the AP within the CBRS network (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); receiving, at the AP, operational parameters to reduce interference from an adjacent AP or user equipment (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100); and transmitting, to the SAS, a request for the SAS to use the operational parameters to reduce interference (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claims 8 and 17, R1 discloses the performance feedback is from at least one user equipment in the CBRS network (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
For claim 20, R1 discloses the performance feedback is an evaluation of channel quality between an AP and user equipment, the evaluation of channel quality is for a plurality of channels (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100) and, the revised modifications of the assignment of operational parameters is a recommendation a channel with a least amount of interference (paragraphs 10-15, 45-50 and 95-100).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: If a Terminal Disclaimer is filed obviating the Double Patenting rejections, claims 9 and 18 would appear to be in condition for allowance over the prior art of record.
For claims 9 and 18, R1 does not appear to disclose “the associated constraints are based at least in part on a tier associated with CBRS network” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hou et al (US 2021/0306885) discloses second CBR measurement for resource pool overlaps; Furuichi (US 2018/0054740) discloses interference between access points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571)272-3988. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights